Ethics of Persuasion

When we purposely use communication to influence others (their values, attitudes, emotions, beliefs, and actions), then we are engaging in persuasion for or against something. Adding media to the mix, so that we can extend our influence, makes us propagandists. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Without some level of persuasion, common agreements (or social contracts) about public policies would be impossible. Another reason is that although persuasion and propaganda are often negatively associated with falsehoods or half-truths, this is not necessarily the case. Much persuasion is in fact truthful, subject to review and critique. Ironically, democracies as well as dictatorships need such purposeful communication if society is to exist and progress.

Advertising and public relations, for example, have long been important persuasive communication strategies used by corporations. Without the ability to tell their stories and promote their products or services through advertising, public relations, and other forms of promotion, businesses would be unable to compete and grow.

From the point of view of self-interest, there is also compelling logic to an organization devoting resources to define problems, proactively track opinion, and be involved in shaping solutions. The process [Page 811]often involves linking one's self-interest to a broader public interest. This, in turn, presents unique problems since there is no such thing as a single “public interest” but rather the collective positioning of concerns in ways likely to be seen as socially desirable or undesirable. The contest usually devolves into a grab for power resources where various entities mobilize leverage for some sort of government involvement.

Of interest is the fact that a significant percentage of major corporate advertising budgets are now spent influencing various target audiences on image, ideological, and political issues in contrast to selling consumer goods. Some of this is conducted under the public service announcement banner of social causes approved by the Advertising Council, a nonprofit organization that grew out of corporate support for the war effort during World War II. Corporations and their trade associations also participate in public policy debates and referenda contests. By the mid-1980s they were already investing an estimated $1.8 billion per year, a figure that continues to grow.

These efforts are particularly controversial. Such spending on public communication by private groups raises concerns over the potential impact of more unfettered access by issue communicators, especially those with “deep pockets,” or large capital resources in dominating lobbying and public policy debate. Without doubt, the deep pockets issue is very real. Driving such massive expenditures is the assumption that issues advertising informs and influences public opinion. For example, the Citizens for Better Medicare (CBM) positioned itself in the run-up to the 2000 presidential campaign as a broad-based bipartisan group concerned with the health of Americans and the future of Medicare. Actually, CBM was founded in 1999 by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade industry group representing more than 100 drug firms, along with some others. They were concerned after President Clinton announced his intention to request that a prescription drug benefit be added to the standard Medicare program. The resulting message of CBM, appearing in print ads and broadcast commercials starring “Flo” the senior citizen, was that they wanted a prescription drug benefit but without government intervention. Overall, they spent more than $7 million advocating Medicare proposals similar to those put forward by the Republican nominee George W. Bush in his 2000 campaign.

...