essay about communication ethics

Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay

Introduction, what is communication ethics, how can one observe ethics in communication, unethical communication, importance of ethics in communication.

In any organization, the workplace needs to be run in such a way that every person feels part of the organization. On many occasions, decisions are made by the leaders and supervisors, leaving the subordinates as mere observers. Self-initiative is crucial in solving some of the problems that arise and as such, every employee is expected to possess self initiative.

Communication ethics is an integral part of the decision making process in an organization. Employees need to be trained on the importance of ethics in decision making so as to get rid of the blame game factor when wrong choices are made. The working place has changed and the employees have become more independent in the decision making process.

The issue that arises is whether employees make the right decision that would benefit the company or they make the wrong choices that call for the downfall of the company. Some organizations have called for the establishment of an ethics program that can aid and empower employees so that unethical actions would be intolerable. This is because occasionally, bad decisions destroy organizations making the whole decision making process unethical.

Some programs on good ethics can help in guiding the employees in the process of decision making. This would ensure the smooth running of organizations and instances of unethical decision making would be null. An ethical decision making process is important in ensuring that the decisions made by the employees are beneficial to organization welfare and operations.

Ethical communication is prudent in both the society and the organizations. The society can remain functional if every person acted in a way that defines and satisfies who they are. However, this could be short lived because of the high probability of making unethical decisions and consequently, a chaotic society. For this reason, it would be of essence to make ethical rules based on a set guidelines and principles.

Ethical communications is defined by ethical behavioral principles that include honesty, concern on counterparts, fairness, and integrity. This cannot be achieved if everyone acted in isolation. The action would not be of any good to most people. Adler and Elmhorst (12) note that actions should be based on the professional ethics where other professionals have to agree that the actions in question are ethical and standard. If a behavior is standard there is nothing to fear if exposed to the media.

However, unethical behavior can taint the reputation of an organization. An action needs to do good to most people in the long run. Adler and Elmhorst (12) note that this golden rule needs to be applicable in organizations. Failure to do this, it becomes an obstacle to this principle.

In achieving the ideals, several obstacles are bound to arise in the process of decision making. Rationalizations often distract individuals involved in making tough decisions. According to the Josephson Institute of ethics (2002) the false assumption that people hold on to that necessity leads to propriety can be judgmental that unethical tasks are part of the moral imperative.

For example, assuming that a particular action is necessary and it lies in the ethical domain is a mere assumption that can be suicidal to an organization. This necessity assumption often leads to a false necessity trap that prompts individuals to take actions without putting into account the cost of doing or failing to do the right thing (Josephson Institute of ethics, Para 5). As part of a routine job, it is likely to be an obstacle in the sense that an individual is doing what he/she got to do.

For example, morality of professional behavior is often neglected at the workplace and on most occasions, people do what they feel is justifiable although it is morally wrong even if not in that context. Individuals often assume that if everyone is doing a certain action, then it is ethical. However, this is not the right way to go as the accountability of individuals and their behaviors should not be treated as a norm in the organization. For example, we could assume that everyone tells lies in an organization.

This assumption is uncertain because lying is unethical and can hinder the achievement of certain goals in an organizational. It may not bring harm at the given time but in the long run it may be chaotic. An observation by the Josephson Institute of Ethics (para 9) is that false rationalization is just an excuse to commit unethical conduct. Basically, the assumption that an action would not harm somebody or the organization does not give the limelight to committing unethical deeds.

The management of an organization should make the ethics of their employees their concern and business. The assumption that employees can make ethical decisions without advising them on what is ethical and then blaming the employees in case the plan backfires is unethical. In ensuring that the actions carried by employees are ethical, the human resource management should set up ethical programs within the organization.

As noted by Flynn (30) the principles of ethical behavior are bound to develop if an organization itself practices acts of ethics. For example, honesty, fairness, concern for others, morality and truthfulness can be achieved if code of ethical conduct is practiced in organization. In achieving an ethical decision some steps need to be followed. Decisions making should be ethical and objective to the organization and its components.

According to Flynn (37) the rules of the Texas instrument company noted that the legality of an action is of imperative importance. If for example an action is illegal then the law should not be broken because an action has to be taken. Instead, the executioner of the action needs to stop right away. Actions need to comply with the values of an organization. If the actions cannot comply with the set organizational values then the action may not fit well.

An action carried should not make someone feel bad or the actions carried should not be harmful to the executioner. The public image of an action in the newspaper or media should be considerate. An action should be within a given timeframe and be done even if its appearance will affect it. For an action that one is not sure, they are obligated to ask and if not satisfied they continue asking until an answer is got (Flynn 37).

Communication ethics is important in the operation of an organization. The way in which decision making is carried in an organization determines the outcome. Ethical decision making process is necessary in an organization. Some of the obstacles that restrict rationalization are merely based on assumptions. They lead to downfall or negative ramifications that affect the organizations. Organizational managers are advised to take decision making of employees as their own concern.

Legitimacy of actions is important and so are the values, because some actions maybe illegal or values fail to meet the organizational values. This may have negative impact if they are not illegal or in line with organizational goals. In general, ethical decision making process is important as it saves a company from the problems it would face for its unethical actions

Works Cited

Adler, Ronald B. and Jeanne Marquardt Elmhorst. Communicating at Work . 9 th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print.

Flynn, Gillian. “Make Employee Ethics Your Business.” Personnel Journal ( 1995) 74.6: 30-37. Web.

Josephson Institute of Ethics. “Making Ethical Decisions—Part Five: Obstacles to Ethical Decision Making.” Accounting Web (2002 ). Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 28). Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communication-ethics/

"Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay." IvyPanda , 28 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/communication-ethics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay'. 28 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communication-ethics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communication-ethics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communication-ethics/.

• Unethical Workplace Behavior: How to Address It
• Business Ethics of Negotiation
• Business Ethics Theories and Unethical Actions Punishment
• Extreme Working Conditions
• Business Ethics: Reflective Essay
• Ethics Program: Hyatt Hotels Corporation Code of Ethics
• Corporate Ethical Challenges
• Value and Ethics in Organizations

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.7: Ethical Communication

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 137751

• Multiple Authors
• ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI)

Defining Communication Ethics

Communication has ethical implications. Ethics in the broadest sense asks questions about what we believe to be right and wrong. Communication ethics asks these questions when reflecting on our communication. Everyday we have to make communicative choices, and some of these choices will be more or less ethical than other options. It is because we have these different options that our ethics are tested. We can never really say that something is completely ethical or unethical, especially when it comes to communication. “Murdering someone is generally thought of as unethical and illegal, but many instances of hurtful speech, or even what some would consider hate speech, have been protected as free speech. This shows the complicated relationship between protected speech, ethical speech, and the law” (Communication in the Real World, 2013).

When we make communication choices, the question of whether they are ethical or not depends on a variety of situational, personal, and and/or contextual variables that can be difficult to navigate. Many professional organizations have created ethical codes to help guide this decision-making, and the field of Communication Studies is no different. In 1999, the National Communication Association officially adopted the Credo for Ethical Communication. The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is a set of beliefs that Communication scholars have about the ethics of human communication (NCA Legislative Council, November 1999).

We should always strive for ethical communication, but it is particularly important in interpersonal interactions. We will talk more about climate, trust and honesty, and specific relationships in the coming chapters, but at the most basic level you should strive to make ethical choices in your communication. Communication is impactful. Our communication choices have lasting impacts on those with whom we engage. While ethics is a focus on what is right and wrong, it is not easy to navigate. What is right in one circumstance may not be in another. To help us make our way through difficult ethical choices we must be competent.

Communication Competence

Communication competence focuses on communicating effectively and appropriately in various contexts (Kiessling & Fabry, 2021). In order to be competent you must have knowledge, motivation, and skills. You have been communicating for most of your life, so you have observational knowledge about how communication works. You are also now a college student actively studying communication so your knowledge will continue to increase. As you learn more about communication, continue to observe these concepts around you and you will expand the information you have to draw on in any given context. In addition to having basic information you must also be motivated to better your own communication and you need to develop the skills necessary to do so. One way to improve your communication competence is to become a more mindful communicator. “A mindful communicator actively and fluidly processes information, is sensitive to communication contexts and multiple perspectives, and is able to adapt to novel communication situations” (Communication in the Real World), 2013. Your path to improving your interpersonal communication competence is just beginning. You will learn more about specific aspects of mindfulness, such as listening, conflict management, deception, etc., in the coming chapters. For now we hope you are motivated to improve your knowledge and grow your skills.

Communication: Ethics

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2022
• Cite this reference work entry

• Ronald C. Arnett 2  

155 Accesses

Communication ethics assumes a distinctive perspective of bioethics, engaging it from two principal standpoints: biopolitics and post-human. These two perspectives yield a targeted standpoint on communication ethics. The notion of communication ethics does not suggest a uniform or universal assertion about what is and is not ethical. The term “communication ethics” is more aptly understood within (Gadamer, H. G. (1988). Truth and method . New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company. (Original work published 1975)) conception of “horizon” (p. 217). Theorized in visual terms, a horizon implies a series of images in the distance; the horizon is composed of multiplicity and fuzzy clarity. A horizon is akin to an impressionistic painting that invites a number of glimpses and perspectives, all temporal and partial. The question of bioethics from the vantage point of communication ethics does not dictate correct answers. The task is to open the conversation by unmasking unstated presuppositions. The first obligation of communication ethics is the act of understanding, not the conversion of the ignorant into correct ethical alignment. Communication ethics understood as content or a sense of the good furnishes moral gravity, simultaneously assuming the pragmatic reality of multiplicity. Distancing communicative ethics from universal truth counters imposition, bullying, and historical campaigns reminiscent of colonialism and totalitarianism in the name of self-righteous assurance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Arnett, R. C. (2012). Biopolitics: An Arendtian communication ethic in the public domain. Communication and Cultural/Critical Studies, 9 (2), 225–233.

Google Scholar  

Arnett, R. C., Fritz, J. M. H., & Bell, L. M. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bonhoeffer, D. (1972). Letters & papers from prison (The enlarged edition. Ed. E. Bethge.). New York: Macmilian Publishing. (Original work published 1953).

Ellul, J. (1990). The technological bluff (G. W. Bromily, Trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Original work published 1964).

Foucault, M. (1997). “Society must be defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976 (D. Macey, Trans.). New York: Picador.

Hyde, M. J. (2013). Perfection: Coming to terms with being human . Waco: Baylor University Press.

Hyde, M. J., & King, N. M. P. (2010). Communication ethics and bioethics: An interface. The Review of Communication, 10 , 156–171.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962).

MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1981).

MacMillian, A. (2011). Empire, biopolitics, and communication. Journal of Communication Inquiry, XX (X), 1–6.

McKerrow, R. E. (2011). Foucault’s relationship to rhetoric. The Review of Communication, 11 , 253–271.

Negri, A. (2008). The labor of the multitude and the fabric of biopolitics. M. Coté (Ed.). (S. Mayo & P. Graefe with M. Coté, Trans.). Meditations: Journal of the Marxist Literary Group, 23 (2), 1–7.

Further Readings

Hyde, M. J., & Herrick, J. A. (2013). After the genome: A language for our own biotechnological future . Waco: Baylor University Press.

King, N. M. P., & Hyde, M. J. (Eds.). (2014). Bioethics, public moral argument, and social responsibility . New York: Routledge. (Original work published 2012)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Ronald C. Arnett

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald C. Arnett .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for Healthcare Ethics, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Henk ten Have

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Arnett, R.C. (2016). Communication: Ethics. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_109

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_109

Published : 19 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-09482-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-09483-0

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature

Bibliography

• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

35 Communication Ethics and Virtue

Janie M. Harden Fritz (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is Professor of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Duquesne University. She is a past President of the Eastern Communication Association and the Religious Communication Association. Her research interests include communication and virtue ethics, professional civility, problematic workplace relationships, communication ethics and leadership, and religious communication. She is the author of Professional ↵Civility: Communicative Virtue at Work (Peter Lang, 2013), co-author (with Ronald C. Arnett and Leeanne M. Bell) of Communication Ethics Literacy: Diversity and Difference (Sage, 2009), and co-editor (with Becky L. Omdahl) of volumes 1 and 2 of Problematic Relationships in the Workplace (Peter Lang, 2006, 2012).

• Published: 06 December 2017
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Virtue approaches to communication ethics have experienced a resurgence over the last decades. Tied to rhetoric since the time of Aristotle, virtue ethics offers scholars in the broad field of communication an approach to ethics based on character and human flourishing as an alternative to deontology. In each major branch of communication scholarship, the turn to virtue ethics has followed a distinctive trajectory in response to concerns about the adequacy of theoretical foundations for academic and applied work in communication ethics. Recent approaches to journalism and media ethics integrate moral psychology and virtue ethics to focus on moral exemplars, drawing on the work of Philippa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse, or explore journalism as a MacIntyrean tradition of practice. Recent work in human communication ethics draws on MacIntyre’s approach to narrative, situating communication ethics within virtue structures that protect and promote particular goods in a moment of narrative and virtue contention.

I. Introduction

The field of communication, as it has been studied in the West, has existed for over two millennia, beginning with the ancient Greeks. Questions of ethics were inherent in this domain of scholarly inquiry from the start. 1 Virtue ethics, present explicitly or implicitly throughout the field’s history, has resurfaced as an explicit approach to communication ethics within the last three decades.

The current status of virtue ethics in the field of communication is tied to the field’s scholarly development and identity. The academic domain of communication hosts three loosely affiliated disciplines claiming different histories. 2 One derives from the oral speech tradition, referred to here as human communication studies ; another focuses on mediated (or mass) communication, referred to here as media studies ; and another reflects the profession of journalism. 3 During the last decades, elements of these three areas converged to form the interdisciplinary field of communication, united by the study of communicative practices and/or messages and their meanings and/or effects. 4

Gehrke (2009) suggested that the question of ethics may be “the single most persistent and important question in the history of the study of communication and rhetoric.” 5 This enduring question grows in salience as new media and digital communication technologies reconfigure the interactive landscape of public and private life, placing new demands on journalism and media ethics. 6 Calls for theoretical and philosophical approaches supporting communication ethics scholarship in a globalizing world and concerns about fragmentation as the area of communication ethics expands have elicited volumes such as the inaugural and comprehensive Handbook of Communication Ethics . 7 In this context, virtue ethics offers communication ethics scholars an alternative to complement and enhance existing approaches.

Questions of communication ethics arise whenever human communicative behavior (1) involves significant intentional choice regarding ends and means to secure those ends, (2) holds the potential for significant impact on others, and (3) can be judged according to standards of right and wrong. 8 Ethical issues are inherent in the communication process—human existence is a cooperative, social endeavor in which communicative action holds the potential for influence and necessarily bears moral valence. 9 Communication theorists look to Aristotle’s phronesis , or practical wisdom, to anchor the issue of ethical choice. 10 Ethical decisions are not formulaic, but are discerned in response to the historical moment and constraints of particular situations.

Some journalism and media ethicists understand ethics as a quest for the universal end of human and social improvement, which extends beyond rules and regulations. 11   Plaisance (2002) connects media practices with the human condition in noting the role of media in upholding what it means to be human, a position echoed by Gehrke (2009) , who observes that human communication scholars have long considered the symbolic capacity a defining feature of the human being, necessary for personal and communal well-being. 12 Tying communicative practices to perennial questions related to the good life for human beings, personally and collectively, places communication squarely within the purview of virtue ethics, which offers theoretical and practical grounding for the role of communication in human flourishing.

II. A Turn to Virtue Ethics

During the last fifteen years, explicitly articulated Aristotelian or neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics perspectives have increased, particularly in journalism and media studies. 13 In human communication studies, Aristotelian and neo-Aristotelian approaches have enjoyed consistent representation from classical rhetoricians. 14 Now virtue ethics scholarship is making an appearance in other areas of human communication, such as argument, integrated marketing communication, interpersonal and organizational communication, marital communication, and public relations/crisis communication. 15 In journalism/media studies and in human communication studies, the turn to virtue ethics traces an identifiable trajectory. The remainder of this chapter highlights major developments in virtue ethics in these two broad areas of communication scholarship.

One of the major issues emerging from this review is how virtues are best conceptualized, which depends, in turn, on the view of human persons embraced by a given theoretical perspective. Are virtues discrete, internal, individualized properties of persons, much like personality characteristics or traits? Or are virtues situated within larger traditions, such as philosophical or religious worldviews or narratives, which then find embodiment through acting persons’ communicative practices? This concern has been articulated most explicitly in human communication studies, where similar questions related to the nature of communication and the locus of meaning have given rise to discussions of alternative perspectives on communication. 16

III. Virtue Ethics in Journalism and Media Studies

I. answering the call of the historical moment.

Klaidman and Beauchamp’s (1987)   The Virtuous Journalist foreshadowed the growing interest in virtue ethics in journalism and media. Beforehand, journalism ethics had taken a largely atheoretical, descriptive approach, loosely based on deontological ethics. 17 Klaidman and Beauchamp argued for both duty-based and virtue ethics as professional guides. Three years later, Edmund B. Lambeth (1990) assessed Alasdair MacIntyre’s (1981) work as offering a new perspective for journalism scholarship, particularly journalism ethics. A decade later, virtue-based pieces appeared increasingly in the media ethics literature.

Two major concerns propelled the turn to virtue in journalism and media ethics. One was the need for a philosophical framework for applied journalism and media practice to assist practitioners in navigating an increasingly challenging and dynamic commercial context with the integrity befitting a member of a tradition of professional practice. 18 Another was to develop an adequate philosophical foundation for global media ethics to guide practice in multiple media contexts and across cultural boundaries. 19 To these concerns was added a recent third: the need to take account of developments in the human sciences in ways that could inform ethical theorizing. 20

ii. Representative Scholarship

Scholars in journalism and media ethics appreciate the holistic approach of virtue ethics, which asks questions about what sort of person one should be and what sort of life one should live, rather than what rules one should follow. 21 The broad framework of virtue ethics maintains clarity and rigor without resting on culture-bound norms and values. Some also see virtue ethics as consistent with a malleable, responsive human nature that develops over time while retaining its distinctively human character. 22

Sandra Borden (2007) develops an ethical theory for professional journalists based on MacIntyre’s virtue ethics. She identifies practice-sustaining virtues emergent from the tradition of journalism as practice and as responsive to the environment of contemporary journalism. For example, courage and ingenuity protect journalism against corruption by external goods, such as market competitiveness; stewardship sustains journalists as institutional bearers of the practice by supporting the excellence in news reporting necessary for the success of news organizations; and justice, courage, and honesty support the collegial relationships needed to achieve journalism’s goals through constructive criticism and recognition of excellence, including mutual verification of information. 23

Scholars pursuing virtue ethics in global media, the most prominent of whom are Nick Couldry and Patrick Lee Plaisance, push off from the work of Clifford G. Christians, the leading journalism and media ethics scholar. Christians has worked deductively to establish a foundation for media ethics grounded in dialogic communitarianism, an approach identifying transcultural ethical protonorms and resting on assumptions of the sacredness of life and a relational ontology of the human person. 24 Couldry and Plaisance see virtue ethics as a more fruitful direction for a global media ethics than dialogic communitarianism.

Couldry (2010) articulates four perspectives other than virtue ethics available for media ethics: Christian humanism, based on the work of Christians; nomadism, based on the work of Deleuze or Foucault; Kantian deontological ethics; and Levinasian ethics. 25 Couldry, contrasting virtue ethics and deontology, notes that Aristotelian virtue ethics focuses on human beings rather than on any rational being, an approach responsive to potential areas of agreement about the good among human beings and to the reality of historical contingency. Although Couldry recognizes the possibility of integrating concerns for the right and the good, he argues for virtue ethics because of its open-endedness and applicability to multiple cultures and for its prioritizing of the good for human beings. Virtue ethics offers a starting point in the nature of human beings, a more universal foundation than culturally bound understandings of duty. 26

Couldry ( 2010 , 2013 ) draws on the work of Bernard Williams (2002) and Sabina Lovibond (2002) to identify “communicative virtues” of accuracy and sincerity connected to the human need for reliable information from others about the environment, identifying media as a type of MacIntyrean practice. 27 Two regulative ideals are internal to journalistic practice: circulating information contributing to individual and community success within a given sphere, and providing opportunities to express opinions aimed at sustaining “a peaceable life together” despite disagreements related to “conflicting values, interests, and understandings.” 28 Couldry’s work assumes the relevance of media ethics for both media consumers and producers.

In his later work, Couldry (2013) highlights Ricoeur’s focus on hospitality as a key issue for media ethics. 29 This expanded treatment of Ricouer, beyond the brief mention of Ricoeur’s critique of Rawls in Couldry (2010) , leads to the potential of a “virtue of care through media” consistent with both Onora O’Neill’s (1996) work and that of Lovibond (2013) , who offers an integrated perspective on rights and duties in her perspective on “ethical living” in the media. 30 “Living well through media” and “ethical living through media” together suggest a constructive approach to a media ethics grounded in virtue and duty. 31

Plaisance (2013) considers a virtue ethics approach more robust than a deductive approach predicated on identifying universal principles. The inductive nature of virtue ethics permits identification of “behaviors and practices that are directly linked to human flourishing,” locating their warrant in the human species. 32 Plaisance points to Philippa Foot’s (2001) natural normativity as the virtue ethics approach most suitable for the global media context, noting that a focus on “traditional virtues and vices such as temperance and avarice” permits us to “see the concrete connections between the conditions of human life—the presence and absence of the various necessary ‘goods’—and the objective reasons for acting morally.” 33 These concrete connections are made manifest in selected exemplars of virtuous media practice, which Plaisance (2015) offers in an extended treatment of virtue ethics in the context of media and public relations.

Plaisance (2015) continues his ongoing project to integrate virtue ethics with the findings of moral psychology by presenting and interpreting the results of a study of exemplary professionals in journalism and public relations in a book-length treatment. He provides models of good behavior—exemplars of excellence—rather than failures in ethics, following the lead of positive psychology scholars, 34 as well as strengthening virtue ethics theory in the area of media practices, noting that “our understanding of virtue in professional media work remains both abstract and rudimentary.” 35 His goal is to develop a theory that accounts for virtuous practice, and he identifies factors that lead to or thwart practitioners’ moral action.

Plaisance builds his study on the twin pillars of Philippa Foot’s virtue ethics and Jonathan Haidt’s moral psychology. 36 He interprets the study’s qualitative and quantitative findings by drawing on MacIntyre, O’Neill, and Rosalind Hursthouse. 37 Chapters on professionalism and public service, moral courage, and humility and hubris describe contexts within which the participants in his study developed “patterns of virtue” in their professional lives, thereby becoming moral exemplars of virtues for journalism and media practice. 38

The work of journalism and media ethics scholars in virtue ethics takes two forms. One, represented by Borden and Couldry (and Christians), moves outward, focusing on understandings of the human person that embed the human person within a meaning structure, such as a MacIntyrean tradition or another framework. The other, represented by Plaisance, moves inward to identify influences on personal dispositions to explain virtuous behavior. As will be seen in the next section, virtue ethics in human communication scholarship appears to break along similar lines, although the theoretical discussion surrounding these approaches emerges from a different set of underlying concerns.

IV. Virtue Ethics in Human Communication Studies

I. an ongoing story.

Human communication ethics theorists trace their lineage to Aristotle’s connection of persuasion and virtue, and to Quintilian’s assumption that great orators should have excellent character as well as superior oratorical skills. 39 Some version of ethics containing virtue language consistent with an Aristotelian perspective was taken for granted in human communication ethics through the early part of the twentieth century. Moral character was considered key to excellent speaking, and moral training in the tradition of the humanities was considered necessary for effective speech. 40 The mid-1930s, however, witnessed a shift in which virtue-related terms were “redefined into mental health standards” consistent with a mental hygiene approach. 41 Bryngelson (1942), for example, listed “sincerity, humility, and confidence” as characteristics of excellent speakers, but his assumptions about human beings, consistent with mechanistic reductionism and laced with psychoanalytic language, were far different from those undergirding the virtues associated with classical rhetoric. 42

As the human communication field developed during the twentieth century, the basis for communication ethics underwent significant changes. Neo-Aristotelian understandings locating ethics in human nature and society recaptured explicit status in rhetorical studies mid-century in response to challenges from existential understandings of the human being, which denied an essential human nature. 43 In the face of crumbling philosophical foundations for moral judgments characterizing the 1960s and 1970s, rhetoricians who maintained faith in humanist or neo-Aristotelian understandings of human nature as a foundation for moral and ethical judgments kept the language of virtue ethics present in the scholarly literature, 44 even as approaches that understood ethics as “contingent, limited, and variable” surged. 45

Concurrently, methodological differences between social scientists and those committed to the rhetorical and philosophical tradition grew more pronounced. By this point, “the very possibility of moral judgment had been undermined by the prevalence of social scientific and psychotherapeutic understandings of human behavior,” and rhetoric took up ethics as one of its defining elements. 46 Although communication scientists implicitly assumed some human good guiding their quest to predict and explain communicative behavior and thereby improve human well-being, the philosophical foundations for that good and the substance of that well-being, as well as questions of ethics, were seldom, if ever, addressed. 47 The law-like generalizations characterizing communication science, which rested on a materialist ontology accompanied by empiricist methodology, did not accommodate axiological claims. 48

The subfield of interpersonal communication exemplifies an area characterized predominantly by quantitative social science assumptions and methodology. 49 Only recently have questions of ethics from this perspective been raised and addressed explicitly in the scholarly literature. 50 However, an approach to interpersonal communication rooted in dialogic philosophy found traction in a narrative understanding of human communication inspired by Alasdair MacIntyre’s work, which provided a context in which an approach to communication ethics consistent with virtue ethics could be addressed.

ii. By Way of Narrative

The narrative turn in the communication field paralleled that of many areas of academic inquiry seeking to reclaim a sense of human meaning and values lost with the adoption of social scientific methodologies steeped in rationalism and naturalism. 51 Within this context, Walter Fisher articulated the narrative paradigm, an approach to communication that invited understandings of human engagement with the world beyond traditional rationality and reclaimed meaning structures jeopardized by modernism’s subversion of the “rational world paradigm” inherited from the ancients. 52 Ronald C. Arnett’s initial treatment of narrative, which incorporated Fisher’s theorizing, drew also on the scholarship of Stanley Hauerwas, whose work reflected the virtue ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre. 53 Later, MacIntyre’s work played a direct role in Arnett’s conceptualization of practices, traditions, and competing virtue structures in the public sphere. 54

Arnett critiqued the confounding of humanistic psychological approaches to dialogue, which centered meaning within the self, with philosophical approaches, which located meaning in the communicative space between persons emerging during dialogic encounter. 55 For humanistic, or third-force, psychologists, 56 such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, meaning resides within the human person and emerges within a developing self. For Martin Buber, communicative meaning emerges between persons in conversation who are responsive to what the situation calls for. 57 The locus of meaning is not in the mind of persons, but in the interaction, a joint construction of the two parties.

Arnett’s concern in differentiating these approaches focused on implications of the emphasis of humanistic psychology on the “ ‘real self,’ ” which he interpreted as challenging the legitimacy of roles that persons are called to enact in various life contexts and the struggles that persons undergo when seeking an appropriate response that may run counter to impulse. 58 Arnett’s concern was to reduce the unreflective importation of therapeutic language into contexts of public discourse. 59 An emphasis on phenomenological dialogue and narrative moves the focus of attention back to larger meaning structures that situate the self within guidelines that offer direction without assuming universal legitimacy. 60   Arnett (1989) , in his discussion of the importance of a common center for community or for relationships—a mission or goal that keeps people together and in conversation—made a theoretical connection between Buber’s work on dialogue and Fisher’s work on narrative. Narrative, a story larger than any of the participants and irreducible to the sum of their interactions, provides a common meaning center external to the self to bind persons together, even under conditions of personal dislike. 61   Arnett (1989) also conceptualized Buber’s “interhuman” as a story that emerges as participants “simultaneously engage in the writing of the narrative” in which each person becomes a vital participant. 62 Neither the self nor the other is the center—the narrative is. Two senses of narrative become relevant: narrative as a larger story or common center connecting persons who join in participation, and narrative emerging as a joint construction between two persons. Both senses locate meaning not in the person, but between or among persons. By then, narrative communication ethics, a response to the work of MacIntyre, Hauerwas, and Fisher, had been identified as an approach to communication ethics, distinguished from universal/humanitarian approaches in its constructed, rather than a priori, nature: narrative is “rooted in community … [and] … constituted in the common communication life of a people.” 63

Arnett’s joining of Fisher’s narrative perspective with Buber’s phenomenological dialogue provided a foundation for understanding the human person as an embedded agent consistent with a MacIntyrean understanding of narrative and tradition, a framework that emerged in a later treatment of dialogic civility in public and private relationships. Drawing from MacIntyre, Arnett and Pat Arneson (1999) framed narrative as a story gathering public assent that provides a location within which embedded agents find meaning and in which virtue is situated. Arnett (2005) applied this framework to the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) identified narrative as the location within which a given communication ethic finds traction.

Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) did not claim to be presenting a virtue ethic for communication. However, their work offers a potential conceptualization of a communicative virtue ethics that follows MacIntyre and Charles Taylor (1989) . In the face of the contemporary denial of a human nature that could supply the content of a substantive good to provide meaning and purpose for human life, or a telos , Arnett et al. situate virtue within narrative traditions. Arnett et al. appropriate Taylor’s (1989) notion of the inescapable experience of humans as moral agents located in a space of the good and on the value of human participation in ordinary life, particularly in its communicative, relational contexts, thereby conceptualizing communication ethics as centered on a particular substantive good or goods in human experience given meaning within a narrative structure.

Arnett et al.’s understanding of communication ethics as protecting and promoting goods of, for, and in human life refrains from explicit reference to an ontological telos for human beings. Their work explores communication ethics as a question of literacy related to different perspectives on the good emerging in a postmodern moment of virtue contention. Goods relevant to the virtues emerge from philosophical and religious frameworks or worldviews—narratives—that provide the substance of the good that defines human flourishing; approaches to communication ethics are situated within these virtue structures that define these underlying goods. Since these virtue structures are not shared publicly in today’s historical moment, they must be made explicit in order to identify the narrative ground upon which communicators stand with monologic clarity as they engage in dialogue. 64 From this surfacing of goods, learning from difference and the identification of particular interests emerge as interlocutors discover each other’s perspectives.

Arnett et al. do not assume that character-defining virtues, such as may exist, are best conceptualized as internal characteristics, mental properties, or elements of personality located within an individual self; instead, virtues emerge from worldviews, traditions, or narrative structures that situate persons. Virtues and goods, for Arnett et al., are tied to petite narratives, particular traditions, or worldviews within which persons are situated as embedded agents. In this sense, virtues are tied to character only inasmuch as persons are enactors of traditions of virtue, shaped and formed by those traditions. 65 One may derive from this work that engaging in communicative practices that protect and promote a given good may lead to the inculcation of virtuous character reflective of a particular narrative or worldview. Arnett et al.’s approach to ethics is rooted in an understanding of rhetorical contingency—human beings cannot stand above history, although they are able to glean temporal glimpses of alternative understandings of the world through dialogic engagement with others who inhabit different narratives or traditions. The key virtue or “good” in Arnett et al.’s dialogic communication ethics framework is openness to learning.

Communication ethics, then, can be conceptualized as communicative practices that protect and promote an underlying contextual good—for example, the relationship, the public sphere, health, organizational mission, or culture—assumed to hold meaning within a larger framework. The centrality of the good in ethical considerations guides Arnett et al.’s (2009) understanding of definitions of communication ethics appearing in the literature. These definitions highlight issues such as relativistic and absolute positions, ends and means, “is” and “ought,” and public and private domains of human life; careful discernment of what values are important; attentiveness to the historical moment; choice; information-based judgments; and the “heart” and care for others, all of which become goods protected and promoted by a particular definition of communication ethics. 66   Arnett et al. (2009) revisit approaches to communication ethics through the framework of protecting and promoting goods: universal/humanitarian; democratic; codes, procedures, and standards; narrative; and dialogic ethics. For example, a universal/humanitarian communication ethic protects and promotes the good of universal rationality and of duty, while a codes, procedures, and standards approach protects and promotes the good of agreed-upon regulations, and dialogic ethics protects and promotes what emerges unexpectedly between persons. Each of these approaches could be explored as a virtue ethics approach supporting a good connected to a particular human telos .

The next section explores recent developments in virtue ethics in human communication studies, most of which have emerged within the last decade. These treatments address several specific domains of communicative practice ranging from the interpersonal to the institutional level. Several of them find their roots in the work of MacIntyre.

iii. Virtue Ethics in Human Communication Studies

As noted earlier, the rhetorical tradition maintained a focus on virtue ethics since ancient times, although the ground for this approach departed occasionally from its Aristotelian foundations during the early twentieth century. The revival of interest in Aristotelian virtue ethics on the part of rhetorical scholars, propelled initially by the work of MacIntyre, prompted James Herrick (1992) to conceptualize rhetoric as a practice marked by internal goods. 67 Rhetorical virtues would be “enacted habits of character” prompting apprehension of the ethical nature of rhetorical contexts, appreciation of rhetorical discourse as a practice, and skilled enactment of rhetorical practice. 68

As interest in virtue ethics continued, additional work in rhetorical studies and other areas of human communication emerged. Aberdein (2010) developed a virtue theory of argumentation, expanding the circle of philosophers of virtue ethics theorists relevant to questions of communication. Aberdein draws on Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski’s (1996) work on epistemological virtues and Richard Paul’s (2000) investigation of virtues of critical thinking to identify argumentative virtues, including attention to detail, fairness in evaluating others’ arguments, intellectual courage, and inventiveness. Aberdein offers a typology of four categories of argumentational virtue: willingness to engage in argumentation; willingness to listen to others; willingness to modify one’s own position; and willingness to question the obvious. 69

Fritz’s (2013) work on civility as a communicative virtue draws on Kingwell (1995) , who addresses civility as a modality of virtuous communicative engagement in the public square. Kingwell offers a sociolinguistic understanding of politeness as “just talking,” a method of public deliberation taking place between citizens who hold different positions on issues but who seek to accomplish the shared good of collective decision-making. This approach is consistent with that of Shils, who understood civility as a civic virtue that “enables persons to live and work together by fostering the cooperative action that makes civilized life possible.” 70

Fritz (2013) interprets several domains of communication theory and research within the civility/incivility virtue/vice framework that connect to Kingwell’s (1995) appropriation of communicative pragmatics—tact, restraint, role-taking, and sensitivity to context as civil communication practices necessary for joint action in the public sphere. Civility embodies practical communicative habits of character that define virtuous public interpersonal communication, which protects and promotes the good of the public sphere. 71 In related fashion, Pat Arneson (2014) addresses the virtue of moral courage prompting a fitting response in the service of liberating others in her study of white women’s efforts during the mid-1800s and early 1900s in the struggle to fight racism against black Americans. One virtue perspective on interpersonal communication emerges from a positive approach to communication, which tracks the recent turn in the social sciences to positive approaches to human behavior. 72 Julien Mirivel (2012) suggests that communication excellence embodies virtues in interpersonal communication, employing Aristotle, MacIntyre, and Comte-Sponville (2001) as philosophical touchpoints. For example, the virtue of gentleness involves restraining impulses toward violence and anger, which requires face-attentiveness, or respect for others’ dialectical needs for autonomy and interconnectedness, manifested in deferential verbal forms of address and compliments

Nathan Miczo (2012) bases his approach to virtuous interpersonal communication on Aristotle, Hannah Arendt, Nietzsche, and Comte-Sponville. 73 Communicative virtue is “excellence in ‘words and deeds’ … [that] comprises the performance of behaviors indicative of engagement.” 74 Partners in discourse and a shared object of discourse between them constitute a vital relationship to the world that defines such engagement. Miczo focuses on four dispositions of the virtuous communicator: politeness, compassion, generosity, and fidelity. Politeness requires space for expression and listening. Compassion requires attentiveness to others, which helps bring forth their responses. Through generosity, persons contribute to the conversation to enrich it by sharing positions. Being committed to a position defines fidelity, taking and endorsing a stance. The twin commitments to assisting others in their expression and standing within a position are necessary conditions for dialogue.

Fritz (2013) , drawing on Arnett et al. (2009) and Arnett and Arneson (1999) and following Borden’s (2007) application of MacIntyre to the profession of journalism, articulates professional civility as a virtue-based interpersonal communication ethic for organizational settings. The theoretical foundation of professional civility connects elements from the dialogic civility framework and the conceptualization of civility as a communicative virtue to the notion of profession as practice from a MacIntyrean virtue ethics perspective. 75 Professional civility protects and promotes goods of productivity, place (the organization within which professional work is accomplished), persons (those with whom one works), and the profession itself.

V. Conclusion

Virtue ethics is rising to prominence as an approach to communication ethics. For journalism and media studies, the fit between the conceptual strengths of virtue ethics and issues salient to media practices provides a compelling rationale for application. Borden (2007) and Quinn (2007) , for example, identify virtue ethics as well suited to professional contexts in which journalists must make decisions rapidly, with little time for reflection. For human communication, approaches to virtue ethics offer communication a central theoretical role in meaningful human existence, as exemplified in the work of Herrick (1992) on rhetoric as virtuous practice.

The scholar with by far the largest effect on virtue approaches to communication ethics is Alasdair MacIntyre. His work is a key source for scholars in all areas of communication ethics, from human communication studies to journalism and media. Although some communication scholars take issue with MacIntyre’s conclusions, many find his analysis of the current moral predicament stemming from Enlightenment rationalism and the accompanying loss of a foundation for moral judgment compelling. 76 Taylor and Hawes (2011), for instance, identify themes across communication scholars’ responses to MacIntyre’s work, each suggesting a potentially constitutive role for communication in the enactment of virtue in human communities. In the area of journalism, MacIntyre’s work is foundational for Sandra Borden’s treatment of journalism as practice. Christians, John P. Ferré, and P. Mark Fackler (1993) address problems with the Enlightenment articulated by Alasdair MacIntyre as they seek to establish a new basis for media ethics.

MacIntyre’s work offers a framework resting in tradition and narrative that gives ground for the character traits supplied by virtue ethics, providing a place for the human person within a larger narrative. However, not all applications of virtue ethics in the communication field systematically engage a broad framework for virtue ethics. For example, Philippa Foot, Onora O’Neill, and Rosalind Hursthouse figure prominently in the virtue ethics adopted by media ethics theorists such as Couldry, Plasiance, and Quinn. Although the rationale for such appropriations is the fit between virtue ethics and the nature of the human person, communication scholars make little explicit effort to situate the person within a larger narrative framework or tradition within which virtue finds its form and expression in particular human communities.

Without the larger framework within which to fit virtues, virtue ethics approaches for communication risk a return to what Arnett (1981) critiqued in some humanistic psychologists’ work on dialogue: a focus on the individual as an isolated, autonomous self, rather than on the individual as a person embedded within an enduring tradition, as MacIntyre (2007) articulates. Understanding virtue in an atomistic, discrete manner permits an eliding of character into personality traits or biological propensities, rather than as an essential component of a meaningful narrative structure. A similar transformation took place with the early speech communication scholars’ and teachers’ move to the mental hygiene approaches of psychologists of the 1930s, which resulted in a shift for the ground of virtue ethics from classical teleological understandings to behaviorist and psychoanalytic assumptions. 77 This move may ultimately risk a return to emotivism, an understanding of the good as based on nothing more than personal preference, 78 without a basis in a framework outside the self that anchors and orients human meaning, which some philosophers argue is a defining element of human experience—part of the very ontology implicit in virtue ethics. 79

This risk appears to occur in the work of Mirivel (2012) , one of the positive communication scholars making a turn to virtue, as well as in the media ethics work of Plaisance (2015) . While drawing on several philosophers, including Aristotle, and much established communication research, Mirivel focuses attention on the individual person’s quest for virtue in the interests of living a good life, without articulating assumptions related to a larger worldview or narrative tradition that defines the good life. Plaisance (2015) offers extensive theoretical development, integrating the work of philosophy and moral psychology, acknowledging the place of personal worldview—or ethical ideology—as a contributor to ethical decision-making on the part of practitioners. However, this approach places the nature of moral and ethical judgment within the individual once again, rather than within larger patterns of meaning within which persons as embedded agents find significance and moral purpose.

The virtues emerging from a minimalist agreement on some essentials of human nature may not be thick or robust enough—that is, they would be too loose, undefined, and unstructured—to nourish particular human communities. Agreement on a maximalist framework seems difficult or impossible to achieve. What is needed is a framework somewhere between a thin minimalism and a thick maximalism, adaptable to different cultural configurations, with the ability to accommodate a variety of narrative traditions. Couldry’s (2013) work on understanding media use as MacIntyrean practice does appear to fit human communicative practices within frameworks of the good that transcend the individual person. The work of Christians and colleagues to identify a human ontology as a framework for media ethics is directed toward that end. The concern related to Enlightenment individualism that Christians and his colleagues expressed, as well as concerns related to psychological approaches to dialogue and individualization of ethics noted by Arnett, can be addressed directly by communication scholars working from a virtue ethics perspective. For example, in journalism and media ethics, the work of Christians and colleagues could be usefully conceptualized as a virtue ethics perspective by addressing virtue explicitly within particular narrative traditions, as Borden has done with her work on journalism as practice and as Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) do in framing narrative as a structure within which virtue resides. Finally, Arnett’s treatment of figures such as Arendt, Bonhoeffer, and Buber could be reconceptualized as exemplars of virtuous agents embedded within narrative in order to offer an alternative balance to Plaisance’s (2015) focus on exemplars of virtue from a moral psychology perspective.

1. P. J. Gehrke , The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009) .

2. E.g., W. F. Eadie , “Stories We Tell: Fragmentation and Convergence in Communication Disciplinary History,” The Review of Communication 11 (2011): 161–176 ; P. J. Gehrke and W. M. Keith (eds.), A Century of Communication Studies: The Unfinished Conversation (New York: Routledge, 2015) ; P. Simonson , J. Peck , R. T. Craig , and J. P. Jackson , J. P. (eds.), The Handbook of Communication History (New York: Routledge, 2013) .

Eadie, “Stories We Tell: Fragmentation and Convergence in Communication Disciplinary History.”

Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century , 1.

6. E.g., L. Zion , and D. Craig (eds.), Ethics for Digital Journalists (New York: Routledge, 2015) .

7. C. G. Christians , “The Ethics of Universal Being,” in Media Ethics beyond Borders: A Global Perspective , edited by S. J. A. Ward and H. Wasserman , (New York: Routledge, 2010), 6–23 ; N. Couldry , “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers,” in Media Ethics beyond Borders: A Global Perspective , edited by Ward , S. J. A. Ward and H. Wasserman (New York: Routledge, 2010), 59–72 ; G. Cheney , S. May , and D. Munshi (eds.), The Handbook of Communication Ethics (New York: Routledge, 2011), xi .

8. R. L. Johannesen , “Communication Ethics: Centrality, Trends, and Controversies,” in Communication Yearbook 25 , edited by W. B. Gudykunst (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001), 201–235 .

9. C. Taylor , Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989) .

10. R. C. Arnett , “The Status of Communication Ethics Scholarship in Speech Communication Journals from 1915 to 1985,” Central States Speech Journal 38 (1987): 44–61. doi: 10.1080/10510978709368229

11. C. G. Christians and J. C. Merrill , Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2009), 1 .

12. P. L. Plaisance , “The Journalist as Moral Witness: Michael Ignatieff’s Pluralistic Philosophy for a Global Media Culture,” Journalism 3 (2002): 214 .

13. E.g., T. H. Bivens , “The Language of Virtue: What Can We Learn from Early Journalism Codes of Ethics?” in The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Institutional, and Cultural Influences , edited by W. Wyatt (London: I. B. Tauris, 2014), 165–184 ; S. L. Borden , Journalism as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics, and the Press (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007) ; N. Couldry , “Living Well in and through Media,” in Ethics of Media , edited by N. Couldry , M. Madianou , and A. Pinchevski (New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2013), 39–56 ; C. Ess , “Ethical Dimensions of New Technology/Media,” in The Handbook of Communication Ethics , edited by G. Cheney , S. May , and D. Munshi (New York: Routledge, 2011), 1204–1220 ; P. L. Plaisance , “The Mass Media as Discursive Network: Building on the Implications of Libertarian and Communitarian Claims for News Media Ethics Theory,” Communication Theory 15 (2005): 292–313 ; P. L. Plaisance , “Moral Agency in Media: Toward a Model to Explore Key Components of Ethical Practice,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 26 (2011): 96–113 ; P. L. Plaisance , “Virtue Ethics and Digital ‘Flourishing’: An Application of Philippa Foot to Life Online,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 28 (2013): 91–102. doi: 10.1080/08900523.2013.792691 ; P. L. Plaisance , “Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of U.S. Exemplars in News and Public Relations,” Media and Society 9 (2014): 308–325. doi: 10.1177/1077699014527460 ; P. L. Plaisance , Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of Excellence in News and Public Relations (New York: Routledge, 2015) ; A. Quinn , “Moral Virtues for Journalists,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22 (2007): 168–186 .

Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century .

15. A. Aberdein , “Virtue in Argument,” Argumentation 24 (2010): 165–179. doi 10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0 ; S. Baker , “The Model of the Principled Advocate and the Pathological Partisan: A Virtue Ethics Construct of Opposing Archetypes of Public Relations and Advertising Practitioners,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 23 (2008): 235–253. doi: 10.1080/08900520802222050 ; J. M. H. Fritz , Professional Civility: Communicative Virtue at Work (New York: Peter Lang, 201) ; J. A. Herrick , “Rhetoric, Ethics, and Virtue,” Communication Studies 43 (1992): 133–149 ; R. V. Leeper , and K. A. Leeper , “Public Relations as ‘Practice’: Applying the Theory of Alasdair MacIntyre,” Public Relations Review 27 (2001): 461–473 ; J. J. Maciejewski , “Justice as a Nexus of Natural Law and Rhetoric,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 (2008): 72–93 ; N. Miczo , “Reflective Conversation as a Foundation for Communication Virtue,” in The Positive Side of Interpersonal Communication , edited by T. J. Socha and M. J. Pitts (New York: Peter Lang, 2012), 73–89 ; J. C. Mirivel , “Communication Excellence: Embodying Virtues in Interpersonal Communication,” in The Positive Side of Interpersonal Communication , edited by T. J. Socha and M. J. Pitts (New York: Peter Lang, 2012), 57–72 ; J. M. Persuit , Social Media and Integrated Marketing Communication: A Rhetorical Approach (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2013) ; M. W. Seeger and R. R. Ulmer , “Virtuous Responses to Organizational Crisis: Aaron Feuerstein and Milt Cole,” Journal of Business Ethics 31 (2001): 369–376 ; B. Strom , “Communicator Virtue and Its Relation to Marriage Quality,” The Journal of Family Communication 31 (2003): 21–40 .

16. E.g., R. T. Craig , “Communication Theory as a Field,” Communication Theory 9 (1999): 119–161 ; B. A. Fisher , Perspectives on Human Communication (New York: Macmillan, 1978) .

17. C. G. Christians , J. P. Ferré , and P. M. Fackler , Good News: Social Ethics and the Press (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) .

E.g., Borden, Journalism as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics, and the Press ; Quinn, “Moral Virtues for Journalists.”

19. E.g., C. G. Christians and S. J. A. Ward , “Anthropological Realism for Global Media Ethics,” in Ethics of Media , edited by N. Couldry , M. Madianou , and A. Pinchevski (New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2013), 72–88 ; Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers” ; Couldry, “Living Well in and through Media” ; Plaisance, “Virtue Ethics and Digital ‘Flourishing’: An Application of Philippa Foot to Life Online.”

Plaisance, Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of Excellence in News and Public Relations .

E.g., Borden, Journalism as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics, and the Press ; Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers” ; Quinn, “Moral Virtues for Journalists.”

E.g., Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers.”

Borden, Journalism as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics, and the Press , 66–80.

24. Plaisance, “Virtue Ethics and Digital ‘Flourishing’: An Application of Philippa Foot to Life Online” ; Christians, Ferré, and Fackler, Good News: Social Ethics and the Press ; C. G. Christians and M. Traber (eds.), Communication Ethics and Universal Values (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997) ; C. G. Christians , “Ubuntu and Communitarianism in Media Ethics,” Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies 25 (2004): 235–256 ; Christians, “The Ethics of Universal Being.”

Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers,” 62.

Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers.”

Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers,” 67; Couldry, “Living Well in and through Media,” 67–68.

Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers,” 68.

In the media ethics context, hospitality is based on the inevitability of our connectedness with others and the effects of media products on others both near and far. Hospitality invites solicitude and care for distant others and the social fabric of communal life on a global scale.

30. Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers,” 53; S. Lovibond , “‘Ethical Living’ in the Media and in Philosophy,” in Ethics of Media , edited by N. Couldry , M. Madianou , and A. Pinchevski (New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2013), 220–221 .

Couldry, “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers” ; Lovibond, “ ‘Ethical Living’ in the Media and in Philosophy.”

Plaisance, “Virtue Ethics and Digital ‘Flourishing’: An Application of Philippa Foot to Life Online,” 94.

Plaisance, “Virtue Ethics and Digital ‘Flourishing’: An Application of Philippa Foot to Life Online,” 95.

34. Positive psychology explores factors that contribute to human happiness and optimal human functioning. See M. E. P. Seligman , and M. Csikszentmihalyi , “Positive Psychology: An Introduction,” American Psychologist 55 (2000): 5–14 ; K. Rathunde , “Toward a Psychology of Optimal Human Functioning: What Positive Psychology Can Learn from the ‘Experiential Turns’ of James, Dewey, and Maslow,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 41 (2001): 135–153 .

Plaisance, Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of Excellence in News and Public Relations , 1.

36. J. Haidt , “The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology,” Science 316 (2007): 998–1002 .

37. A. MacIntyre , After Virtue (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981) ; O. O’Neill , Towards Justice and Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) ; R. Hursthouse , “Applying Virtue Ethics,” in Virtues and Reasons: Philippa Foot and Moral Theory , edited by R. Hursthouse , G. Lawrence , and W. Quinn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 57–75 .

Hursthouse, “Applying Virtue Ethics,” 75.

39. C. L. Johnstone , “An Aristotelian Trilogy: Ethics, Rhetoric, Politics, and the Search for Moral Truth,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 13 (1980): 1–24 ; H. Johnstone , “The Relevance of Rhetoric to Philosophy and Philosophy to Rhetoric,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 52 (1966): 41–46 ; Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century .

41. Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century , 56. The mental hygiene movement, part of the early twentieth-century Progressive Era, assumed that treatment of maladjusted personalities would lead to decreased social pathology. This understanding was imported into the educational system in the United States in the 1930s; see B. K. Kearl , “Etiology Replaces Interminability: A Historiographical Analysis of the Mental Hygiene Movement,” American Educational History Journal 41 (2014): 285–299 .

42. B. Bryngelson , “Speech and Its Hygiene,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 28 (1943): 86 .

Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century , 90.

44. E.g., C. L. Johnstone, “An Aristotelian Trilogy: Ethics, Rhetoric, Politics, and the Search for Moral Truth” ; H. Johnstone, “The Relevance of Rhetoric to Philosophy and Philosophy to Rhetoric” ; R. T. Eubanks , “Reflections on the Moral Dimension of Communication,” Southern Speech Communication Journal 45 (1980): 297–312, doi: 10.1080/10417948009372458

These views included approaches that argued for a constructed human nature, one built through language rather than prior to language, which prefigured postmodernist approaches to communication theory. Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century , 94, 108, 118.

Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century , 108.

47. K. E. Andersen , “A History of Communication Ethics,” in Conversations on Communication Ethics , edited by K. J. Greenberg (Norwoord, NJ: Ablex, 1991), 3–19 .

48. C. R. Berger and S. H. Chaffee , “The Study of Communication as a Science,” in Handbook of Communication Science , edited by C. R. Berger and S. H. Chaffee , (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987), 15–19 ; J. M. H. Fritz , “Interpersonal Communication Ethics,” in International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication , edited by C. R. Berger and M. L. Roloff (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 889–902 .

49. M. L. Knapp , and J. A. Daly , “Background and Current Trends in the Study of Interpersonal Communication,” in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication , edited by M. L. Knapp and J. A Daly , 4th edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011), 3–22 .

50. Fritz, “Interpersonal Communication Ethics” ; S. Planalp and J. Fitness , “Interpersonal Communication Ethics,” in The Handbook of Communication Ethics , edited by G. Cheney , S. May , and D. Munshi (New York: Routledge, 2011), 135–147 .

51. W. R. Fisher , “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1–22 ; D. E. Polkinghorne , Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988) .

Fisher, “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” 4.

53. R. C. Arnett , Communication and Community: Implications of Martin Buber’s Dialogue (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986) .

54. E.g., R. C. Arnett and P. Arneson , Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age: Community, Hope, and Interpersonal Relationships (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999) ; R. C. Arnett , J. M. H. Fritz , and L. M. Bell , Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009) .

55. R. C. Arnett , “Toward a Phenomenological Dialogue,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 45 (1981): 201–212 ; R. C. Arnett , “What Is Dialogic Communication? Friedman’s Contribution and Clarification,” Person-Centered Review 4 (1989): 42–60 ; J. Ayres , “Four Approaches to Interpersonal Communication: Review, Observation, Prognosis,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 48 (1984): 408–440 .

56. The term “third force” refers to humanistic psychologists, who sought an alternative to behaviorism and psychoanalysis. See A. Maslow , Toward a Psychology of Being (New York: Van Nostrand, 1968) .

Arnett, “Toward a Phenomenological Dialogue,” 202–203.

Arnett, “Toward a Phenomenological Dialogue,” 2, 4–5.

59. R. C. Arnett , “Dialogic Civility as Pragmatic Ethical Praxis: An Interpersonal Metaphor for the Public Domain,” Communication Theory 11 (2001): 315–338 .

Arnett and Arneson (1999) would later offer a constructive read of Rogers and Maslow, interpreting their efforts as a response to a historical moment marked by loss of meaning; Arnett and Arneson, Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age: Community, Hope, and Interpersonal Relationships .

Arnett, “What Is Dialogic Communication? Friedman’s Contribution and Clarification.”

Arnett, “What Is Dialogic Communication? Friedman’s Contribution and Clarification,” 49.

Arnett, “The Status of Communication Ethics Scholarship in Speech Communication Journals from 1915 to 1985,” 54.

64. R. C. Arnett , “The Fulcrum Point of Dialogue,” American Journal of Semiotics 28 (2012): 105–127 .

65. J. -F. Lyotard , The Postmodern Condition (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1984) .

Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference , 30–31.

67. E.g., Fisher, “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument” ; T. S. Frentz , “Rhetorical Conversation, Time, and Moral Action,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 (1985): 1–18 .

Herrick, “Rhetoric, Ethics, and Virtue,” 139.

Aberdein, “Virtue in Argument,” 175.

Fritz, Professional Civility: Communicative Virtue at Work , 66.

Arnett, “Dialogic Civility as Pragmatic Ethical Praxis: An Interpersonal Metaphor for the Public Domain” ; Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference .

72. E.g., B. L. Fredrickson , and J. E. Dutton , “Unpacking Positive Organizing: Organizations as Sites of Individual and Group Flourishing,” The Journal of Positive Psychology 3 (2008): 1–3 ; S. Joseph (ed.), Positive Psychology in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life , 2nd edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015) .

73. H. Arendt , Responsibility and Judgment (New York: Schocken Books, 2003) ; F. Nietzsche , Thus Spoke Zarathustra , translated by W. Kaufmann (New York: The Modern Library, 1995) .

74. A. Comte-Sponville , A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues , translated by C. Temerson (New York: Henry Holt, 2001), 74 .

Arnett and Arneson, Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age: Community, Hope, and Interpersonal Relationships .

76. E.g., C. Condit , “Crafting Virtue: The Rhetorical Construction of Public Morality,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 79–97 .

78. A. MacIntyre , After Virtue , 3rd edition (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007) .

79. E.g., B. Taylor and L. C. Hawes , “What Are We, Then? Postmodernism, Globalization, and the Meta-Ethics of Contemporary Communication,” in The Handbook of Communication Ethics , edited by G. Cheney , S. May , and D. Munshi (New York: Routledge, 2012), 99–118 .

Aberdein, A. “ Virtue in Argument. ” Argumentation 24 ( 2010 ): 165–179. doi: 10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0

Google Scholar

Andersen, K. E. “A History of Communication Ethics.” In Conversations on Communication Ethics, edited by K. J. Greenberg , pp. 3–19. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex, 1991 .

Google Preview

Arendt, H.   Responsibility and Judgment. New York: Schocken Books, 2003 .

Arneson, P.   Communicative Engagement and Social Liberation: Justice Will Be Made. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2014 .

Arnett, R. C. “ Toward a Phenomenological Dialogue. ” Western Journal of Speech Communication 45 ( 1981 ): 201–212.

Arnett, R. C.   Communication and Community: Implications of Martin Buber’s Dialogue . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986 .

Arnett, R. C. “ The Status of Communication Ethics Scholarship in Speech Communication Journals from 1915 to 1985. ” Central States Speech Journal 38 ( 1987 ): 44–61. doi: 10.1080/10510978709368229

Arnett, R. C. “ What Is Dialogic Communication? Friedman’s Contribution and Clarification. ” Person-Centered Review 4 ( 1989 ): 42–60.

Arnett, R. C. “ Dialogic Civility as Pragmatic Ethical Praxis: An Interpersonal Metaphor for the Public Domain. ” Communication Theory 11 ( 2001 ): 315–338.

Arnett, R. C.   Dialogic Confession: Bonhoeffer’s Rhetoric of Responsibility. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005 .

Arnett, R. C. “ The Fulcrum Point of Dialogue. ” American Journal of Semiotics 28 ( 2012 ): 105–127.

Arnett, R. C. , and Arneson, P.   Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age: Community, Hope, and Interpersonal Relationships. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999 .

Arnett, R. C. , J. M. H. Fritz , and L. M. Bell . Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009 .

Ayres, J. “ Four Approaches to Interpersonal Communication: Review, Observation, Prognosis. ” Western Journal of Speech Communication 48 ( 1984 ): 408–440.

Baker, S. “ The Model of the Principled Advocate and the Pathological Partisan: A Virtue Ethics Construct of Opposing Archetypes of Public Relations and Advertising Practitioners. ” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 23 ( 2008 ): 235–253. doi: 10.1080/08900520802222050

Berger, C. R. , and S. H. Chaffee . “The Study of Communication as a Science.” In Handbook of Communication Science , edited by C. R. Berger and S. H. Chaffee , pp. 15–19. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987 .

Bivens, T. H. “The Language of Virtue: What Can We Learn from Early Journalism Codes of Ethics?” In The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Institutional, and Cultural Influences , edited by W. Wyatt , pp. 165–184. London: I. B. Tauris, 2014 .

Borden, S. L.   Journalism as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics, and the Press. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007 .

Bryngelson, B. “ Speech and its Hygiene. ” Quarterly Journal of Speech 28 ( 1943 ): 85–86.

Cheney, G. , S. May , and D. Munshi . (eds.). The Handbook of Communication Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2011 .

Christians, C. G. “ Ubuntu and Communitarianism in Media Ethics. ” Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies 25 ( 2004 ): 235–256.

Christians, C. G. “The Ethics of Universal Being.” In Media Ethics beyond Borders: A Global Perspective , edited by S. J. A. Ward and H. Wasserman , pp. 6–23. New York: Routledge, 2010 .

Christians, C. G. , P. M. Fackler , and J. P. Ferré . Ethics for Public Communication: Defining Moments in Media History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012 .

Christians, C. G. , J. P. Ferré , and P. M. Fackler . Good News: Social Ethics and the Press. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993 .

Christians, C. G. , and J. C. Merrill . Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2009 .

Christians, C. G. , and M. Traber . (eds.). Communication Ethics and Universal Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997 .

Christians, C. G. , and S. J. A. Ward . “Anthropological Realism for Global Media Ethics.” In Ethics of Media , edited by N. Couldry , M. Madianou , and A. Pinchevski , pp. 72–88. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2013 .

Comte-Sponville, A.   A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues. Translated by C. Temerson . New York: Henry Holt, 2001 .

Condit, C. “ Crafting Virtue: The Rhetorical Construction of Public Morality. ” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 ( 1987 ): 79–97.

Couldry, N. “Media Ethics: Towards a Framework for Media Producers and Media Consumers.” In Media Ethics beyond Borders: A Global Perspective , edited by S. J. A. Ward and H. Wasserman , pp. 59–72. New York: Routledge, 2010 .

Couldry, N. “Living Well in and through Media.” In Ethics of Media , edited by N. Couldry , M. Madianou , and A. Pinchevski , pp. 39–56. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2013 .

Craig, R. T. “ Communication Theory as a Field.” Communication Theory 9 ( 1999 ): 119–161.

Eadie, W. F. “ Stories We Tell: Fragmentation and Convergence in Communication Disciplinary History. ” The Review of Communication 11 ( 2011 ): 161–176.

Ess, C. “Ethical Dimensions of New Technology/Media.” In The Handbook of Communication Ethics, edited by G. Cheney , S. May , and D. Munshi , pp. 204–220. New York: Routledge, 2011 .

Eubanks, R. T. “ Reflections on the Moral Dimension of Communication. ” Southern Speech Communication Journal 45 ( 1980 ): 297–312. doi: 10.1080/10417948009372458

Fisher, B. A.   Perspectives on Human Communication. New York: Macmillan, 1978 .

Fisher, W. R. “ Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument. ” Communication Monographs 51 ( 1984 ): 1–22.

Foot, P.   Natural Goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 .

Frentz, T. S. “ Rhetorical Conversation, Time, and Moral Action. ” Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 ( 1985 ): 1–18.

Fritz, J. M. H.   Professional Civility: Communicative Virtue at Work. New York: Peter Lang, 2013 .

Fritz, J. M. H. “Interpersonal Communication Ethics.” In International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication , edited by C.R. Berger and M. L. Roloff , pp. 889–902. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016 .

Fredrickson, B. L. , and J. E. Dutton . “ Unpacking Positive Organizing: Organizations as Sites of Individual and Group Flourishing. ” The Journal of Positive Psychology 3 ( 2008 ): 1–3.

Gehrke, P. J.   The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009 .

Gehrke, P. J. , and W. M. Keith (eds.) A Century of Communication Studies: The Unfinished Conversation. New York: Routledge, 2015 .

Habermas, J.   Communication and the Evolution of Society. Translated by T. McCarthy . Boston: Beacon Press, 1979 .

Haidt, J. “ The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. ” Science 316 ( 2007 ): 998–1002.

Herrick, J. A. “ Rhetoric, Ethics, and Virtue. ” Communication Studies 43 ( 1992 ): 133–149.

Hursthouse, R. “Applying Virtue Ethics.” In Virtues and Reasons: Philippa Foot and Moral Theory , edited by R. Hursthouse , G. Lawrence , and W. Quinn , pp. 57–75. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995 .

Johannesen, R. L. “Communication Ethics: Centrality, Trends, and Controversies.” In Communication Yearbook 25 , edited by W. B. Gudykunst , pp. 201–235. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001 .

Johnstone, C. L. “ An Aristotelian Trilogy: Ethics, Rhetoric, Politics, and the Search for Moral Truth. ” Philosophy and Rhetoric 13 ( 1980 ): 1–24.

Johnstone, H. “ The Relevance of Rhetoric to Philosophy and Philosophy to Rhetoric. ” Quarterly Journal of Speech 52 ( 1966 ): 41–46.

Joseph, S. (ed.) Positive Psychology in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life , 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015 .

Kearl, B. K. “ Etiology Replaces Interminability: A Historiographical Analysis of the Mental Hygiene Movement. ” American Educational History Journal 41 ( 2014 ): 285–299.

Kingwell, M.   A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995 .

Klaidman, S. , and T. L. Beauchamp . The Virtuous Journalist. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987 .

Knapp, M. L. , and J. A. Daly . “Background and Current Trends in the Study of Interpersonal Communication.” In Handbook of Interpersonal Communication , edited by M. L. Knapp and J. A. Daly , 4th edition, pp. 3–22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011 .

Lambeth, E. B. “ Waiting for a New St. Bendict: Alasdair MacIntyre and the Theory and Practice of Journalism. ” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 5 ( 1990 ): 75–87.

Leeper, R. V. , and K. A. Leeper . “ Public Relations as ‘Practice’: Applying the Theory of Alasdair MacIntyre. ” Public Relations Review 27 ( 2001 ): 461–473.

Lovibond, S.   Ethical Formation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002 .

Lovibond, S. “‘Ethical Living’ in the Media and in Philosophy.” In Ethics of Media , edited by N. Couldry , M. Madianou , and A. Pinchevski , pp. 215–231. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2013 .

Lyotard, J.-F.   The Postmodern Condition . Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1984 .

Maciejewski, J. J. “ Justice as a Nexus of Natural Law and Rhetoric. ” Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 ( 2008 ): 72–93.

MacIntyre, A.   After Virtue . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981 .

MacIntyre, A.   After Virtue , 3rd edition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007 .

Maslow, A.   Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand, 1968 .

Miczo, N. “Reflective Conversation as a Foundation for Communication Virtue.” In The Positive Side of Interpersonal Communication , edited by T. J. Socha and M. J. Pitts , pp. 73–89. New York: Peter Lang, 2012 .

Mirivel, J. C. “Communication Excellence: Embodying Virtues in Interpersonal Communication.” In The Positive Side of Interpersonal Communication , edited by T. J. Socha and M. J. Pitts , pp. 57–72. New York: Peter Lang, 2012 .

Nietzsche, F.   Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by W. Kaufmann . New York: The Modern Library, 1995 .

O’Neill, O.   Towards Justice and Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 .

Paul, R. “Critical Thinking, Moral Integrity and Citizenship: Teaching for the Intellectual Virtues.” In Knowledge, Belief and Character: Readings in Virtue Epistemology , edited by G. Axtell , pp. 163–175. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000 .

Persuit, J. M.   Social Media and Integrated Marketing Communication: A Rhetorical Approach. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2013 .

Plaisance, P. L. “ The Journalist as Moral Witness: Michael Ignatieff’s Pluralistic Philosophy for a Global Media Culture. ” Journalism 3 ( 2002 ): 205–222.

Plaisance, P. L. “ The Mass Media as Discursive Network: Building on the Implications of Libertarian and Communitarian Claims for News Media Ethics Theory. ” Communication Theory 15 ( 2005 ): 292–313.

Plaisance, P. L. “ Moral Agency in Media: Toward a Model to Explore Key Components of Ethical Practice, ” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 26 ( 2011 ): 96–113.

Plaisance, P. L. “ Virtue Ethics and Digital ‘Flourishing’: An Application of Philippa Foot to Life Online. ” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 28 ( 2013 ): 91–102. doi: 10.1080/08900523.2013.792691

Plaisance, P. L. “ Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of U.S. Exemplars in News and Public Relations. ” Media and Society 9 ( 2014 ): 308–325. doi: 10.1177/1077699014527460

Plaisance, P. L.   Virtue in Media: The Moral Psychology of Excellence in News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge, 2015 .

Planalp, S. , and Fitness, J. “Interpersonal Communication Ethics.” In The Handbook of Communication Ethics , edited by G. Cheney , S. May , and D. Munshi , pp. 135–147. New York: Routledge, 2011 .

Polkinghorne, D. E.   Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988 .

Quinn, A. “ Moral Virtues for Journalists. ” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22 ( 2007 ): 168–186.

Rathunde, K. “ Toward a Psychology of Optimal Human Functioning: What Positive Psychology Can Learn from the ‘Experiential Turns’ of James, Dewey, and Maslow. ” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 41 ( 2001 ): 135–153.

Seeger, M. W. , and R. R. Ulmer . “ Virtuous Responses to Organizational Crisis: Aaron Feuerstein and Milt Cole. ” Journal of Business Ethics 31 ( 2001 ): 369–376.

Seligman, M. E. P. , & M. Csikszentmihalyi . “ Positive Psychology: An Introduction. ” American Psychologist 55 ( 2000 ): 5–14.

Simonson, P. , J. Peck , R. T. Craig , and J. P. Jackson (eds.). The Handbook of Communication History. New York: Routledge, 2013 .

Strom, B. “ Communicator Virtue and Its Relation to Marriage Quality. ” The Journal of Family Communication 31 ( 2003 ): 21–40.

Taylor, B. , and L. C. Hawes . “What Are We, Then? Postmodernism, Globalization, and the Meta-Ethics of Contemporary Communication.” In The Handbook of Communication Ethics , edited by G. Cheney , S. May , and D. Munshi , pp. 99–118. New York: Routledge, 2012 .

Taylor, C.   Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989 .

Van Schoor, E. P. “ A Sociohistorical View of Group Psychotherapy in the United States: The Ideology of Individualism and Self-Liberation. ” International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 50 ( 2000 ): 437–454.

Williams, B.   Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002 .

Zagzebski, L. T.   Virtues of the Mind . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 .

Zion, L. , and D. Craig (eds.). Ethics for Digital Journalists. New York: Routledge, 2015 .

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Communication Ethics: A Vital Resource in an Ever-Changing World (October 2016): Home

• Early History of Communication Ethics
• Professionalization of Communication Ethics
• Dialogic Ethics—Communication Ethics’ Most Significant Contribution
• Contemporary Scope and Context
• Media Ethics
• Philosophical and Normative Approaches
• Case Studies, Organizational Communication, and Workplaces
• Rhetorical Approaches, the Communication Process, and the Public
• Pedagogy and Teaching
• Works Cited

This bibliographic essay originally appeared in the October 2016 issue of Choice (volume 54  | number 2). 

Introduction

As localities around the globe become increasingly diverse, multicultural questions of how we ought to communicate take on renewed urgency, complexity, and importance. Ethics concerns what one "ought" to do amid competing values in a given situation in a historical context. A key component of ethics deals with communicating our chosen commitments, justifying our actions, and dealing with challenges to our assumptions. Communication ethics concerns itself with the many tools and perspectives that can assist individuals, organizations, and other collectivities in negotiating the promotion of the good in the face of ever-changing historical circumstances.

Communication ethics aims to provide sound justifications for or against particular communication behaviors, choices, messages, and acts. This process can occur on philosophical and theoretical levels to develop moral perspectives from which to examine, evaluate, criticize, and prescribe ethical action. As people make ethical judgments, they are reminded of their impact on what it means to be human, the nature of values and morality, and outcomes on individuals and society. Researchers in communication ethics analyze ethical frameworks, perspectives, communication decisions, and acts to offer a more productive ethical outcome. On the whole, communication ethics examines how, in the absence of a universal ethical perspective in today’s world, we can best coexist amid sometimes incommensurable differences. To fully understand communication ethics as a research field, this bibliographic essay offers a brief history of communication ethics and discusses the scope and some of the important research of the field.

Robert L. Ballard is associate professor of communication at Pepperdine University. Melba Vélez Ortiz is assistant professor at the School of Communications at Grand Valley State University. Leeanne M. Bell McManus is associate professor of business communication at Stevenson University.

• Next: Contents >>
• Last Updated: Jan 18, 2017 2:13 PM
• URL: https://ala-choice.libguides.com/c.php?g=554887

4.2 Ethics in Public Speaking

The study of ethics in human communication is hardly a recent endeavor. One of the earliest discussions of ethics in communication (and particularly in public speaking) was conducted by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus . In the centuries since Plato’s time, an entire subfield within the discipline of human communication has developed to explain and understand communication ethics.

Communication Code of Ethics

In 1999, the National Communication Association officially adopted the Credo for Ethical Communication (see the text box). Ultimately, the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is a set of beliefs communication scholars have about the ethics of human communication.

National Communication Association Credo for Ethical Communication

Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following principles of ethical communication:

• We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.
• We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society.
• We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.
• We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society.
• We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators.
• We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.
• We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
• We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality.
• We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences of our own communication and expect the same of others.

Source: http://www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=134&terms=Credo

Applying the NCA Credo to Public Speaking

The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is designed to inspire discussions of ethics related to all aspects of human communication. For our purposes, we want to think about each of these principles in terms of how they affect public speaking.

We Advocate Truthfulness, Accuracy, Honesty, and Reason as Essential to the Integrity of Communication

As public speakers, one of the first ethical areas we should be concerned with is information honesty. While there are cases where speakers have blatantly lied to an audience, it is more common for speakers to prove a point by exaggerating, omitting facts that weigh against their message, or distorting information. We believe that speakers build a relationship with their audiences, and that lying, exaggerating, or distorting information violates this relationship. Ultimately, a speaker will be more persuasive by using reason and logical arguments supported by facts rather than relying on emotional appeals designed to manipulate the audience.

It is also important to be honest about where all your information comes from in a speech. As speakers, examine your information sources and determine whether they are biased or have hidden agendas. For example, you are not likely to get accurate information about nonwhite individuals from a neo-Nazi website. While you may not know all your sources of information firsthand, you should attempt to find objective sources that do not have an overt or covert agenda that skews the argument you are making.

The second part of information honesty is to fully disclose where we obtain the information in our speeches. As ethical speakers, it is important to always cite your sources of information within the body of a speech. Whether you conducted an interview or read a newspaper article, you must tell your listeners where the information came from. Using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit is called plagiarism . The word “plagiarism” stems from the Latin word plagiaries , or kidnapper. The American Psychological Association states in its publication manual that ethical speakers do not claim “words and ideas of another as their own; they give credit where credit is due” (American Psychological Association, 2001).

In the previous sentence, we placed quotation marks around the sentence to indicate that the words came from the American Psychological Association and not from us. When speaking informally, people sometimes use “air quotes” to signal direct quotations—but this is not a recommended technique in public speaking. Instead, speakers need to verbally tell an audience when they are using someone else’s information. The consequences for failing to cite sources during public speeches can be substantial. When Senator Joseph Biden was running for president of the United States in 1988, reporters found that he had plagiarized portions of his stump speech from British politician Neil Kinnock. Biden was forced to drop out of the race as a result. More recently, the student newspaper at Malone University in Ohio alleged that the university president, Gary W. Streit, had plagiarized material in a public speech. Streit retired abruptly as a result.

Even if you are not running for president of the United States or serving as a college president, citing sources is important to you as a student. Many universities have policies that include dismissal from the institution for student plagiarism of academic work, including public speeches. Our university’s policies regarding Academic Integrity can be found here . Failing to cite your sources might result, at best, in lower credibility with your audience and, at worst, in a failing grade on your assignment or expulsion from your school. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of giving credit to the speakers and authors whose ideas we pass on within our own speeches and writing.

Speakers tend to fall into one of three major traps with plagiarism. The first trap is failing to tell the audience the source of a direct quotation. In the previous paragraph, we used a direct quotation from the American Psychological Association; if we had not used the quotation marks and clearly listed where the cited material came from, you, as a reader, wouldn’t have known the source of that information. To avoid plagiarism, you always need to tell your audience when you are directly quoting information within a speech.

The second plagiarism trap public speakers fall into is paraphrasing what someone else said or wrote without giving credit to the speaker or author. For example, you may have read a book and learned that there are three types of schoolyard bullying. In the middle of your speech you talk about those three types of schoolyard bullying. If you do not tell your audience where you found that information, you are plagiarizing. Typically, the only information you do not need to cite is information that is general knowledge. General knowledge is information that is publicly available and widely known by a large segment of society. For example, you would not need to provide a citation within a speech for the name of Delaware’s capital. Although many people do not know the capital of Delaware without looking it up, this information is publicly available and easily accessible, so assigning credit to one specific source is not useful or necessary.

The third plagiarism trap that speakers fall into is re-citing someone else’s sources within a speech. To explain this problem, let’s look at a brief segment from a research paper written by Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam:

The main character on the hit Fox television show House , Dr. Gregory House, has one basic mantra, “It’s a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what” (Shore & Barclay, 2005). This notion that “everybody lies” is so persistent in the series that t-shirts have been printed with the slogan. Surprisingly, research has shown that most people do lie during interpersonal interactions to some degree. In a study conducted by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead (1975), the researchers had 130 participants record their own conversations with others. After recording these conversations, the participants then examined the truthfulness of the statements within the interactions. Only 38.5% of the statements made during these interactions were labeled as “completely honest.”

In this example, we see that the authors of this paragraph cited information from two external sources: Shore and Barclay and Tummer, Edgley, and Olmstead. These two groups of authors are given credit for their ideas. The authors make it clear that they did not produce the television show House or conduct the study that found that only 38.5 percent of statements were completely honest. Instead, these authors cited information found in two other locations. This type of citation is appropriate.

However, if a speaker read the paragraph and said the following during a speech, it would be plagiarism: “According to Wrench DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam, in a study of 130 participants, only 38.5 percent of the responses were completely honest.” In this case, the speaker is attributing the information cited to the authors of the paragraph, which is not accurate. If you want to cite the information within your speech, you need to read the original article by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead and cite that information yourself.

There are two main reasons we do this. First, Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam may have mistyped the information. Suppose the study by Turner, Edgley, and Olstead really actually found that 58.5 percent of the responses were completely honest. If you cited the revised number (38.5 percent) from the paragraph, you would be further spreading incorrect information.

The second reason we do not re-cite someone else’s sources within our speeches is because it’s intellectually dishonest. You owe your listeners an honest description of where the facts you are relating came from, not just the name of an author who cited those facts. It is more work to trace the original source of a fact or statistic, but by doing that extra work you can avoid this plagiarism trap.

We Endorse Freedom of Expression, Diversity of Perspective, and Tolerance of Dissent to Achieve the Informed and Responsible Decision Making Fundamental to a Civil Society

This ethical principle affirms that a civil society depends on freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent and that informed and responsible decisions can only be made if all members of society are free to express their thoughts and opinions. Further, it holds that diverse viewpoints, including those that disagree with accepted authority, are important for the functioning of a democratic society.

If everyone only listened to one source of information, then we would be easily manipulated and controlled. For this reason, we believe that individuals should be willing to listen to a range of speakers on a given subject. As listeners or consumers of communication, we should realize that this diversity of perspectives enables us to be more fully informed on a subject. Imagine voting in an election after listening only to the campaign speeches of one candidate. The perspective of that candidate would be so narrow that you would have no way to accurately understand and assess the issues at hand or the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing candidates. Unfortunately, some voters do limit themselves to listening only to their candidate of choice and, as a result, base their voting decisions on incomplete—and, not infrequently, inaccurate—information.

Listening to diverse perspectives includes being willing to hear dissenting voices. Dissent is by nature uncomfortable, as it entails expressing opposition to authority, often in very unflattering terms. Legal scholar Steven H. Shiffrin has argued in favor of some symbolic speech (e.g., flag burning) because we as a society value the ability of anyone to express their dissent against the will and ideas of the majority (Shiffrin, 1999). Ethical communicators will be receptive to dissent, no matter how strongly they may disagree with the speaker’s message because they realize that a society that forbids dissent cannot function democratically.

Ultimately, honoring free speech and seeking out a variety of perspectives is very important for all listeners.

We Strive to Understand and Respect Other Communicators before Evaluating and Responding to Their Messages

This is another ethical characteristic that is specifically directed at receivers of a message. As listeners, we often let our perceptions of a speaker’s nonverbal behavior—his or her appearance, posture, mannerisms, eye contact, and so on—determine our opinions about a message before the speaker has said a word. We may also find ourselves judging a speaker based on information we have heard about him or her from other people. Perhaps you have heard from other students that a particular teacher is a really boring lecturer or is really entertaining in class. Even though you do not have personal knowledge, you may prejudge the teacher and his or her message based on information you have been given from others. The NCA credo reminds us that to be ethical listeners, we need to avoid such judgments and instead make an effort to listen respectfully; only when we have understood a speaker’s viewpoint are we ready to begin forming our opinions of the message.

Listeners should try to objectively analyze the content and arguments within a speech before deciding how to respond. Especially when we disagree with a speaker, we might find it difficult to listen to the content of the speech and, instead, work on creating a rebuttal the entire time the speaker is talking. When this happens, we do not strive to understand the speaker and do not respect the speaker.

Of course, this does not just affect the listener in the public speaking situation. As speakers, we are often called upon to evaluate and refute potential arguments against our positions. While we always want our speeches to be as persuasive as possible, we do ourselves and our audiences a disservice when we downplay, distort, or refuse to mention important arguments from the opposing side. Fairly researching and evaluating counterarguments is an important ethical obligation for the public speaker.

We Promote Access to Communication Resources and Opportunities as Necessary to Fulfill Human Potential and Contribute to the Well-Being of Families, Communities, and Society

Human communication is a skill that can and should be taught. We strongly believe that you can become a better, more ethical speaker. One of the reasons the authors of this book teach courses in public speaking and wrote this college textbook on public speaking is that we, as communication professionals, have an ethical obligation to provide others, including students like you, with resources and opportunities to become better speakers.

We Promote Communication Climates of Caring and Mutual Understanding That Respect the Unique Needs and Characteristics of Individual Communicators

Speakers need to take a two-pronged approach when addressing any audience: caring about the audience and understanding the audience. When you as a speaker truly care about your audience’s needs and desires, you avoid setting up a manipulative climate. This is not to say that your audience will always perceive their own needs and desires in the same way you do, but if you make an honest effort to speak to your audience in a way that has their best interests at heart, you are more likely to create persuasive arguments that are not just manipulative appeals.

Second, it is important for a speaker to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding. To do this, you should first learn as much as possible about your audience, a process called audience analysis.

To create a climate of caring and mutual respect, it is important for us as speakers to be open with our audiences so that our intentions and perceptions are clear. Nothing alienates an audience faster than a speaker with a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated purpose of the speech. One of our coauthors once listened to a speaker give a two-hour talk, allegedly about workplace wellness, which actually turned out to be an infomercial for the speaker’s weight-loss program. In this case, the speaker clearly had a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda, which made the audience feel disrespected.

We Condemn Communication That Degrades Individuals and Humanity through Distortion, Intimidation, Coercion, and Violence and through the Expression of Intolerance and Hatred

This ethical principle is very important for all speakers. Hopefully, intimidation, coercion, and violence will not be part of your public speaking experiences, but some public speakers have been known to call for violence and incite mobs of people to commit atrocities. Thus distortion and expressions of intolerance and hatred are of special concern when it comes to public speaking.

Distortion occurs when someone purposefully twists information in a way that detracts from its original meaning. Unfortunately, some speakers take information and use it in a manner that is not in the spirit of the original information. One place we see distortion frequently is in the political context, where politicians cite a statistic or the results of a study and either completely alter the information or use it in a deceptive manner. FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center ( http://www.factcheck.org ), and the St. Petersburg Times’s Politifact ( http://www.politifact.com ) are nonpartisan organizations devoted to analyzing political messages and demonstrating how information has been distorted.

Expressions of intolerance and hatred that are to be avoided include using ageist , heterosexist , racist , sexist , and any other form of speech that demeans or belittles a group of people. Hate speech from all sides of the political spectrum in our society is detrimental to ethical communication. As such, we as speakers should be acutely aware of how an audience may perceive words that could be considered bigoted. For example, suppose a school board official involved in budget negotiations used the word “shekels” to refer to money, which he believes the teachers’ union should be willing to give up (Associated Press, 2011). The remark would be likely to prompt accusations of anti-Semitism and to distract listeners from any constructive suggestions the official might have for resolving budget issues. Although the official might insist that he meant no offense, he damaged the ethical climate of the budget debate by using a word associated with bigotry.

At the same time, it is important for listeners to pay attention to expressions of intolerance or hatred. Extremist speakers sometimes attempt to disguise their true agendas by avoiding bigoted “buzzwords” and using mild-sounding terms instead. For example, a speaker advocating the overthrow of a government might use the term “regime change” instead of “revolution”; similarly, proponents of genocide in various parts of the world have used the term “ethnic cleansing” instead of “extermination.” By listening critically to the gist of a speaker’s message as well as the specific language he or she uses, we can see how that speaker views the world.

We Are Committed to the Courageous Expression of Personal Convictions in Pursuit of Fairness and Justice

We believe that finding and bringing to light situations of inequality and injustice within our society is important. Public speaking has been used throughout history to point out inequality and injustice, from Patrick Henry arguing against the way the English government treated the American colonists and Sojourner Truth describing the evils of slavery to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and Army Lt. Dan Choi’s speeches arguing that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” is unjust. Many social justice movements have started because young public speakers have decided to stand up for what they believe is fair and just.

We Advocate Sharing Information, Opinions, and Feelings When Facing Significant Choices While Also Respecting Privacy and Confidentiality

This ethical principle involves balancing personal disclosure with discretion. It is perfectly normal for speakers to want to share their own personal opinions and feelings about a topic; however, it is also important to highlight information within a speech that represents your own thoughts and feelings. Your listeners have a right to know the difference between facts and personal opinions.

Similarly, we have an obligation to respect others’ privacy and confidentiality when speaking. If information is obtained from printed or publicly distributed material, it’s perfectly appropriate to use that information without getting permission, as long as you cite it. However, when you have a great anecdote one of your friends told you in confidence, or access to information that is not available to the general public, it is best to seek permission before using the information in a speech.

This ethical obligation even has legal implications in many government and corporate contexts. For example, individuals who work for the Central Intelligence Agency are legally precluded from discussing their work in public without prior review by the agency. And companies such as Google also have policies requiring employees to seek permission before engaging in public speaking in which sensitive information might be leaked.

We Accept Responsibility for the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Our Own Communication and Expect the Same of Others

The last statement of NCA’s ethical credo may be the most important one. We live in a society where a speaker’s message can literally be heard around the world in a matter of minutes, thanks to our global communication networks. Extreme remarks made by politicians, media commentators, and celebrities, as well as ordinary people, can unexpectedly “go viral” with regrettable consequences. It is not unusual to see situations where a speaker talks hatefully about a specific group, but when one of the speaker’s listeners violently attacks a member of the group, the speaker insists that he or she had no way of knowing that this could possibly have happened. Washing one’s hands of responsibility is unacceptable: all speakers should accept responsibility for the short-term and long-term consequences of their speeches. Although it is certainly not always the speaker’s fault if someone commits an act of violence, the speaker should take responsibility for her or his role in the situation. This process involves being truly reflective and willing to examine how one’s speech could have tragic consequences.

Furthermore, attempting to persuade a group of people to take any action means you should make sure that you understand the consequences of that action. Whether you are persuading people to vote for a political candidate or just encouraging them to lose weight, you should know what the short-term and long-term consequences of that decision could be. While our predictions of short-term and long-term consequences may not always be right, we have an ethical duty to at least think through the possible consequences of our speeches and the actions we encourage.

Practicing Ethical Public Speaking

Thus far in this section we’ve introduced you to the basics of thinking through the ethics of public speaking. Knowing about ethics is essential, but even more important to being an ethical public speaker is putting that knowledge into practice by thinking through possible ethical pitfalls prior to standing up and speaking out. Below is a list of some examples of unethical public speaking behaviors based on our discussion in this chapter.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author, p. 349.

Associated Press. (2011, May 5). Conn. shekel shellacking. New York Post .

Shiffrin, S. H. (1999). Dissent, injustice and the meanings of America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit

according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law, free speech entails “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” (Freedom of speech)

occurs when someone purposefully twists information in a way that detracts from its original meaning

prejudice or discrimination against a particular age-group and especially the elderly

a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of female–male sexuality and relationships

a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

prejudice or discrimination based on sex

Introduction to Speech Communication Copyright © 2021 by Individual authors retain copyright of their work. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.3 Mass Communication and Ethics

Learning objectives.

• Discuss patterns of ownership and control as they currently exist in the media.
• Explain the relationship between the media and globalization.
• Evaluate the diversity (or lack thereof) of representations in the media and discuss potential effects.
• Employ media-literacy skills to evaluate media messages.

Given the potential for mass communication messages to reach thousands to millions of people, the potential for positive or negative consequences of those messages exceed those of interpersonal, small group, or even public communication messages. Because of this, questions of ethics have to be closely considered when discussing mass communication and the media. In this section, we will discuss how media-ownership regulations, globalization, and representations of diversity tie in with mass communication ethics.

Media Control and Ownership

Media interests and ownership have become more concentrated over the past few decades as a result of deregulation. Deregulation refers to the overturning or revising of policies that were in place to ensure that media outlets serve the interests of the public and include diverse viewpoints, programs, and ownership. Deregulation occurred as a result of the rapid technological changes in the 1980s and 1990s, including the growth of cable and satellite outlets. The argument for deregulation was to make the overall market for network, cable, satellite, and other media outlets more competitive.

Restrictions on the number of radio and/or television stations a single person could own have lessened over the years, allowing individuals to control multiple media outlets.

Gerogeri – radio tower – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Timeline of Changes Made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (Austin, 2011)

• 1954–84. National ownership is limited to seven stations and each station is required to be in a separate geographic market.
• 1984. The FCC expands ownership to twelve stations as long as the number of stations owned doesn’t reach more than 25 percent of the national market
• 1996. The Telecommunications Act eliminates a maximum on number of stations that one person or entity can own, as long as they do not reach more than 35 percent of the national market.
• 2003. Cross-media ownership rules are relaxed, which allows for a person or entity to own both newspaper and broadcast outlets and radio and television outlets. The FCC increases the maximum audience one person or entity can reach to 45 percent of the national market, but Congress intervenes and reduces that to 39 percent.

The pressure to lessen regulations came as media outlets struggled to keep up with increased competition and technological changes and saw mergers and consolidations as a way to save money and keep a competitive edge. Television was one of the first forms of electronic mass media to begin to merge. Companies that you’re familiar with now but probably didn’t know were once separate entities include Time-Warner Cable (formed from the 1989 merger of Time, Inc. and Warner Communications, Inc.). General Electric, a company we may know for making refrigerators and stoves, bought the NBC television network in 1986. These are just two of the many megamergers that have occurred in the past few decades. [1] The merger of these media companies was meant to provide a synergy that could lower costs and produce higher profits by, for example, merging Disney (with its expertise and market share of children’s entertainment) and the broadcast network ABC (with its expertise in television and news).

As computers and the Internet began to enter households, media companies wanted to take advantage of the prospect of providing additional media services under one umbrella. Media convergence refers to the merging of technologies that were previously developed and used separately (Rayner, Wall, & Kruger, 2004). One such convergence that affects many if not most of you reading this book is the creation of broadband Internet access through existing cable lines and the bundling of cable and high-speed Internet services. This marked the beginning of a rush, on the part of media conglomerates, to own the methods of distribution for media messages as a means of then controlling the devices and technology that can be used on them. A recent and well-known example of this was iPhone’s exclusive contract with AT&T. For the first few years that iPhones were on the market, AT&T was the only service provider that worked with the phones. To handle the data load needed to service all the new phones, AT&T had to rush and spend millions of dollars to upgrade its cellular network. These moves help preserve the media conglomerates’ power, because smaller, independent, or competing companies cannot afford the time, resources, and money needed to build a competing or even functional distribution mechanism.

Consolidated media ownership has led to a decrease in localism in terms of local news and local reporters, radio DJs, and editors (Austin, 2011). Since business is handled from a central hub that might be hundreds or thousands of miles away from a market the media outlet serves, many of the media jobs that used to exist in a city or region have disappeared. While media consolidation has led to some structural and cultural changes in the United States, similar forces are at work in the process of globalization.

Media and Globalization

Globalization refers to a complex of interconnecting structural and cultural forces that aid the spread of ideas and technologies and influence the social and economic organization of societies. Just as modernization in the form of industrialization and then later a turn toward an information-based society spread across the globe, so do technologies and the forms of media they create. In all these cases, the spread of ideas, technologies, and media is imbalanced, as we will discuss more later. This type of cultural imperialism is often criticized as being a part of globalization, and scholars acknowledge that cultural imperialism is largely achieved through media messages (Siapera, 2012).

Media imperialism refers to the domination of other countries through exported media and the values and ideologies they contain (Rayner, Wall, & Kruger, 2004). Just as corporations have helped further globalization, media companies have expanded into multinational conglomerates in such a way that allows them to have power and influence that is difficult for individual nations to regulate or control. During the first seventy or so years of electronic mass media, countries could more easily control messages that were sent through cables or other hard structures. For example, telegraph, telephone, and television lines could be cut and even radio television stations that broadcast over the airwaves could be taken offline by cutting the power to the transmitter. As more information became digitized and sent via satellite, countries had much more difficulty limiting what could get in and out of their borders.

Media-fueled cultural imperialism is critiqued because of the concern that the imported cultural images and values will end up destroying or forever changing the cultural identity of the countries being “occupied” by foreign media. The flow of media is predictable and patterned. The cultural values of more-developed Western and Northern countries flow via media messages to the global East and South, mimicking the flow of power that has existed for centuries with the western and northern hemispheres, primarily Europe and the United States, politically and economically dominating countries in the southern and eastern hemispheres such as those in Asia, South America, and Africa. As with any form of imperialism, the poorest countries are the ones who are the most vulnerable and subjected to the most external control (Rayner, Wall, & Kruger, 2004). The reason more-developed countries dominate the media in other countries stems from available resources and knowledge needed to produce and transmit media content. Developing countries lack the same level of infrastructure (such as fiber-optic cables and satellite systems), technical expertise, and technology needed to produce their own content, which makes it cheaper to purchase Western, predominantly US American, content to fuel the growing desire of people in these countries to have access to media. This creates a negative cycle in which poorer countries use what resources they do have to carry Western content, which prevents them from investing in additional organic and local content and creates a demand for more Western content. Critics have also focused on the quality of the content that is exported, which is only representative of a narrow range of Western identities and values. Content tends to be dramatized programs like Baywatch , which at one point was the most-watched television program in the world. Dramas are preferred because humor is more likely to be lost in translation, while viewers can often identify with stock plot lines in dramas, which make the shows easier to translate and attracts a larger audience. The downside to this is that these narrowly chosen shows that run over and over in a specific country contribute to a stereotypical view of what life in the United States is like.

Not all the discussion of and scholarship on globalization and the media is negative. More recently, much research has focused on the notion of cultural hybridity and the ways in which some cultures take in foreign, predominantly Western media messages and representations and integrate them into existing cultural beliefs and practices. For example, one scholar writes about a quartet in Africa that takes European chamber music and incorporates African rhythms and another group that takes American hip-hop music and gives it a more traditional African flair (Rayner, Wall, & Kruger, 2004). Additionally, the emergence of social and personal media allows users in specific countries to generate their own content and adopt and utilize media platforms in their own ways. As we will learn later, social and personal media have been used to overthrow oppressive governments and to increase the flow of information in places where it was once restricted. So, in these cases, we can see that the ability of certain forms of communication to cross borders has led to positive change.

We can even examine the spread of personal media and social media as an example of globalization. Here, rather than a specific message or set of cultural values being distributed around the world, a platform was made available and adopted in a more democratic, less imperialistic way. Social media, unlike more traditional modes of media, bring people together in more self-determined ways. For example, people can connect over the Internet to a blogger with a shared interest and interact with one another via comments or other means.

Media and Representation

Another area of concern for those who study mass media is the representation of diversity (or lack thereof) in media messages. The FCC has identified program, ownership, and viewpoint diversity as important elements of a balanced mass media that serves the public good (Austin, 2011). This view was enforced through the Fairness Doctrine that was established in 1949 and lasted until the early 1980s when it began to be questioned by those in favor of media deregulation. The Fairness Doctrine was eventually overturned in 1987, but the FCC tried in 2003 to reinstate policies that encourage minority ownership of media outlets, which they hoped in turn would lead to more diverse programming. It remains to be seen whether or not minority-owned media outlets will produce or carry more diverse programming, but it is important to note that the deregulation over the past few decades has led to a decrease in the number of owners of media outlets who come from minority groups.

Scholars have raised concerns about the number of characters from minority groups on television relative to the groups’ percentage of the population. Perhaps even more concerning is the type of characters that actors from minority groups play and the types of shows on which they appear. Whether we want them to be or not, the people we see featured in media messages, especially those who appear frequently on television, in movies, in magazines, or in some combination of the three, serve as role models for many that view them. These people help set the tone for standards of behavior, beauty, and intelligence, among other things. Social learning theory claims that media portrayals influence our development of schemata or scripts, especially as children, about different groups of people (Signorielli, 2009). For example, a person who grows up in a relatively homogenous white, middle-class environment can develop schemata about African Americans and Latina/os based on how they are depicted in media messages. Cultivation theory, which we discussed earlier, also supports the notion that media representations affect our perceptions and actions. Since media messages, overall, are patterned representations, they cultivate within users a common worldview from the seeds that are planted by a relatively narrow set of content. For example, people in television shows are disproportionately portrayed as middle-class professionals. In reality, about 67 percent of people working in the United States have blue-collar or service-industry jobs, but they only make up about 10 percent of the people on television (Griffin, 2009).

Even though the majority of workers in the United States classify as blue-collar or service workers, they only make up about 10 percent of the people on television.

Brian Statler – Blue Collar Project – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

African Americans, Latina/os, and women are underrepresented in television, and people over the age of sixty-five are the most-excluded group (Griffin, 2009). Studies show that there is less diversity in mediated messages relative to the population as a whole and that the images and messages in the media contain certain themes that rely on stereotypes and further reduce the complexity of our society. Over time, these recurring images and messages affect what we think and how we view the world. In particular, research based on social learning and cultivation theories find that people who watch more television have views that reflect what they see in the programming they watch.

Looking specifically at television, representations of African Americans on prime-time shows (those that air between 7 and 11 p.m.) are actually proportional to their percentage of the population. Whites, however, are overrepresented, meaning there is a larger percentage of white people on prime-time shows than there is in our actual population. This disparity can be accounted for by pointing out that Latina/o, Native, and Asian Americans, as well as African American females, are underrepresented if not invisible in much of the media (Signorielli, 2009). For example, a study of minority characters on prime-time television between 2001 and 2008 found that Latina/os make up 5 percent of the characters despite being 16 percent of the population.

As the number of minority-focused programs, especially sitcoms, has decreased in the past ten years, minority characters have diffused more into other shows. While this integration is positive in some ways, there are still many examples of shows on which a minority character is the lone person of color or gay or lesbian person. From the view of social learning and cultivation theory, this is problematic, since many people, especially children, may form their early perceptions of difference based on interactions with characters in media messages. So unless viewers intentionally seek out diverse programming, they will likely mostly see people with dominant identities represented in the media they consume (Signorielli, 2009).

Unfortunately, there has been a similar lack of diversity found among new media. In a first-of-its-kind study of gender representation in online news sources, the Global Media Monitoring Project found after analyzing news stories on seventy-six websites in sixteen countries that only 36 percent of the stories were reported by women, and women were the focus of only 23 percent of all the stories written (Global Media Monitoring Project, 2012). Another look at popular, blog-style news sites such as The Huffington Post , The Daily Beast , Slate , and Salon found that representations of minorities conformed to stereotypes. For example, African Americans were featured primarily in stories about athletics, Latino/as appeared in stories about immigration, and Native and Asian Americans were absent (Jackson, 2012). Even when a major source for online information like The Huffington Post tries to include more diverse viewpoints, it does so under criticism. The website decided to add a section focused on information and news of interest to African Americans after adding twenty-six other sections ranging from information on travel to divorce. Although the editor of the section wanted to have a nuanced discussion about race, many of her ideas were discounted because they were not “buzzy enough,” meaning they might not attract enough readers. So instead of starting a dialogue about race, most of the stories featured on the first day were more “buzz worthy” and, ironically, written by white reporters (Jackson, 2012).

Some people who study and/or work in the media view media diversity as a means of expanding public dialogue, creating a more-informed citizenry, and enhancing our democracy through positive social change. Some online news sources have taken up such a call, but they fall short of the popularity or profitability of more mainstream news outlets. The online investigative news outlet ProPublica has received positive attention and awards for their coverage of a wide range of issues, including stories that focus on underrepresented communities. [2] The advent of new and personal media makes it easier for individuals and independent rather than corporate-owned media outlets to take advantage of new technologies and platforms to produce quality media products on a budget. As consumers of media, we can also keep a critical eye open for issues of representation and seek out media that is more inclusive and diverse. This type of evaluative and deliberate thinking about the media is an important part of media literacy, which we will discuss next.

Developing Media Literacy

Media literacy involves our ability to critique and analyze the potential impact of the media. The word literacy refers to our ability to read and comprehend written language, but just as we need literacy to be able to read, write, and function in our society, we also need to be able to read media messages. To be media literate, we must develop a particular skill set that is unfortunately not taught in a systematic way like reading and writing. The quest to make a more media-literate society is not new. You may be surprised, as I was, to learn that the media-literacy movement began in the 1930s when a chapter of the American Association of University Women in Madison, Wisconsin, created a newspaper column and a radio program called “Broadcast on Broadcasts” that reviewed and evaluated current media messages and practices (Dunlop, & Kymnes, 2007). Despite the fact that this movement has been around for eighty years now, many people still don’t know about it.

Media literacy isn’t meant to censor or blame the media, nor does it advocate for us to limit or change our engagement with the media in any particular way. Instead, media literacy ties in with critical thinking and listening, which we have learned about throughout this book already. Media-literacy skills are important because media outlets are “culture makers,” meaning they reflect much of current society but also reshape and influence sociocultural reality and real-life practices. Some may mistakenly believe that frequent exposure to media or that growing up in a media-saturated environment leads to media literacy. Knowing how to use technology to find and use media is different from knowing how to analyze it. Like other critical thinking skills, media literacy doesn’t just develop; it must be taught, learned, practiced, and reflected on.

Media-literacy skills teach us to analyze the media and to realize the following: [3]

• All media messages are constructed (even “objective” news stories are filmed, edited, and introduced in ways that frame and influence their meaning).
• Media structures and policies affect message construction (which means we need to also learn about how media ownership and distribution function in our society—a growing concern that we discussed earlier in this section).
• Each medium has different characteristics and affects messages differently (e.g., a story presented on The Colbert Report will likely be less complete and more dramatized than a story presented on a blog focused on that topic).
• Media messages are constructed for particular purposes (many messages are constructed to gain profit or power, some messages promote change, and some try to maintain the status quo).
• All media messages are embedded with values and beliefs (the myth of objectivity helps mask the underlying bias or misrepresentation in some messages).
• Media messages influence our beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors, including how we perceive and interact with others and how we participate in larger society.
• Media messages can prevent change (intentionally presenting manipulated or selectively chosen content to inhibit change).

We learn much through the media that we do not have direct experience with, and communication and media scholars theorize that we tend to believe media portrayals are accurate representations of life. However, the media represents race, gender, sexuality, ability, and other cultural identities in biased and stereotypical ways that often favor dominant identities (Allen, 2011). Since the media influences our beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about difference, it is important to be able to critically evaluate the mediated messages that we receive. The goal of media literacy is not to teach you what to think but to teach you how you can engage with, interpret, and evaluate media in a more informed manner. Media literacy is also reflective in that we are asked to be accountable for those choices we make in regards to media by reflecting on and being prepared to articulate how those choices fit in with our own belief and value systems.

There are some standard questions that you can ask yourself to help you get started in your media criticism and analysis. There are no “true” or “right/wrong” answers to many of the questions we ask during the critical thinking process. Engaging in media literacy is more about expanding our understanding and perspective rather than arriving at definitive answers. The following questions will help you hone your media-literacy skills (Allen, 2011):

• Who created this message? What did they hope to accomplish? What are their primary belief systems?
• What is my interpretation of this message? How and why might different people understand this message differently than me? What can I learn about myself based on my interpretation and how it may differ from others’?
• What lifestyles, values, and points of view are represented or omitted in this message? What does this tell me about how other people live and believe? Does this message leave anything or anyone out?
• Why was this message sent? Who sent it? Is it trying to tell me something? To sell me something?

After asking these questions, media-literate people should be able to use well-reasoned arguments and evidence (not just opinion) to support their evaluations. People with media-literacy skills also know that their evaluations may not be definitive. Although this may seem like a place of uncertainty, media-literate people actually have more control over how they interact with media messages, which allows them to use media to their advantage, whether that is to become better informed or to just enjoy their media experience.

Key Takeaways

• Media control and ownership has been deregulated over the past few decades, which has led to increased consolidation and merging of media outlets.
• The media aids globalization by exporting Western beliefs and values to other countries. This trend in exporting has been termed media imperialism, since Western media tend to dominate in many countries. Certain stereotypes about the West, particularly the United States, are maintained through the narrow range of messages that are exported. Other countries do not just passively receive Western media messages, however. Some messages are reinterpreted by the local culture, creating hybrid media texts.
• Deregulation has contributed to lack of media outlet ownership by minorities. Additionally, representation of most minority groups in media messages is not proportional to their numbers in the actual population. When minorities are included in media messages, it is often in stereotypical ways. Social learning theory states that these representations are important because they influence the schemata we develop about other groups of people, which points to how these distorted representations can actually influence how people think and act in their real lives.
• Media-literacy skills allow us to critique and analyze the potential effects of media. Media-literate people ask critical questions about all the media messages they receive, not just the ones with which they disagree. Doing so leads people to be more accountable for their media choices and to have more control over the role that media plays in their lives.
• Visit the FCC’s webpage to view its mission: http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do . Based on what you read there, how do you think the FCC is doing?
• As we learned, many of the media messages that are exported from the United States to other countries end up supporting narrow stereotypes about US Americans. What media messages do you think would be better to export in order to allow other countries to see a more “accurate” picture of American life? Try to think of several examples of television programs, movies, websites, and so on.
• Think about the diversity in some of the shows that you watch. Before doing any research, write down the different cultural identities that you think are represented in a couple of your favorite shows or movies. Then go and actually research the show or movie (look up the cast online, etc.) to see if your perceptions matched up with reality. Are the shows diverse? Why or why not? If there are minority characters, are they portrayed in stereotypical or narrow ways?

Allen, B. J., Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity , 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 29, 34.

Austin, C., “Overwhelmed by Big Consolidation: Bringing Back Regulation to Increase Diversity in Programming That Serves Minority Audiences,” Federal Communications Law Journal 63, no. 3 (2011): 746–48.

Dunlop, J., and Angel Kymnes, “Analysis of Media Literacy Curriculum: The Center for Media Literacy’s Media Kit,” Smile 7, no. 3 (2007), 3.

Jackson, J., “New Media—but Familiar Lack of Diversity,” Extra! , June 2012, accessed September 20, 2012, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4551 .

Global Media Monitoring Project, 2010, “Who Makes the News?” accessed November 11, 2012, http://whomakesthenews.org/images/stories/restricted/highlights/highlights_en.pdf .

Griffin, E., A First Look at Communication Theory , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 351.

Rayner, P., Peter Wall, and Stephen Kruger, Media Studies: The Essential Resource (London: Routledge, 2004), 249.

Siapera, E., Understanding New Media (London: Sage, 2012), 23–26.

Signorielli, N., “Minorities Representation in Prime Time: 2000–2008,” Communication Research Reports 26, no. 4 (2009): 324.

• “Media Mega Mergers: A Timeline,” Common Cause: Holding Power Accountable , accessed September 20, 2012, http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4923181 . ↵
• “About Us,” ProPublica: Journalism in the Public Interest , accessed September 20, 2012, http://www.propublica.org/about . ↵
• “Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States,” National Association for Media Literacy Education , accessed September 20, 2012, http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLE-CPMLE-w-questions2.pdf . ↵

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Ethical Communication and Its Importance: A Simple Guide

• LHT Learning
• May 5, 2022

The Importance of Ethical Communication

Ethical communication is essential for upholding a strong culture of compliance in the workplace. When done correctly, ethical communications can bolster your company’s character and decrease overall risk. However, when ethics are cast aside, businesses can face severe financial, legal, and reputational costs.

What Is Ethical Communication?

Put simply, ethical communication is communicating in a way that’s honest, open, clear, and respectful. These four pillars are essential for upholding strong communication ethics within your business. When even one pillar is left out, your foundation of ethics begins to weaken and crumble. 

It may seem obvious, but don’t lie! Not only is it unethical, but spreading lies is the #1 way for your business to lose the trust of its customers and stakeholders. Without trust, your reputation will suffer, and  customers are likely to stop buying from you . To ensure your communications are consistently honest, stick to the facts. Stretching the truth, making assumptions, and reading between the lines will only hurt your business in the long run.

Aside from confidential information, there’s usually no such thing as TMI in business. You need to pair your honesty with a willingness to share in order to be truly ethical. For example, a business may communicate in a way that’s technically 100% honest, but omits relevant information from customers and stakeholders. Because the withheld information has the potential to influence decision-making, the company is not practicing good communication ethics. Company’s need to be transparent about every relevant aspect of their business, even if the news is negative.

In many cases, misconduct isn’t born out of malicious intent, but misunderstanding. After all, it only takes one poorly worded document or passing comment to create a chain of confusion that spirals into misconduct. Because every person in your target audience must be able to understand your meaning, your business communications need to be as clear and concise as possible. 

It should go without saying that ethical communications are respectful and tolerant in nature. When creating business communications, be mindful of the diverse identities of your intended audience and how they might interpret your message. The recipient should always feel like your company values their identity, ideas, and opinions. Using respectful communication will help promote a culture of open communication, decreasing potential retaliation and reporting concerns.

Dos and Don’ts of Ethical Communication

Even the smallest of communications can have a big impact on your workplace’s ethical culture. Knowing what to consider and what to avoid is essential when crafting your business communications.

Do: Consider Your Audience

Who is going to be on the receiving end of your communications? Your boss? Coworkers? Customers? Depending on who your message is intended for, your communication style will likely vary. In order to make your message as clear and relevant as possible, always keep your intended audience front of mind. Considering your recipient’s needs, knowledge level, and relationship to you will help eliminate any uncertainty or unintended interpretations. 

Don’t: Use Jargon

Some businesses might be tempted to use wordy language and jargon to impress their audience. However, don’t fall into the trap of “sesquipedalian loquaciousness” (AKA using big words to appear smarter). In fact, studies show that needlessly using long, complex words actually makes you appear less intelligent . The most likely outcome is that recipients simply won’t understand what you’re trying to say. Ultimately, this leads them to wonder if you’re intentionally misleading them and calls your business ethics into question.

Do: Prioritize Accessibility

Your speaking and writing efforts are only as good as your ability to share them with your audience. Prioritizing accessibility across language, technology, and ability shows your business is dedicated to including all people in its communications.

Language Accessibility

The world is made up of over 7,000 different languages. While it would be impossible (and unnecessary) for your business to include every single one, you should make an effort to communicate in the language of your intended audience. When communicating directly in the target language isn’t an option, offering translation services or subtitles is another best-practice way to ensure your audience understands the message. For example, a global company should offer multiple language options in its eLearning training courses to ensure employees across the world understand its content.

Technology Accessibility

Despite the rapid advancement of technology, not everyone can access the internet or the equipment to do so reliably. Some audiences may have access to technology, but a limited understanding of its functionality. Businesses should consider what modes of communication their intended audience typically uses and make an effort to communicate across those channels. Not only is this a way to communicate ethically, but it’s an effective marketing strategy to meet customers where they’re at, even if it’s not in the digital realm. Companies can also use print resources and in-person training sessions to help bridge the technology gap among employees.

Disability Accessibility

Imagine your company is preparing a video presentation for a client. After you press play, you notice your client can’t understand its contents because she is hard of hearing and the video was not embedded with subtitles. This is a major and embarrassing oversight for the company that could have been resolved by better preparing the communication materials. Before deploying your communications, consider how people with disabilities might interact with them. Additionally, because many disabilities are invisible to the eye or undisclosed to the public, never assume that your materials aren’t in need of more work. It’s always a good practice to see how your company can improve its accessibility efforts.

Don’t: Betray Customer Privacy

Your clients and customers are trusting your company with their personal information, which you have an ethical duty to protect. However, before they hand over any information, customers need to feel reassured their data will be secure in your business’ hands. Ironically, the best way to protect sensitive data is by being frank and transparent. Be direct with your customers about what data you are collecting from them and why via a clear privacy policy. Most importantly, obtain explicit permission from your customers before collecting and give them options to opt-out of receiving business communications. Once you’ve obtained customer data, properly protect it in a secure network with limited employee access. Only collect and share the minimum amount of information necessary in order to minimize the potential for a data breach. Ultimately, protecting confidentiality and following transparent business practices is a balancing act that all businesses must master.

Do: Take Responsibility for Company Actions

At the end of the day, your business has a moral duty to practice ethical communication by standing up for what is right. That means stopping conversations that are heading toward a potentially non-compliant place and speaking up when you do witness misconduct. Taking responsibility can also go a long way to help your business rebuild trust after it’s been shattered. Following up with clear explanations of the company’s actions and committing to fixing the problem are also essential for holding your business accountable and mending relationships.

The Impact of Ethical Communication

Practicing ethical communication will help you build a foundation of trust in your business. Not only is practicing ethics the right thing to do — it’s profitable . The most ethical and just companies in America consistently outperform their competitors, usually by one to four stock percentage points. By standing to gain both a strong reputation and strong profit margins, your company has double the incentive to pay attention to ethical communication. 

Want to learn more about communication ethics in practice? Check out our  ethical communication training solutions  or read our case study on the impact of unethical communication practices.

Recent Posts

Winner! LHT Learning Taking Home Two Brandon Hall Awards 

You Need a Compliance Training Roadmap. Here’s Why.

Interactive PDFs in eLearning: When, Why, and How to Use Them

• How to Manage Scientific and Commercial Interactions
• Why Successful Companies Invest in OT Cybersecurity Training
• Audio and Video
• Client Stories
• Compliance Training
• Effective Training Techniques
• Emerging Technology
• Gamification
• ILT and VILT
• Measurement and Analytics
• Mobile Learning
• Remote Work
• Staff Augmentation
• Strategy and Consulting
• Video Audio and Animation
• Why Choose LHT

You know you want to connect your business ideas to employee action but don’t know how. LHT Learning delivers WOW through innovative learning solutions that drive measurable results.

KNOWLEDGE CENTER

About Careers

LATEST POSTS

How Does your Learning Staff Stack Up?

Six Benefits of Learning Analytics

Four Ways Compliance Guidance Becomes Business Reality

Ranked as one of the top custom eLearning providers in the world by  Learning Light.

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Privacy Overview

Ethics in Business Communication: Examples, Types & Importance

Table of Contents

In today’s highly competitive business environment, it is more important than ever for companies to communicate ethically and transparently with their stakeholders.

Effective communication is the cornerstone of successful business relationships, but when ethical considerations are ignored, resulting in unethical communication in business, the consequences can be damaging to both the company and its stakeholders.

In this blog, we will explore what is ethics in communication in addition to key principles and real-world examples of ethical communication practices

Introduction of Ethics in business communication

Ethics in business communication refers to the principles and values that guide individuals and organizations in communicating in an honest, transparent, and responsible manner. 

Business communication is a critical component of organizational success, and ethical communication practices are essential to building and maintaining trust with stakeholders such as customers, employees, partners, and the public.

What is ethics in business communication?  

Ethics in business communication are a set of standards that govern the behavior of individuals and organizations in their interactions with stakeholders through various forms of communication, such as email, memos, reports, presentations, advertising, and sales letter in business communication . 

It includes avoiding misleading or deceptive marketing tactics , being truthful in advertising and public relations efforts, and respecting the privacy and confidentiality of customer and employee information. 

 Additionally, ethical communication in business requires a commitment to truthfulness, confidentiality, and avoiding manipulative practices. Adhering to ethical standards in business communication helps to build trust, credibility, reputation, and long-term relationships with stakeholders. This ultimately contributes to the success and sustainability of the organization.

Types of Ethics in business communication

Below are just a few examples of the types of ethics that can guide business communication. It’s important for businesses to develop a strong ethical framework that encompasses all of these types of ethics in order to communicate effectively and ethically with all stakeholders.

1/ Professional Ethics: These are the ethical principles and standards that guide professional conduct in a particular industry or profession, such as journalism, public relations, or marketing.

2/ Corporate Ethics: This refers to the values and principles that guide the behavior of a company as a whole, including its communication practices. Corporate ethics might involve a commitment to transparency, accountability, and social responsibility.

3/ Social Ethics: This refers to the ethical principles that govern how a company interacts with society at large, including its customers, employees, and the broader community. Social ethics might involve treating all stakeholders fairly and with respect, avoiding harmful practices.

4/ Personal Ethics: This refers to the values and principles that guide an individual’s behavior in the workplace, including their communication practices. Personal ethics might involve a commitment to honesty, integrity, and treating others with respect.

5/ Cultural Ethics: This refers to the ethical principles that guide how a company communicates with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. Cultural ethics might involve being sensitive to cultural differences, avoiding stereotypes or prejudices , and respecting the beliefs and values of others.

Role of Ethics in business communication 

Ethics plays a crucial role in business communication in several ways:

• Builds trust: Ethics in business helps to build trust between businesses and their stakeholders. When businesses communicate honestly, transparently, and respectfully, they demonstrate a commitment to integrity and build a reputation for trustworthiness.
• Maintains reputation: Ethical communication helps to maintain a positive reputation for the business. By communicating in an ethical and responsible way, businesses can avoid negative publicity, damage to their brand, and potential legal or regulatory issues.
• Enhances credibility: Ethical communication enhances the credibility of the business. When businesses communicate ethically and transparently, they demonstrate their commitment to accountability and responsibility, which can increase the credibility of their communication efforts.
• Foster’s employee morale: Ethical communication can also foster employee morale by creating a positive work environment based on trust and respect. When employees see that the business is committed to ethical behavior, they are more likely to feel valued and respected in their work.
• Ensures legal compliance: Ethical communication also helps to ensure that the business complies with legal and regulatory requirements. By communicating in an ethical and responsible way, businesses can avoid potential legal or regulatory issues and maintain compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Overall, ethics plays a vital role in business communication and its process by promoting trust, credibility, and responsibility, which are essential for building positive relationships with stakeholders and maintaining a strong reputation in the market.

Ethics in business communication examples 

Some real examples of companies that follow ethics in business communication:

1/ Starbucks: Starbucks is committed to ethical business communication in several ways, including its commitment to fair trade coffee, its efforts to reduce waste and promote sustainability, and its commitment to diversity and inclusion in its workforce. They regularly communicate with their customers about their efforts to promote these values and to be a responsible corporate citizen.

2/ Zappos: Zappos, an online shoe and clothing retailer, is committed to ethical communication with its customers. They are known for their exceptional customer service, which includes clear and transparent communication about their products, policies, and practices. They are also committed to being transparent about their pricing and shipping policies, which helps to build trust and loyalty with their customers.

3/ Airbnb: In 2020, Airbnb faced criticism for its handling of refunds and cancellations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company responded by communicating more openly and transparently with its customers, including offering full refunds to guests who had to cancel due to COVID-19 restrictions.

7 Principles of Ethics in business communication 

The following seven principles can ensure businesses that their communication efforts are ethical, responsible, and aligned with the broader values and principles of the organization.

1/ Honesty: Honesty means communicating truthfully and transparently in all communication efforts. This principle emphasizes the importance of avoiding deception, misrepresentation, and false claims in marketing, advertising, and public relations. Prioritizing honesty in business builds trust with stakeholders, which is crucial for sustaining positive relationships and reputations.

2/ Integrity: Integrity means upholding ethical values and principles in all communication efforts. The principle of integrity emphasizes the significance of doing the right thing, even when it may be challenging. When businesses prioritize integrity, they display their dedication to ethical conduct, thereby building trust with their stakeholders.

3/ Respect: Respect means treating all stakeholders with dignity and courtesy in business communication interactions. This principle emphasizes the importance of cultural sensitivity, inclusivity, and diversity in business communication. Businesses that prioritize respect promote a positive workplace culture, attract a diverse customer base, and build trust with stakeholders.

4/ Fairness: Fairness means treating all stakeholders equitably and without bias in all communication interactions. This principle emphasizes the importance of avoiding discrimination, exploitation, or any unfair treatment of stakeholders. Businesses that prioritize fairness build trust with stakeholders, promote a positive workplace culture, and improve their reputation.

5/ Responsibility: Responsibility means taking ownership of one’s actions and being accountable for the consequences of communication efforts. This principle emphasizes the importance of considering the impact of communication on all stakeholders, including the environment and society. Prioritizing responsibility in business not only builds trust with stakeholders but also displays a dedication to ethical conduct, thus enhancing their reputation.

6/ Confidentiality: Confidentiality means respecting the privacy and confidentiality of customer and employee information. This principle emphasizes the importance of protecting sensitive information and maintaining trust with stakeholders. Businesses that prioritize confidentiality demonstrate a commitment to protecting stakeholders’ privacy and maintaining their trust.

7/ Compliance: Compliance means adhering to legal and regulatory requirements in all communication efforts. This principle emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all communication is ethical, legal, and responsible. Businesses that prioritize compliance avoid legal and regulatory penalties, build trust with stakeholders, and improve their reputation.

Importance of Ethics in business communication

Ethical business communication involves being honest, transparent, and respectful in all communications, while also considering the impact of communication on stakeholders and society as a whole. 

By adhering to ethical principles in business communication, businesses can demonstrate a commitment to doing what is right, which can help them establish a positive reputation. Ultimately, businesses that prioritize ethical communication observe the following signs in their business: 

• Promotes Positive Workplace Culture: Ethical business communication promotes a positive workplace culture. When businesses treat employees with respect and fairness, they create a work environment that values ethical behavior and fosters trust, respect, and cooperation among colleagues.
• Enhances Customer Loyalty: Ethical business communication enhances customer loyalty. When businesses communicate honestly and transparently, they build trust with customers, which can lead to increased loyalty and repeat business.
• Mitigates Risk: Ethical business communication mitigates risk by helping businesses avoid legal and regulatory penalties , and damage to their reputation. By adhering to ethical principles, businesses can minimize the risk of negative consequences resulting from unethical communication practices.
• Improves Decision-Making: Ethical business communication improves decision-making by encouraging businesses to consider the impact of their communication on stakeholders, including the environment and society. By doing so, businesses can make well-informed decisions that take into account the long-term effects of their communication strategies.
• Enhances Financial Performance: Ethical business communication can enhance financial performance by improving the reputation of the business and building trust with stakeholders. This can lead to increased customer loyalty, higher employee productivity and retention, and improved investor confidence.

Ethical issues in business communication 

J.O. Cherrington and D. J. Cherrington identified twelve specific ethical issues that most organizations will face. These twelve ethical issues are

1/ Conflicts of interest: This ethical issue arises when an employee or organization has a competing interest that may interfere with their ability to act in the best interests of the company or its stakeholders. For example, an employee who owns stock in a competing company may be motivated to act in the interests of the competitor rather than their own employer.

2/ Misuse of organizational resources: This ethical issue occurs when an employee or organization uses company resources, such as equipment or time, for personal gain or non-work-related activities. For example, an employee who uses their company computer to conduct personal business during work hours.

3/ Abusive or intimidating behavior: This ethical issue involves behaviors that are aggressive or intimidating towards other employees or stakeholders. Examples of abusive behavior include bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

4/ Misuse of confidential information: This ethical issue arises when an employee or organization fails to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information, such as personal data or trade secrets. For example, an employee who shares confidential information with a competitor for personal gain.

5/ Bribery or kickbacks: This ethical issue involves offering or accepting bribes or kickbacks in exchange for personal gain. Examples of bribery and kickbacks include accepting gifts in exchange for awarding a contract to a vendor or offering money to a government official to expedite a permit application.

6/ Financial misconduct: This ethical issue involves fraudulent or unethical financial practices, such as embezzlement or insider trading. For example, an employee who misuses company funds for personal gain or an executive who uses insider information to profit in the stock market.

7/ Discrimination: This ethical issue involves treating employees or stakeholders unfairly based on factors such as race, gender, age, or religion. Examples of discrimination include denying job opportunities or promotions based on these factors.

8/ Harassment: This ethical issue involves unwanted or unwelcome behavior, such as sexual harassment or workplace bullying. Instances of harassment comprise unwanted physical contact, verbal abuse, or threats.

9/ Environmental damage: This ethical issue arises when an organization’s activities harm the environment, such as through pollution or the destruction of natural habitats. For example, a manufacturing company releases harmful chemicals into the air or water.

10/ Deception and dishonesty: This ethical issue involves misleading or deceiving stakeholders through false information or misrepresentation. Examples of deception and dishonesty include false advertising, misrepresenting product features, or falsifying data.

11/ Product safety and quality: This ethical issue involves ensuring that products are safe and of high quality for consumers. Examples of product safety and quality issues include manufacturing defects that could harm consumers or failing to disclose potential risks or side effects of a product.

12/ Corporate social responsibility: This ethical concern relates to an organization’s obligation to act in the best interest of society and the environment, rather than solely focusing on financial gain. Examples of corporate social responsibility include charitable giving, environmental sustainability initiatives, and fair labor practices.

What purpose do ethical and legal issues in business communication serve? 

Ethical and legal issues are critical components of business communication as they serve several essential purposes. One of the primary purposes of ethical and legal standards is to protect the interests of stakeholders, including employees, customers, shareholders, and the general public

Moreover, ethical and legal issues also play a crucial role in establishing trust and credibility for businesses. Organizations that operate within the boundaries of the law and uphold high ethical standards are more likely to be trusted and respected by their stakeholders. In contrast, businesses that engage in unethical or illegal practices risk damaging their reputation and eroding trust with their stakeholders.

Therefore, businesses that prioritize ethical and legal considerations in their communication strategies are more likely to attain long-term success and sustainability.

How do the 7C’s of ethical communication lead to effective business and organization communication? 

When crafting a business message, it is important to keep in mind the objectives of a good business message . The 7 C’s of ethical communication – completeness, conciseness, clarity, consideration, concreteness, courtesy, and correctness – provide a set of guidelines that help ensure that a business message is effective while also upholding ethical standards.

By adhering to these principles, businesses can create messages that are not only clear and concise but also respectful, truthful, and empathetic toward the receiver. This, in turn, helps to achieve the objectives of a good business message, which are to convey information clearly and effectively while also promoting the organization’s goals.

Would Habermasian theory on discourse ethics be applicable to business communication?  

Habermasian theory on discourse ethics can be applied to business communication. Habermas’s discourse ethics proposes that ethical decision-making should be based on communicative action, which involves free and open dialogue among all affected parties. This approach emphasizes the importance of mutual understanding, respect, and equal participation in the decision-making process.

In the context of business communication, discourse ethics can be applied in several ways. For instance, when making decisions that impact stakeholders, businesses can engage in open and transparent communication to ensure that all affected parties are heard and understood. 

Moreover, discourse ethics can also be applied in the context of organizational culture. By fostering a culture of open and respectful communication, businesses can create an environment where ethical decision-making is prioritized, and employees are encouraged to speak up about ethical concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions: 

Q1: what are the 5 ethics of communication.

Ans: The five ethics of communication are honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect, and integrity. These ethics serve as a foundation for effective communication, as they promote trust, transparency, and accountability in all forms of communication.

Q3: What are the 4 principles of ethical communication?

Share your read share this content.

• Opens in a new window

Aditya Soni

You might also like.

20 Essential Objectives of Business Communication

What is Upward Communication: Examples, Objectives & Methods

What is Non-Verbal Communication: Examples, Types & Importance

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.