- Email: [email protected]
Conversations on communication ethics
Public Relations
Review
Noonan explains that in her speeches she attempted to “break down walls,” to “include people.” She criticizes speechwriters today for underestimating the public’s intelligence and for paying too much attention to soundbites, and not enough to speeches as a whole. Noonan is most passionate when discussing how speeches were made in the Reagan White House. “Speechwriting was where the administration got invented every day,” Noonan observed, where the administration worked out its “philosophical, ideological, and political tensions.” She describes with disgust the staffing process, in which different officials in the administration suggested changes, additions, and deletions for each oration. For an important speech, up to 50 people would review the text. During Reagan’s first term, Richard Darman made the final decisions about changes, and she believed he did an outstanding job. She attributes the diminution of the rhetoric in Reagan’s second term to the Reagan aide who replaced Darman and who, wishing to please the various staff members, included more and more of their suggestions. As Noonan observes, “Speeches in the staffing process were always in danger of becoming lowestcommon-denominator art.” Noonan describes, in detail, some of the battles she waged with the State Department and the NSC over her speeches. Also, for her most noted speeches, Noonan explains section by section the choices she made and what she tried to accomplish. She concludes her comments on presidential speechwriting by predicting that America is entering an “anthirhetorical age” in which Bush’s quiet deeds will replace Reagan’s high rhetoric. Noonan offers a witty, perceptive analysis of the process of presidential speechwriting in the Reagan administration and the powerful players who tried to mold Reagan’s rhetoric. She makes numerous suggestions about how to compose a speech and illustrates her remarks with examples from her speeches. Not only does Noonan’s book give one a greater appreciation for Noonan and the speechwriting staff who “invented” the Reagan administration each day and significantly contributed to Reagan’s image as the Great Communicator, it also offers a wealth of sound advice about crafting messages for the public which speechwriters will find informative and interesting. James Kauffman Assistant Professor Indiana University
Southeast Karen
Joy Greenberg,
Editor
Conversations On Conanwnication Norwood, pp., cloth
communication the case.
416
NJ, Ablex Publishing price, $32.50.
Ethics Corporation,
One hates to admit that a preconception ethics as having been born out of its time turns
208
of this book on out indeed to be
Vol. 17, No. 4
Book Reaims
It is an unfortunate fact that an already abstract, pedantic work is made to seem all the more academic as the trend in contemporary American mores continues to tend away from the classical verities toward the personal, highly subjective, situational view of what constitutes ethical behavior. After all, “it’s okay as long as it feels right . . .” Bight? And Bight! That’s where we are, isn’t it, and that’s where we’re willing to be, a relative few blue noses to the contrary. To be sure, the book escapes being quite as pedantic as it otherwise might seem because its foreword positions the work as a “collection of voices, not a coherent pronouncement of dogma.” (The book) “raises more questions than it answers,” writes Professor J. Vernon Jensen, of the University of Minnesota, in the foreword, “and leaves us with the tasks of synthesizing, reconciling, deciding, and acting. But that is what a good conversation should do,” he adds somewhat defensively. But what the heck, the reader might say, at this early stage into the book, let’s go along and take them at their word. Unfortunately much of the book is dull “conversation.” Certainly unnecessarily abstruse “conversation.” The contributors of the various chapters seem to have forgotten that in writing about communication, they ought to be communicating. Instead, they seem to be intent on talking to themselves or trying to impress each other. This is particularly so in the first of three sections (vaguely) titled: A History of Systems of Account Making. Often in the first 55 pages of this section, the book seems scholarly and quaint to the point of parody. But it’s serious. And how it’s serious. It isn’t until we get to Chapter 6-The Principles of Fidelity and Veracity: Guidelines for Ethical Communication-that the book gets around to addressing some contemporary ethical problems-of which God knows we have no lack. The author of this chapter, Josina M. Makau, identified only as of Ohio State University, joins the issue as follows: “To his admirers, (Oliver) North (of IranContra fame or infamy) respresents the pinnacle of positive values: love of country, respect for authority, purity of heart, champion of freedom. To ethicists, however, North’s prominence is a natural outcome of our relativist age, an era dominated by contextual ethics in which the focus has been placed upon ‘private reliance on individual discernment at the moment of decision.“’ Makau advocates use of a public of “reasonable persons” to help guide ethical practice in specific professions. “In the past,” she notes, “most professional codes have been written by practioners in the given field. Neither ethicists, nor the public at large, for example, played a significant role in developing the Sigma Delta Chi Code for professional journalists. The resulting code is laced with internal inconsistencies, entrenched ambiguity, and principles easily susceptible to counterexamples.”
Winter 1991
417
Pddic Relations Review
“that Review Boards and Ethics Committees include people The suggestion representing a broad spectrum of interests, needs, and values, as well as those highly expert at practical reasoning, would help Sigma Delta Chi and other professional associations develop more viable guidelines for their practioners,” Makau adds. In Chapter 7, J. Michael Sproule, of the Department of Communications Studies at San Jose State University, makes passing mention of Edward L. Bernays and Ivy Lee and the (circa World War I) U.S. Committee on Public Information as early spokespersons for the communications industry. He does so in an essentially non-judgmental fashion. But it needs to be noted that by far the greatest emphasis of the collection of essays is quite narrowly focused on the question of ethics of speech communication, as as opposed to the wider application of ethics to other forms of communication, including public relations. A likely reason for this rifle shot approach is that most of the contributing easayists are speech communications faculty members at U.S. universities and colleges. The reader can only guess. Because the book never tells us on what basis the contributors were selected. Nor does it provide us with the vitae of the various essayists. As a result, we are left with little basis to judge the specific expertise of the various authors. While the end notes to the various chapters appear carefully drawn and complete, the absence of biographical information on the various writers is an egregious ommission, particularly in a work, such as this one, which rather self-consciously lets its readers know that it aspires to lofty scholarship. Stephen H. Baer Fellow, PRSA Communications
Consultant
Deborah Tannen You Just Don’t Understand New York: Ballantine Books, 1990. Author Deborah Tannen’s last book, “That’s Not What I Meant,” had ten chapters on the subject of mis-communication. Only one of them concerned misunderstandings between men and women. But when Tannen appeared at media interviews and lectures, 90% of questions and comments concerned that single chapter on the differences in how men and women communicate. Sensing a need, Tannen set out to do new research on gender differences in conversational style, and also did extensive analysis of the research of others, to come up with a practical, useful and sometimes surprising look at why and how men and women differ in the way they talk and listen. This book is the result.
418
Vol. 17, No. 4
Review
Noonan explains that in her speeches she attempted to “break down walls,” to “include people.” She criticizes speechwriters today for underestimating the public’s intelligence and for paying too much attention to soundbites, and not enough to speeches as a whole. Noonan is most passionate when discussing how speeches were made in the Reagan White House. “Speechwriting was where the administration got invented every day,” Noonan observed, where the administration worked out its “philosophical, ideological, and political tensions.” She describes with disgust the staffing process, in which different officials in the administration suggested changes, additions, and deletions for each oration. For an important speech, up to 50 people would review the text. During Reagan’s first term, Richard Darman made the final decisions about changes, and she believed he did an outstanding job. She attributes the diminution of the rhetoric in Reagan’s second term to the Reagan aide who replaced Darman and who, wishing to please the various staff members, included more and more of their suggestions. As Noonan observes, “Speeches in the staffing process were always in danger of becoming lowestcommon-denominator art.” Noonan describes, in detail, some of the battles she waged with the State Department and the NSC over her speeches. Also, for her most noted speeches, Noonan explains section by section the choices she made and what she tried to accomplish. She concludes her comments on presidential speechwriting by predicting that America is entering an “anthirhetorical age” in which Bush’s quiet deeds will replace Reagan’s high rhetoric. Noonan offers a witty, perceptive analysis of the process of presidential speechwriting in the Reagan administration and the powerful players who tried to mold Reagan’s rhetoric. She makes numerous suggestions about how to compose a speech and illustrates her remarks with examples from her speeches. Not only does Noonan’s book give one a greater appreciation for Noonan and the speechwriting staff who “invented” the Reagan administration each day and significantly contributed to Reagan’s image as the Great Communicator, it also offers a wealth of sound advice about crafting messages for the public which speechwriters will find informative and interesting. James Kauffman Assistant Professor Indiana University
Southeast Karen
Joy Greenberg,
Editor
Conversations On Conanwnication Norwood, pp., cloth
communication the case.
416
NJ, Ablex Publishing price, $32.50.
Ethics Corporation,
One hates to admit that a preconception ethics as having been born out of its time turns
208
of this book on out indeed to be
Vol. 17, No. 4
Book Reaims
It is an unfortunate fact that an already abstract, pedantic work is made to seem all the more academic as the trend in contemporary American mores continues to tend away from the classical verities toward the personal, highly subjective, situational view of what constitutes ethical behavior. After all, “it’s okay as long as it feels right . . .” Bight? And Bight! That’s where we are, isn’t it, and that’s where we’re willing to be, a relative few blue noses to the contrary. To be sure, the book escapes being quite as pedantic as it otherwise might seem because its foreword positions the work as a “collection of voices, not a coherent pronouncement of dogma.” (The book) “raises more questions than it answers,” writes Professor J. Vernon Jensen, of the University of Minnesota, in the foreword, “and leaves us with the tasks of synthesizing, reconciling, deciding, and acting. But that is what a good conversation should do,” he adds somewhat defensively. But what the heck, the reader might say, at this early stage into the book, let’s go along and take them at their word. Unfortunately much of the book is dull “conversation.” Certainly unnecessarily abstruse “conversation.” The contributors of the various chapters seem to have forgotten that in writing about communication, they ought to be communicating. Instead, they seem to be intent on talking to themselves or trying to impress each other. This is particularly so in the first of three sections (vaguely) titled: A History of Systems of Account Making. Often in the first 55 pages of this section, the book seems scholarly and quaint to the point of parody. But it’s serious. And how it’s serious. It isn’t until we get to Chapter 6-The Principles of Fidelity and Veracity: Guidelines for Ethical Communication-that the book gets around to addressing some contemporary ethical problems-of which God knows we have no lack. The author of this chapter, Josina M. Makau, identified only as of Ohio State University, joins the issue as follows: “To his admirers, (Oliver) North (of IranContra fame or infamy) respresents the pinnacle of positive values: love of country, respect for authority, purity of heart, champion of freedom. To ethicists, however, North’s prominence is a natural outcome of our relativist age, an era dominated by contextual ethics in which the focus has been placed upon ‘private reliance on individual discernment at the moment of decision.“’ Makau advocates use of a public of “reasonable persons” to help guide ethical practice in specific professions. “In the past,” she notes, “most professional codes have been written by practioners in the given field. Neither ethicists, nor the public at large, for example, played a significant role in developing the Sigma Delta Chi Code for professional journalists. The resulting code is laced with internal inconsistencies, entrenched ambiguity, and principles easily susceptible to counterexamples.”
Winter 1991
417
Pddic Relations Review
“that Review Boards and Ethics Committees include people The suggestion representing a broad spectrum of interests, needs, and values, as well as those highly expert at practical reasoning, would help Sigma Delta Chi and other professional associations develop more viable guidelines for their practioners,” Makau adds. In Chapter 7, J. Michael Sproule, of the Department of Communications Studies at San Jose State University, makes passing mention of Edward L. Bernays and Ivy Lee and the (circa World War I) U.S. Committee on Public Information as early spokespersons for the communications industry. He does so in an essentially non-judgmental fashion. But it needs to be noted that by far the greatest emphasis of the collection of essays is quite narrowly focused on the question of ethics of speech communication, as as opposed to the wider application of ethics to other forms of communication, including public relations. A likely reason for this rifle shot approach is that most of the contributing easayists are speech communications faculty members at U.S. universities and colleges. The reader can only guess. Because the book never tells us on what basis the contributors were selected. Nor does it provide us with the vitae of the various essayists. As a result, we are left with little basis to judge the specific expertise of the various authors. While the end notes to the various chapters appear carefully drawn and complete, the absence of biographical information on the various writers is an egregious ommission, particularly in a work, such as this one, which rather self-consciously lets its readers know that it aspires to lofty scholarship. Stephen H. Baer Fellow, PRSA Communications
Consultant
Deborah Tannen You Just Don’t Understand New York: Ballantine Books, 1990. Author Deborah Tannen’s last book, “That’s Not What I Meant,” had ten chapters on the subject of mis-communication. Only one of them concerned misunderstandings between men and women. But when Tannen appeared at media interviews and lectures, 90% of questions and comments concerned that single chapter on the differences in how men and women communicate. Sensing a need, Tannen set out to do new research on gender differences in conversational style, and also did extensive analysis of the research of others, to come up with a practical, useful and sometimes surprising look at why and how men and women differ in the way they talk and listen. This book is the result.
418
Vol. 17, No. 4