There has been discussion recently of the need for business communications
and public relations associations to censure organizations and individuals
who violate ethical standards (see my previous post).
The main problem I have with an ethical inquisition is the lack of rigour
around enforcing standards. Whose job is it to impose a censure on someone?
What process is followed to ensure the 'accused' has the opportunity to
defend themselves from the accusations?
Last year, the Canadian Association of Journalists issued a censure
against one of its members. In an absence of transparency, the association
would not divulge how it arrived at its censure; they just issued a news
release.
After being challenged by its members to justify the punishment, the
association issued an "update" saying they regretted not
having warned the journalist about the coming public flogging of their
reputation.
As long-time CAJ member and sometimes board member Bill Doskoch writes, the
clarification was issued late on a Friday night, in an apparent effort to
slip the organization's message under the media radar.
This from an association of journalists. They must not have much respect
for the research talents of their members if they think an inconvenient
release time is going to get them off the hook in answering their critics.
I don't dispute CAJ's right to censure a member, but their handling of this
case sucks. It's important to be open and honest in your dealings, and to
have an accepted, clear process in place for handling this sort of thing.
Just wheeling out the guillotine whenever it suits the board's fancy doesn't
cut it (pardon the pun).
Comments