Communications and Media
The specific ethical issue
The ethical dilemma on the case scenario is the issues of loyalty to the parties involved. This is because the president of the local firm as well as the lender at the Las Vegas citizens for road expansion and the group is responsible for initiating and pushing for aggressive policies to transform the transportation sectors for the states expansion in terms of business and investment growth. However, the motive behind the transformation and development of the transportation means in the state such as better roads is wanting. This is because; the formation of the group as well as its intentions has deferent motives. For example, the funding agents want to develop more business opportunities from the development such as selling cement for the road constrictions such as the National Cement and Asphalt Contractor’s Association (NCAA). The dilemma develops as a journalist from the Las Vegas Tribune, call to inquire about the funding clients while on the other hand the clients wants their involvement in the road expansion group to be privet, with no publication about their involvement. While on the other hand involved parties fills its best to tell about the funding clients as well as their involvements in their push to vote for the project initiation in the state.
The key values
According to the public relations society of America, loyalty to the public is one of the most emphasized values with regards to their code of ethics. As a result, the loyalty means being respectful to those that we serve, while in public office (Code of Ethics, 2017). However based on the scenario loyalty is not effectively attained, based on the fact that the public is not served with the all the information that it requires before voting for the transportation projects. Additionally, another value violated is fairness to all the stakeholders in the intended projects for example, if the vote is upheld and the project initiated. The tender to supply the material will not be justly awarded since the clients funding the group in favor of the project hold the bids in their favor. On the other hand, advocacy, as well as honesty are also not attending. This is because the code of ethics states that the responsible agents should delegate their duties in truth and as a reflection of the public’s voice, only that, according to the transportation agenda for the state valued are not efficiently and effectively attained.
As a result of the PRSA Member Code of Ethics, the disclosure of information, as well as the conflict of interest, develops the building block of anyone to develop a precise and conclusive decision or conclusion based on the transportation agenda. On the other hand, the Utilitarian principles of the best result for the common good also relates to the scenario. A leader has the responsibility of protecting the best interest of all as well as having to perform once responsibilities with good intentions for all the parties involved (Frederickson & Rohr, 2015). Additionally, being the executive manager at the Las Vegas citizens for road expansion, my loyalty is based on the groups progress and attainment of its laid out objective which is to improve the transportation means in Las Vegas so as to develop investments as well as business growth for the state, as explained by Beauchamp, and Childress (2001). As elaborated in the Utilitarian principles, if the group achieves its objective the community and also the clients funding the process will all benefits, meaning that the goals will benefit each and every member which is the common good of all.
As a result of the ethical dilemma, as well as the code of ethics and my ethical standards, I would not disclose the information. This means that I would base my loyalty to the Las Vegas citizens for road expansion group. This is because if the information is disclosed the clients would opt out of the funding process of the group meaning that the sensitization of the transportation development of Las Vegas would be at a Holt. According to Bowman, West, Berman, and Van Wart (2016), if the sensitization is not well implemented the development would not be effective meaning issues such as investment and business development at the state will be limited. As a result, by holding the information, the sensitization would lead to a win at the voting forum, after which all the parties involved would benefit from the whole project. That is the Las Vegas citizens, the clients as well as my profession, for public relations.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, USA.
Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., Berman, M., & Van Wart, M. (2016). The professional edge: Competencies in public service. Routledge.
Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2017, from https://www.prsa.org/ethics/code-of-ethics/
Frederickson, H. G., & Rohr, J. A. (2015). Ethics and public administration. Routledge.