Statement on the Jan 6 Hearings

Statement of Peter Loge, director of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication on the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate January 6 public hearings: 

“The January 6, 2021 insurrection was an attempt to overthrow our democracy. The physical attacks were the result of repeated rhetorical assaults on the foundations of our democratic experiment. Words have consequences. Those who promoted and engaged in the attack on the U.S. Capitol must be held accountable. Those who continue to baselessly attack our democratic institutions should be condemned.  

Politicians and pundits have an ethical obligation to promote, or at least not undermine, the foundations of our democracy. You cannot burn down a house and then expect to live in it.

Our democracy only works if those who participate in it believe it works. Our nation is an idea that only continues if we continue it. That means supporting and constantly improving the political system in which we are privileged to participate.”

Statement on the One Year Anniversary of the Attacks of Jan 6, 2021

You cannot burn down a house and then expect to live in it.

Last January’s insurrection should have been a reminder that words have consequences, and those consequences can include the demise of our national promise. Instead, the insurrection is seen by some as a way to raise money and gain electoral advantage at the expense of politics itself.

Politicians, pundits and political advocates have an ethical responsibility to support, or at the very least not undermine, our democratic institutions. That means condemning those involved in the insurrection, investigating those who supported and encouraged it, and holding to account those responsible for the violent attack on our nation's Capitol, the attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and the undermining of a free and fair election.

  • Peter Loge
    Director
    The Project on Ethics in Political Communication

Winter Update

Project on Ethics in Political Communication

Winter Update, December 2021

For a fall in which there were few elections, there was a lot going on. Some of our goings-on include:

Events and Talks

Hosted a conversation with School of Media and Public Affairs professor Ethan Porter, political strategist and CNN analyst Karen Finney, and SMPA student Samantha Millar about Prof. Porter’s research on elite political rhetoricYou can watch the discussion here.

Hosted a conversation about ethics and email fundraising with Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times, Democratic consultant Mike Nellis, Republican consultant Patrick O’Keefe, and SMPA student Caitlin Hartman. The event was moderated by George Washington University political scientist Andrew Thompson. You can watch the discussion here.

Political Communication Ethics is on the books

When students registered for spring classes in the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University they could sign up for Political Communication Ethics. This had been a “Special Topics” class, and now it is permanently on the books. As far as I know, this is the only undergraduate political communication ethics course taught in the US.

Don’t Lose Your Soul Just to Win and Election - A campaign ethics workbook

We are pleased to announce our first campaign ethics workbook. This short practical guide is meant for those just getting started in politics - and could be a good reminder for the rest of us.

Check it out and let us know what you think.

Five Questions About Ethics in Political Communication

We rolled out more of our Five Questions series asking educators, recent graduates, advocates and others the same five questions about ethics in political communication. We were thrilled to learn that a professor at Florida State University asks her students to answer the five questions for themselves.

What’s Next

Next year the Project will work on more case studies with the Media Ethics Initiative at UT Austin, will host more events, do more media outreach, lead more talks, and produce more writing. Have an idea, want to schedule a talk or write for our blog? Let us know.

Keep in Touch

You can keep with all the goings-on on TwitterFacebook and LinkedIn. Tell your friends.

Thank you as always for your support,

  • Peter


    Peter Loge
    Director
    ploge@gwu.edu

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Steve Johnston

Steve Johnston is the COO of FlexPoint Media, an audience-centric advertising agency dedicated to helping campaigns, causes, and companies shape public opinion. Prior to joining FlexPoint, he was a member of Google’s Elections Team where he drove the adoption of digital advertising during the 2016 Election. Before his time at Google, Steve directed the digital marketing for Senator Dan Sullivan’s winning Senate campaign in 2014, developed digital strategy for Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and worked on Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Steve also co-founded GovPredict, a startup that received investment from Y Combinator and went on to be acquired by Phone2Action. He was named to Campaigns & Elections Magazine's 2016 "Rising Stars" and the American Association of Political Consultants' 2017 “40 Under 40” list. Steve earned an MBA in Marketing and Operations Management from Wharton and an AB in Government from Harvard. @StevenEJohnston

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

The trade association for the political industry, the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC), has a Code of Ethics for AAPC members. I think the Code outlines a lot of good standards for conducting oneself in the industry, particularly where political communication is concerned. The standards that pertain to political communication really come down to truth, which is an important foundation for ethical political communication. Without truth, I don't think you can have ethical political communication. These days, I would go a step further and also underscore that ethical political communication should not incite violence against an individual or group of individuals. Politics is a tough business and full of conflict because the stakes are so high, but political communication should not result in anyone’s physical harm.

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

Your reputation is everything in politics. If you behave ethically, you will develop a reputation for behaving ethically, and you will attract more opportunities because people will want to work with you. The opposite is true, too: if you behave unethically, you will develop a reputation for behaving unethically, and you will attract fewer opportunities. People who cut corners or sacrifice ethics for short term gain don't do so well over the long run, and they're also more likely to work with similarly unethical people, increasing the risk of ruin. It's much easier to destroy one's reputation than it is to build one, and the world of political communication is a pretty small one, too: people talk and can easily learn if someone behaves ethically.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

The moment when Senator John McCain addressed a woman in Minnesota who said she couldn’t trust Barack Obama because he was an Arab stands out as a “do more of that” moment. Not only did Senator McCain correct her and say he’s not an Arab, but he also acknowledged Senator Obama as “a decent family man” with whom he happened to disagree. He did so without hesitation. Senator McCain was committed to truth and wasn’t going to tolerate falsehoods with a smile, wink, or nod, even if those falsehoods might benefit him. It’s moments like this one that made me so proud to work on Senator McCain’s campaign. He’d tell people what they needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear. We need more McCains.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

During one campaign, I discovered social media posts written by a relative of our Democrat opponent that included extremely offensive remarks about President Obama. The posts could have potentially proved harmful to our opponent, but without knowing the person in question, it appeared to me that this relative was going through some sort of mental distress. Confronted with the choice of whether or not to go public with this information, I determined that it would not be appropriate to do so. Political communication professionals are perpetually confronted with ethical challenges relating to whether or not they should weaponize information they have at their fingertips. I don’t regret my decision, not just because our campaign won, but because there is no telling what the unintended consequences might have been had I decided otherwise.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

I can’t underscore enough the importance of one’s reputation in this industry. You build your reputation as someone who is ethical (or not) over time, and it’s much easier to destroy a reputation than to build one. At any point in your career, but especially early on, where you work or who you work for is critical to establishing your reputation. Since you have less experience, the reputations of these places and people can really shape your own reputation. That’s why it’s very important to work in places and with people who are ethical. In the event you find yourself in a situation where you are confronted with unethical practices, there is always a way out, and you certainly aren’t doomed just because you were placed in an unethical situation. How you responded and what you learned can even enhance your reputation over the long run.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Andrew Parco

Andrew Parco earned his B.A. in Political Communication from the George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs. While at GW he interned at the Department of the Interior, Grapevine Health, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Graduating magna cum laude with the Class of 2020, he now works at the nonpartisan, nonprofit Partnership for Public Service as a digital design associate.

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

The good news and the bad news are the same: There is a great deal of gray area. Even in the best of circumstances, the baseline ethical standard for political communication is heavily dependent on context and values, and politics rarely offers the best of circumstances. It feels like an intrinsically personal question that is searching for a universal answer.

The best I can offer is a small thought experiment. Imagine your kids are your audience. (If, like me, you don’t have kids, feel free to imagine any three- to seven-year-old who looks up to you.) You want to do your best to tell the truth all the time, but sometimes you need small lies to protect them in the long run. Similarly, practitioners of political communication might need to lie to protect national security interests. You must be the disciplinarian sometimes, but empathy and warmth are equally crucial. There is nothing they love more than a good story, and if that is what you need to do to keep their attention, then so be it.

But what is most important is that you care about your audience. Political communication ethics should be grounded in compassion and a sense of responsibility because all the other factors you need to behave ethically—trust, sincerity, fairness, and more—stem from there.

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

For starters, you shouldn’t behave ethically because it is the politically convenient option or because your coworkers or boss want you to. That is not to say that ethical behavior is always inconvenient and unpopular, but that well will run dry eventually.

I will also say you should not behave ethically because it feels like “the right thing to do.” At some point, you will be professionally wronged, and you will be nothing but vindictive and vengeful and out for blood. Whether it is deserved or not, behaving ethically will not feel like the right thing. That basis, too, is fleeting and unreliable.

On a practical level, political communication demands you behave ethically because it is one small, everyday measure you can take to preserve our political system. It is not the case that ethical behavior benefits everyone; it is just that it does not hurt everyone. Unethical behavior demeans the work we do, disrespects the people we do it for, and deteriorates the very institutions in which we operate. Ethical behavior leaves those institutions unscathed. Even if doing the right thing means you are taking a hit today, it means you have the chance to fight again tomorrow.

On a personal level, behaving ethically also preserves your dignity. It is easy to play dirty in politics; keeping your back straight, chin up, and conscience clear is much harder.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

To me, a good example of ethical political communication is White House Press Secretary Jerald terHorst’s resignation from the Ford administration after the pardon of Richard Nixon. He contrasted the pardon with the lack of amnesty at the time for young men who evaded the draft. In his resignation letter, he admitted that “it is impossible to conclude that the former President is more deserving of mercy than persons of lesser station in life.” After only a month at the podium, he stepped down from his position rather than sacrifice his ethical position.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

I work at a nonpartisan nonprofit. What is great is that we manage to avoid controversy most days, and generally, we keep our nose out of the day’s bill, politician, or rally taking up headlines. What can be frustrating and ethically challenging is the exact same thing. To avert even the appearance of partisanship, our response to politics is sometimes disappointing.

I remember one occasion when a Partnership for Public Service press release about a national political event felt underwhelming and even out of touch. In response, I contacted the head of my department that same day and made a case about why I thought our organization’s response was inappropriate. I was not asking for an apology or revised press release, but I felt responsible—even as an entry-level employee—to speak up against what I viewed as substandard ethical behavior. To their credit, they fully heard me out and engaged in a meaningful discussion about the thought process. Although I did not agree with the final determination reached by upper management, the discussion nonetheless gave me a more rounded out perspective, and I was able to recognize the driving forces behind their decision.

As a young professional, you cannot expect to necessarily influence the direction of your organization, but personally, know where your principles lie and be prepared to defend them.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

Be nice to people. Personally, it makes the job more fun, and professionally, it makes the job a whole lot easier.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication - Sandra Borden

Dr. Sandra L. Borden is a professor in the School of Communication at Western Michigan University, where she also directs the Center for the Study of Ethics in Society and coaches the Ethics Bowl team. Her work has been published numerous scholarly journals, and her books are the award-winning Journalism as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics and the Press, Ethics and Entertainment: Essays on Media Culture and Media Morality (co-edited with Howard Good, Making Hard Choices in Journalism Ethics (with David Boeyink, Ethics and Error in Medicine (co-edited with Fritz Allhoff), and The Routledge Companion to Media and Poverty. @WMU_Ethics

 1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

Political communication should be ordered to the common good; that is to say, to the conditions needed for all to have worthwhile lives and for the chance for all to contribute to a society characterized by such conditions. The ethical standard is one of moral excellence, what some political philosophy traditions call civic virtue. Politics – and thus political communication – is not an elective pursuit. It is fundamental to being authentically human. So setting the terms of the conversation, recruiting citizens to your cause, appealing to their values, shaping social relationships conducive to those values, and so on, are all weighty moral matters in this perspective.

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically? 

We have become cynical about politics, for good reason. But politics is, in fact, a high calling. Politics concerns how we live well together by creating conditions for all to flourish, both as individuals and as members of communities. And we know that communication is vital for doing politics well. It’s how we deliberate together about the common good. It’s how we identify possible solutions to common problems and possible projects for achieving things that we can only do together. For this, political communicators need to help citizens see that the common good does not pit their self-interest as a person against their self-interest as a community member. These are two sides of the same coin.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

I am a former journalist, and my research focuses on journalism ethics. One way for journalism to contribute to the common good - that is, to be political - is to provide resources for deliberation, including venues for exchanging ideas and clarifying values. Our current media environment, with its echo chambers and misinformation, works against such deliberation and undermines the moral bonds among citizens.

Research has shown that the steep decline in local news has actually contributed to political polarization. An example of ethical political communication I appreciated was the decision in 2019 by The Desert Sun to stop running national op-eds for a month in response to this research. And what they found was that traffic to the opinion section doubled. This reminded me of when I was an editorial page editor at a small Gannett paper in Tennessee. I sold the publisher on publishing more letters to the editor. The more letters we published, the more letters we got. Having a robust local discussion of public issues in local news spaces, rather than relying on national syndicated columns, is a simple, but powerful, idea. However, I should note that this is hard to accomplish in the strapped local newsrooms that remain. We have lots of local news deserts and are adding more ever year.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

Sticking with journalism ethics, I’m dismayed at the extent to which horse-race coverage continues to dominate political news. For example, the coverage on President Biden’s infrastructure bills has emphasized the political infighting and the price tag, rather than the substance of the proposed policies. These include major expansions to the social safety net and measures to reduce the harms of climate change. Here is an opportunity to facilitate a robust conversation about what we value, what we need for all to thrive in our society, what the role of the government should be in promoting the common good. And instead we have endless headlines about political “setbacks” and politicians’ Twitter barbs.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

Develop a clear sense of what you think the purpose of politics is. Morally speaking, it has to be about more than winning. How can you honor the contributions of those who make our shared life better? I’m thinking here of how we change the conversation about “who matters” in our society. I think the pandemic has shown us how “essential workers” – who often are not valued in our consumer-driven culture – actually are those who make our lives livable. How can you help people to have hard conversations about their differences so they can reason together about common purposes and share a sense of belonging? Figure out the ends first, and let them guide your actions.

Event: How Politicians Talk About Politics Matters

UPDATED

On Tuesday, November 2nd at 2:00pm ET the Project on Ethics in Political Communication is hosting a conversation with Ethan Porter, an assistant professor in the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University, political strategist and CNN analyst Karen Finney and GW student Samantha Millar about Prof. Porter’s recent research on the importance of elite political rhetoric on support for democratic norms.

Register for the event here.

Ethics and Email Fundraising - Watch the discussion here

On October 19th the Project hosted a conversation about email fundraising ethics with:

An interesting discussion and a lot to think about. You can watch a recording of the discussion here.

Ethics and Email Fundraising

The Project on Ethics in Political Communication is hosting a conversation about ethics and email fundraising on Tuesday, Oct. 19th at 11:00am ET - details and registration are here.

The Project is not alone in raising alarms about alarming fundraising practices. Those who have written about the topic include:

  • Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times (and one of our panelists) has written several piece on the topic, including here, here and here.

  • Mike Nellis (another one of our panelists) has warned that “scammy fundraising practices should concern both sides.

  • Bryan Metzger of Business Insider wrote about a letter more than 50 political professionals and researchers who signed a letter urging “Democratic fundraising company to crack down on 'prolific political scammers' and 'deceptive political emails’.” You can read the letter here.

  • Political professional organization Campaigns & Elections picked up the story and has been a consistent voice for more ethical political campaign practices.

  • In May, Lachlan Markay of Axios wrote about deceptive “donor match” emails from Speaker Pelosi.

A lot of other journalists, scholars, and professionals have weighed in - what should we add to our list?


Event: Ethics and Email Fundraising

UPDATED

On Tuesday, October 19th from 11:00am - Noon ET join:

  • Mike Nellis - CEO of Authentic, a Democratic fundraising and digital firm

  • Patrick O’Keefe - Director of Customer Success Anedot, veteran Republican consultant

  • Caitlin Hartman - School of Media and Public Affairs graduate student.

And moderator, Professor Andrew Thompson - The George Washington University

For a discussion of the ethics of email fundraising.

Shane Goldmacher's New York Times piece on the Trump campaign returning $12.8 million to donors exposed the world of unsavory email fundraising practices. Practices that Mike Nellis and others have been criticizing for some time. This commitment to ethical advocacy is shared by former Maryland GOP Executive Director and digital entrepreneur Patrick O’Keefe.

Details and registration are here

Ethics and Email Fundraising #3-3.png