For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

In what’s become an iconic moment in the presidential campaign, a follower of Sen. John McCain complained last week about Sen. Barack Obama.

“I’ve read about him,” she told McCain at a rally in a Minneapolis suburb. “He’s an Arab.”

McCain quickly took back the microphone. “No, ma’am,” he told her. “He’s a decent family man, citizen.”

This brief interchange had more ethical layers than a Minnesota strudel. By “Arab,” the woman — Gayle Quinnell, as she’s since been identified — apparently meant Muslim and, by extension, terrorist. Yet McCain’s response seemed to imply that Arabs and Muslims were not “decent” family men and citizens.

To take his words at face value, however, is to ignore the underlying layers of context. Earlier in the week, audiences at rallies for both McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, had whipped themselves into a froth of animosity, hollering out words like “terrorist” to describe Obama, and shouting “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” McCain and Palin, standing silently by, drew sharp criticism for failing to do what any fifth-grade teacher would be expected to do: intercede sternly, rebuke rampant disrespect, and demand politeness in the classroom.

Hence McCain’s rapid retort to Ms. Quinnell — too quick, perhaps, to avoid insulting Muslims, but firm enough to signal an intention to keep rallies civil.

But the layers go even deeper. Over the years, McCain’s private language reportedly has been known for a kind of low-grade racism involving epithets, jokes, and stereotypes. Yet his image as a surviving POW emphasizes his courage — a point stressed in his post-9/11 book titled Why Courage Matters, in which he describes moral courage as “the courage to keep your virtue when facing unwanted consequences.” Among last week’s consequences: McCain’s defense of Obama was booed by some members of his audience.

Was his Minnesota microphone moment, then, an act of courage in a situation that, left unchecked, might have let communal disrespect morph into Hitler-like hatred? Or was it a shaft of light into the soul of a racist, whose unstudied response betrayed his true feelings towards Muslims? Does the moment signal a change of heart or merely of tactics?

All of which points to the fundamental ethical question: Do we have a moral obligation to correct others’ lies? To be sure, demanding full truthfulness at every turn can render us tactless and abrasive. But does a failure to rebuke a lie make us liars?

The problem here — and in the campaigns — is that the indiscriminate use of words like lie and liar muddles our analysis. Deception, like ice cream, comes in many flavors, of which the Big Three — the vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry of deceit — are lying, evasiveness, and silence.

Start with the first. Where there’s clear evidence of dishonesty — fabrication, forgery, or falsehoods — the public properly says, “That’s a lie!” After an ad from a group of McCain supporters charged that Obama was the “only member” of the Illinois Senate who voted for early release of convicted sexual abusers, fact-checkers determined that Obama did in fact vote no — but instantly changed his vote when he realized he’d pushed the wrong button. Fair enough, then, to describe the ad as a plain-vanilla lie.

The second flavor, evasion, is less clear. Leaving things out, telling half-truths, and spinning facts have become oddly acceptable during campaigns — though such acts would be castigated if done by officials already in office. Talking about health care in last week’s debate, for instance, Obama proposed to “lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.” But FactCheck.org, a project of the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, found that the Obama campaign based much of that savings on the implementation of electronic health records, which doctors and hospitals have been slow to adopt. “When we looked into that claim,” the editors of FactCheck.org concluded, “experts told us it was wishful thinking.” While some savings may be possible, Obama’s number seems to be running past dependable truth into the double-fudge of spin.

Lies and evasions are bad enough, but they can at least be corrected by facts. The most dangerous deceptions are of the third flavor: silence in the face of untruths. Yet here, as individuals, we’re perplexed. Does honesty require me to correct the falsehoods of others wherever I find them? Must I condemn every lie, even those that favor my cause? Or can I let falsehoods stand unchallenged as long as I myself didn’t speak them?

Last week’s events suggest that, among public figures, silence isn’t good enough. There is an imperative to rebuke untruth. Using lies and half-truths to provoke a crowd to riot would clearly be unethical. But isn’t it equally irresponsible for a leader to stand aside while a crowd provokes itself? The coming weeks well may test the candidates’ leadership in new ways. If a campaign can’t channel its followers’ passions constructively, what hope is there that its candidate can lead the free world?

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“The actual message content may take a couple of days to a couple of months to be completely eliminated from our storage facilities.”

– Yahoo, describing its email archiving and deletion policies in the Anchorage Daily News, which reports that a federal judge last week ordered Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and running mate of John McCain, to preserve and turn over all official and personal email records dating back to December 4, 2006. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by a Republican activist seeking access to Palin’s private email accounts, which she and her staff have been using to conduct state business — a move her critics say could be an effort to circumvent oversight and government accountability laws. Palin’s representatives have denied any wrongdoing.

Source: Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 11.

For more information, see: Washington Post, Oct. 11 — Washington Post, Oct. 10 — Washington Post, Oct. 1 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, June 25, 2007 — Related Newsline Research Report, Mar. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline Research Report, Mar. 13, 2006.

One flashpoint for public outrage is AIG’s meeting at lavish resort mere days after federal bailout

WASHINGTON
The ethics of lopsided compensation packages for leaders of failed institutions took center stage last week as Congress grilled the chiefs of Lehman Bros. and AIG — executives the San Francisco Chronicle dubs the “poster children for greed and mismanagement on Wall Street.”

According to the Chronicle, the appearances were part of a full slate of hearings expected to last though October.

“There is no more reliable indicator of litigation, liability, and investment risk” than an obvious disconnect between lavish bonuses and company performance, Nell Minow, co-founder of corporate governance research firm Corporate Library, told lawmakers, reports Bloomberg.

Public outrage has been further revved up by the revelation that just days after the federal bailout of AIG, which collapsed because it had guaranteed securities with money it could not muster, executives of the firm met at a posh resort, spending $440,000 for a getaway that included spa treatments, banquets, and golf outings, reports the Associated Press.

White House press secretary Dana Perino called the event ” pretty despicable,” according to the Hill, a publication covering Congress.

In an analysis, USA Today’s David J. Lynch examines how the ethical upheaval has caused the gears of the global economy to grind because it drains the essential lubricant: trust.

“Except for cash-and-carry deals,” Lynch writes, “every capitalist transaction requires a certain amount of faith: faith that an asset to be purchased has some genuine value, faith that a party borrowing money will survive to repay it. Right now, that basic element of trust is gone, and until it comes back, financial markets will remain skittish and economies around the world will suffer.”

Sources: AP, Oct. 10 — USA Today, Oct. 10 — Bloomberg, Oct. 10 — San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 8 — Hill, Oct. 8.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Oct. 6 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6 — Related Newsline Commentary, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8.

U.S. candidates exchange salvos over links to terrorists and savings and loan scandal; in Canada, there’s an ethics debate over airing of a videotape in which a candidate asked that the interview be restarted; in Zimbabwe, there’s still no resolution to the power-sharing agreement promised after the disputed March election

VARIOUS DATELINES
Ethics issues took center stage in high-profile politics worldwide last week. Among the stories:

• Ethics charges and countercharges were the ammunition of choice in the U.S. presidential campaign last week. While the McCain-Palin ticket charged that Barack Obama has been “palling around” with terrorists, Obama dug back into the archives to blast McCain over his role in the savings and loan scandal, the Agence France-Presse reports. The “terrorist” charge was a reference to Obama’s Chicago ties to William Ayers, whose Weathermen group bombed public buildings in the 1960s and 1970s. The savings and loan reference involves McCain’s involvement with Charles Keating, a savings and loan tycoon who was eventually jailed in the aftermath of the collapse of the savings and loan industry. McCain was censured by the Senate in 1991 and has admitted his embarrassment over the scandal, according to the AFP report.
• To the north, media ethics is playing a role in a controversy in Canada’s heated national election. In a television interview, Liberal leader Stephane Dion misunderstood a complex question and asked for clarification, after which the question was repeated and the interview restarted twice, according to a recent column in the National Post. His conservative opponents exploited his fumble by replaying the answer to reporters. The case has gone beyond the ethical question of whether it was proper to use Dion’s befuddlement as a tool to ridicule him. Critics, including the editor of the Toronto Star, charge that the CTV network employed questionable ethics by replaying the tape in which Dion and the interviewer both agreed to restart the interview in order to clarify the question. Star editor J. Fred Kuntz charges that it was the CTV interviewer, not Dion, who was confused.
• There is still no resolution to the disputed March re-lection of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe. Mugabe, who retained power in an vote widely regarded as tainted by threats and coercion, promised he would work out a power-sharing arrangement with opposition leaders. But the Voice of America notes that no deal has emerged yet, and the main opposition party is calling for international intervention. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe is in economic free-fall. The Harare Times reports that the nation’s annual inflation rate rose to 231 million percent. The Times reports that the widespread “political or social cataclysms” are at least partly to blame for the hyperinflation.

Sources: Toronto Star, Oct. 11 — AFP, Oct. 10 — Voice of America, Oct. 10 — Harare Times, Oct. 10 — National Post, Oct. 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 15 — Related Newsline story, July 28 — Related Newsline story, June 2.

But U.S. News & World Report says the danger from contaminated milk was allowed to quietly fester for weeks because the Chinese government issued an edict that nothing was to interfere with positive PR from Olympics

BEIJING
China has threatened to publicly shame offenders in the widening scandal over adulterated milk.

According to the Reuters news agency, official state media have reported that lawbreaking producers will be “blacklisted and outed publicly.”

A substance called melamine, which normally is used in the production of plastics and fertilizers, was introduced into watered-down milk in order to cheat quality-control tests for protein content.

In the latest wave of the sweep, a man from a northern Chinese province was arrested and charged with producing more than 600 tons of the powder used to adulterate the milk, according to the state-run China Daily.

The Inter Press Service reports that roughly 54,000 babies were hospitalized with kidney ailments after consuming milk powder used in formula; at least four have died.

China’s problems punctuated a series of ethics issues, including claims by many critics that industry there lacks adequate supervision and that cheating and adulteration are tacitly tolerated.

Recent reports have fueled the controversy by claiming that disclosure of the contamination was delayed for PR reasons related to the Olympics.

U.S. News & World Report says that when the contamination first came to light, Chinese authorities were “hypersensitive to anything that might mar the nation’s moment in the spotlight.” The magazine reports that knowledgeable sources say the adulteration remained undisclosed for several weeks because the central government had issued an edict saying nothing was to negatively affect the Olympics.

Sources: Reuters, Oct. 10 — People’s Daily, Oct. 10 — Inter Press Service, Oct. 10 — U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 15 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 15 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8.

Reports say almost two dozen retired military were used to push government agenda; if true, it could violate federal laws mandating that connections and potential conflicts of interest in TV and cable shows be disclosed

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is investigating allegations that the Pentagon recruited about two dozen retired military officers to act as analysts for the media while covertly pushing the administration’s agenda.

The Washington Post reports that the issue dates back to press reports that seemingly objective analysts were given classified information and subjected to briefings by senior administration officials.

The issue now has crossed from an ethical to a legal question because the FCC intends to probe whether those analysts actually broke the law by failing to disclose the link, reports Congressional Quarterly.

Federal law contains various “sponsorship identification” rules that prohibit anyone involved in preparing or presenting broadcast or cable programming from accepting anything of value without disclosing it to the public, reports the International Herald Tribune.

FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said in a statement that he is “glad we are looking into these allegations that there was a possible attempt to deceive the American people concerning one of the most controversial issues facing the country today,” according to trade journal Broadcasting & Cable. “We have an obligation to pursue this investigation, and to conclude it quickly.”

The FCC has sent letters requesting further information to several analysts and organizations, but as this issue of Newsline went to press, the specific recipients had not been identified.

Sources: Broadcasting & Cable, Oct. 9 — Congressional Quarterly, Oct. 9 — Washington Post, Oct. 8 — International Herald Tribune, Oct. 7.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, April 28 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 21 — Related Newsline Commentary, July 7, 2003 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 6, 2003 — Related Newsline Commentary, Sep. 3, 2002.

Paper reports on charges that U.S. military eavesdroppers passed around transcripts of personal and intimate conversations; Ford produces system that puts brakes on teen driving; new computer virus can make your webcam spy on you

NEW YORK
The ethics of intrusion figured into several press reports last week. Among them:

• The Los Angeles Times reports that two military linguists involved in U.S. surveillance programs eavesdropped on personal calls between U.S. citizens overseas and their families back home. According to the Times report, the analysts say the intimate conversations between often were passed around out of mere prurient interest. The accounts contrast with the administration’s assertions that the government’s controversial wiretapping activities are carefully monitored to prevent abuse and invasion of citizens’ privacy.
• Ford has produced a special car-key system made for teens — a device called MyKey, which limits the top speed of the car and puts a lid on the radio volume when the teen’s key is used. About a third of teens surveyed say they would object to the system, reports technology magazine Wired. The MyKey system joins a host of other devices that either throttle the performance of a car when a teen is driving or alert parents electronically when the vehicle is operated at a high speed or in an erratic manner. As Newsline reported in August, some popular systems even use cameras to monitor the view inside and outside of the car and send images to the parents’ computers.
• There’s a new privacy threat confronting computer users: a malicious virus that can turn a webcam on without the user’s knowledge, effectively providing a video bug into a home or office. Technology network CNET reports that the malware tricks users into clicking on a hidden button that allows a type of software called Flash to be hijacked. The company that makes the software attacked by the malicious code has released a security fix.

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Oct. 10 — CNET, Oct. 10 — Wired, Oct. 6.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 23 — Related Newsline story, May 5 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 31 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 2, 2006 — Adobe security fix for Flash, Oct. 7.

In other news touching on polling and ethics, the European Union finds stiff opposition to cloned animals in food chain; also, major ethics reform in New Jersey may have been prompted by polling data, according to newspaper report

VARIOUS DATELINES
Some results from recent ethics-related polls were featured in the news of the week. Among the reports:

• The Times of London mounted a survey of more than 20,000 visitors to its website and last week concluded that — in the views of the poll participants — U.S. citizens are the most ethical people in the English-speaking world, women are more virtuous than men, and those with religious beliefs are more principled than atheists. One result offered a novel insight: Participants concluded that older people have a more fully developed ethical sense of how decisions affect others. Business professor Roger Steare, who conducted the poll, contends that moral development continues well into a person’s fifties. Steare argues, “Organizations that fail to retain the wisdom and good thinking of older workers are placing themselves at a serious commercial disadvantage.” The unscientific survey measured only the opinions of visitors to the website who chose to participate in the poll.
• A European Union poll of 25,000 people across Europe finds that most of them object to the use of cloned animals and their offspring for food. London’s Daily Mail reports that 87 percent of those surveyed said they do not know enough about the long-term health and safety effects of eating clones or consuming their milk. Dubbed “Frankenstein Food” by detractors, cloned animal products have been at the center of an ethics debate on several fronts, including claims that cloned animals are sicker and more likely to be born with birth defects. According to the Daily Mail, there currently are no European laws governing cloned-animal products in the food chain.
• The Newark Star-Ledger reports that polling data may have played a role in the massive ethics reform recently announced in New Jersey. According to the report, an internal poll commissioned by Gov. John Corzine showed that 72 percent of respondents said “fighting the ethical crisis” was the “positive message” they wanted to hear. Corzine would not comment on the poll. Corzine’s proposal had received widespread support, including a previous editorial in the Star-Ledger that said the measure “will go a long way toward eliminating many of the practices that have resulted in a parade of officials marching from town hall offices to prison cells.”

Sources: Star-Ledger, Oct. 10 — Times of London, Oct. 8 — Daily Mail, Oct. 8.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 15 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 15.

Wall Street Journal piece recalls Newman’s involvement with activism, urges business leaders to keep giving even in tough times

NEW YORK
Last month’s death of Paul Newman at age 83 promoted two proponents of corporate giving to examine the role of ethics and philanthropy in the actor’s career.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, John C. Whitehead and Peter L. Malkin recalled:

“Paul used to joke that he had to keep making movies to support all of his philanthropic projects — and that wasn’t too far from the truth. To millions he’s perhaps better known as the face of Newman’s Own food products than he is for his superb performances in ‘The Hustler,’ ‘Cool Hand Luke,’ ‘The Verdict,’ and scores of other films.”

“What many may not know,” Whitehead and Malkin note, “is that he donated 100 percent of post-tax profits and royalties from the Newman’s Own company to charities worldwide — more than $250 million to date. He was also passionate about the Hole in the Wall Camps he helped found for children with life-threatening illnesses, and he was deeply involved with a variety of other innovative nonprofit organizations including his most recent undertaking, the Safe Water Network.”

Whitehead and Malkin were among the corporate bigwigs Newman approached in 1998 to form the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, which has grown to include more than 150 CEO members from 150 corporations and is responsible for more than $10 billion in annual corporate giving.

Whitehead and Malkin concluded the piece by urging business leaders to learn from Newman’s example and maintain or increase corporate giving programs in today’s turbulent economic times.

Source: Wall Street Journal, Oct. 2.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 20 — Related Newsline story, Jan.29, 2007 — Related Newsline story, July 31, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 14, 2005 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 6, 2004 — Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy website.

Poll “finds only 35 percent of organizations restrict political activities at work”

From the Society for Human Resource Management:

“Almost two-thirds of organizations surveyed recently have no written or unwritten policies on political activities in the workplace. However, 55 percent of all employers allow staff to take paid or unpaid time off to vote….

“In the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) survey of nearly 450 employers, those 35 percent of organizations with policies on political activities reported one or more of the following restrictions:

• “Prohibited use of company assets in support of any political party or candidate (71 percent)…
• “No political activities on company premises (68 percent)…
• “No employee may use position to pressure vendors, suppliers, or other staff members to show support for or make contributions to any candidate or political party (66 percent)…

“In a related election survey by SHRM, Important Attributes for the Next President of the United States, HR professionals chose the following as the five most vital attributes of the next president: ability to choose effective advisors and delegates (68 percent); leadership skills (65 percent); judgment and decision-making skills (63 percent); strategic and critical thinking skills (59 percent); and crisis management and conflict resolution skills (47 percent).

“These surveys are part of a series of SHRM surveys on the upcoming election. Other election survey topics include health care and immigration….

For the full release, Oct. 9, click here.

“He who surpasses or subdues mankind must look down on the hate of those below.”

– Lord Byron (Anglo-Scottish poet, 1788-1824)