An intersection of law and public diplomacy? International defamation law

This is a summary and review of the article Should states have a legal right to reputation? Applying the rationales of defamation law to the international arena by Elad Peled. It appears in the Brooklyn Journal of International Law (35 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 107).

Summary:

In this law review article, Elad Peled explores the possibility of an internationally recognized right to state reputation. Despite the mouthful, the basic idea is pretty simple. Most individuals have limited knowledge of foreign states, and foreign affairs (pg. 11). Thus, the media significantly shapes the political positions a person holds in the arena of foreign policy (pg. 7). Also, public opinion of global actors may help shape a responsive government’s foreign policy (pg. 11). Indeed, “[s]ince the global phenomenon of democratization has increased governments' attention to their citizens' views regarding foreign policies, mass media and public opinion have come to play major roles in international politics” (pg. 7). As such, the perception of a foreign state impacts the choices of state’s officials regarding interactions with that foreign state (pg. 6).

Peled goes on to argue that states honor their international commitments because non-compliance to international norms and standards is damaging to their economic and foreign policy well being, as it would deter global actors from interacting with them (pg. 7, 9). But currently international publics may be wrongly informed of the compliance of states to such standards.  “[D]efamatory falsehoods reduce states' incentives to comply with international law, and render global decision-making less informed and, consequently, less efficient” (pg. 2). Thus, a statutory mechanism protecting state reputation would increase the efficiency of foreign policy and global politics (pg. 8).

Peled cites an international jurisprudential consensus on a crucial aspect of this possibility, stating, “…almost every state in the world has a civil or criminal law protecting individual and institutional reputation against defamation…” (pg. 2). Just as in other markets, market failures occur in the marketplace of ideas, and as such many feel regulation is appropriate. Peled assures us that this structure would only protect against factually inaccurate assertions of concrete events, and thus would not threaten damaging opinion or political rivals of any given state for mere dissent (pg. 3). Ultimately, Peled argues that such regulation is only justified if the benefits outweigh the costs, and that information must be reliably accurate in order to be valuable (pg. 10, 15).

Review

While it is important that such limitations on free speech remain restrained, this limitation may cover too few utterances to be effective and produce benefits sufficient to outweigh the costs. As many know from consuming media, there is a fine line between an assertion of fact and a mere opinion. For example, according to the National Park Service, “more than 110,000 men, women, and children” of Japanese decent were interned during World War II (http://www.nps.gov/manz/index.htm). What if a Japanese news agency were to report that “we believe that 150,000 people” were interned? Would it be actionable under this proposal? What if the news agency said “some have suggested that nearly 200,000” were interned? Would that be actionable? It seems unlikely, as neither of these statements present “inaccurate statements of fact depicting concrete events”, but merely statements of opinion (pg. 3). The amount of energy expended, political compromises hatched and sovereignty questions raised may not be worth outlawing such a narrow range of statements.

Moreover, I feel that one must question the sufficiency of this mechanism which aims to limit harm to states based on such false information. While reputation may be ultimately protected, truth may not. Inaccuracies which hurt a state would be punished, but inaccuracies which help a state would not. Thus, by bringing to international attention one type of falsity, this structure may implicitly give credence to an arguably congruent falsity: propaganda. However, we all learn in public diplomacy that positive news often simply is not news. So perhaps this may not have a much of a reputational impact as damaging news, but I feel it still would likely remain an important factor for consideration.

I find the possibility of protecting state reputation to be a fascinating idea. And while the reputation of a state is very important, a statutory structure such as this may not currently be the most efficient approach. The global arena is still considerable governed by anarchy, though the United Nations and other NGOs are trending our world into a more structured future. Until that world is reached, an institution charged with protecting state reputation will likely gain little response from states with inflexible definitions of sovereignty. Presently, it seems the best way to protect and maintain state reputation is the use of strategic public diplomacy, as there is still unrealized potential there.

Toyota Practices: A How-Not-To in Reputation Management

Introduction

            This post discusses the actions of the Toyota Motor Corporation from late 2009 to early 2010. Toyota began recalling many of its vehicles due to several reports of unintended acceleration. As the story unfolded, Toyota broadened its recall several times, consumer concern increased, and media coverage skyrocketed. Toyota’s response was investigated by the U.S. government, and Toyota was subject to Congressional hearings. It’s clear that Toyota did not follow the best practices of reputation management; the corporation was not transparent, honest, nor presented as concerned for their relationship with their customers.

Best Practices

            Managing ones reputation is important in public relations. Good reputation comes directly from being transparent, authentic, and responsive to publics. Reputation is also related to the identity and the image of an organization. The identity of an organization is “what is central, distinctive, and enduring about an organization…” (Brønn, 2010, p. 307). Identity must be built on a consensus of both internal and external stakeholders, and must be obvious to those outside the organization. Image is simply what the member of the organization believes others think of the organization itself. The image of an organization should reflect its identity. Finally, reputation is what external publics actually think of the organization. Reputation is not only important for the organization’s relationship with external publics, but also internal publics. In general, people wish to work for organizations about which they feel highly, and they may wish to invest in those organizations, as well. Indeed, reputation is mostly about relationships, because “the quality of relationships determines reputation, that quality relationships and reputation result more from the behavior of organizations than from messages disseminated, and that the value of relationships includes the value of reputation” (Brønn, 2010, p. 307-10).

            Reputation is also about trust. There are five stages of losing trust, disappointment, surprise, concern, disgust, and outrage. After publics lose trust in an organization, the organization loses those publics. Trust must come from communication and openness. To maintain high reputation, an organization must communicate visibility, distinctiveness, authenticity, transparency, consistency, and responsiveness. To be open, an organization must communicate information that is detailed, timely, accurate, and comparable to previous experiences (Brønn, 2010, p. 311-14).

Toyota Practices

Over the course of several months, Toyota announced three recalls surrounding the unintended acceleration of several of their vehicles. Each recall expanded the scope of the problem and the number of vehicles affected. On January 29, 2010, an automotive research analyst at HIS Global Insight said, “[Customers are] saying ‘Well, gee, the one pillar Toyota built its brand on was reliability, quality.’ Now that quality is questionable, and suddenly they’re looking at the Hyundai dealer across the street” (Haq, 2010). On February 2 the BBC reported Toyota's executive in charge of quality said, "The sales forecast is something that we're extremely worried about" (BBC, 2010). Although this may have been only one of several statements this individual made, this comment can clearly be taken as a callous one, as these defects reportedly led to several deaths around the country. On February 5 the USA Today reported that the recalls would hurt current Toyota owners, stating, "with safety shortcomings in some of the vehicles laid bare, it may become harder to resell their new cars when they go on the used-car market" (Sullivan, 2010).

Later in the timeline of this crisis, concern turned from the unfortunate nature of the recalls to Toyota’s possible negligence in the handling of safety concerns. On February 22 the Associated Press reported that Toyota’s first recall of floormats began in hopes of avoiding a more expensive recall of the accelerator pedal itself (AP, 2010). This “could raise concerns in Congress over whether Toyota put profits ahead of customer safety and pushed regulators to narrow the recalls’ scope” (AP, 2010). This led federal prosecutors to launch an investigation in pursuit of criminal charges against the corporation (AP, 2010). Because public apologies are admissible in court, this development likely limited what Toyota was able to release to the public regarding the recalls (AP, 2010). On April 5 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced it would bring action against Toyota “for failing to notify the auto safety agency of the dangerous ‘sticky pedal’ defect for at least four months, despite knowing of the potential risk to consumers” (NHTSA, 2010). On April 16 Toyota agreed to pay a $16.375 million fine as a result of NHTSA’s legal action (NHTSA, 2010).

Conclusion

            Best practices states that an organization must stay true to its core goals and values, be distinctive, and be transparent. The organization must honestly and effectively communicate with its publics. Finally, the organization must work on its reputation with its publics by being actively engaged in relationships with them.

By compromising the principles of reliability and quality, Toyota compromised its reputation. By not being transparent with the core issues in the initial recall, Toyota violated the trust of prospective buyers. Finally, by publicly worrying about its own profits while its customers were losing value in resale price, Toyota damaged its relationship with established customers and dealers. Because of these failings, it is clear that Toyota’s performance is a ‘how-not-to’ in reputation management.

References

Associated Press. (2010). U.S. launches criminal probe into Toyota safety. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35520628/ns/business-autos/

BBC News. (2010). Toyota call recall may cost $2bn. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8493414.stm

Brønn, P. S. (2010) Reputation, communication, and the corporate brand. In R. L.Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 205-221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Haq, H. (2010). Toyota recall update: dealers face full lots, anxious customers. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0129/Toyota-recall-update-dealers-face-full-lots-anxious-customers

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Additional information on Toyota recalls and investigations. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Additional+Information+on+Toyota+Recalls+and+Investigations

Sullivan, J. (2010). Toyota recalls will cost owners in lower resale values. USA Today. Retrieved from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/02/toyotas-woes-will-cost-owners-in-lower-resale-values/1

5 Ways to Transition to the Cooling of the New Secular “Movement”

This isn’t a post on ‘Science v. Religion’ or ‘How Atheists should take over the World’ or anything like that. I merely offer 5 thoughts as to how those who wish to advance secular interests in America should do so in a sustainable way.

The rise in atheism in the public consciousness, called New Atheism, has begun to fade a bit, and has certainly had backlashes from all sides. The largely implicit goal of New Atheism is to combat, counter, and criticize religion wherever and whenever a reasonable argument exists. Indeed, I have felt an almost ‘witch hunt’ mentality in certain circles toward those who commit harm in the name of belief.  

However, in the zeal and bandwagon mentality of the ‘movement’, a sense of inclusiveness was lost.  During the Civil Rights era, the creation of white allies was important for the Southern Blacks to spread their message of freedom and equality. Secularists must do the same. By stopping the vilification of all who believe in a god or gods and by acting in accordance to secular values—which are often shared by both religious and nonreligious alike—seculars can work toward broadening the audience of their message.

To do this, I provide five guidelines below. Whether in person, on the internet, or in a book, one should be very careful how one presents one's self if identified as a non-theist.

1.      Don’t be aggressive, reactionary, or extremist

            Let’s face it, whether you call yourself an agnostic, an atheist, a secular, a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, etc. many Americans have stereotypes about non-theists. The best way to combat such stereotypes isn’t to lecture about how ‘A doesn’t necessarily imply B’, or how ‘morality and religion have nothing to do with each other’, or anything else that’ll take more than a few breaths or Twitter updates. No, the best way is simply to not exemplify such stereotypes.

Don’t present radically different ideals or solutions and don’t perpetuate what others may think of you.

2.      Don’t attack faith or belief directly

            In the U.S. today, a vast majority of Americans consider faith in something ‘greater than oneself’ to be an important part of a good person. Such strong beliefs can’t be knocked-off directly. I’m sorry to report it, but people simply aren’t wired to give up years of values for a good rational argument.

Regardless of how dangerous you think they are, try to avoid criticizing faith or belief directly.

3.      Don’t try to convince others of your ‘rightness’

            Even if you could reduce your argument to mathematical clarity and certainty, some people won’t agree with you simply because they don’t want to. Again, dissonance theory shows that people simply aren’t wired to DEAR (drop everything and reason).

Trying to prove yourself right—or worse, someone else wrong—will simply alienate much of your audience.

4.      Highlight agreement and use human illustrations

            Remember, secularism is simply the removal of religious influence from non-religious life. Many religious people agree fully with these ideals. When defending your views, use concepts like fairness and freedom, and give examples of children who simply want to be treated the same way as everyone else, or some other illustration which rests on common humanity.

Most people want what’s best for America and for our children; remind them that you share such values.

5.      Become a part of the process

Debating in public forums can be great. Rallying supporters can give a boost to any group or idea. But, at the end of the day, the only people to directly decide the amount of religious influence in our laws and policy are lawyers and judges, politicians and their staff, and lobbyists. For secular positions to advance, seculars must seek employment in these fields and become the decision-makers they have long petitioned. Currently, I believe there is only one member of the House of Representatives that would identify as at least a non-theist, Pete Stark. This part of the change will be slow, but it will be most important.

Become involved in government and the decision-makers of our society directly.