Those of us who are already somewhat seasoned in the world of communication — if someone had asked us twenty years ago what the great ethical challenges of communication would be, we would probably have spoken about manipulation, propaganda or conflicts of interest. Today, the conversation seems to revolve around other concepts: disinformation, algorithms, artificial intelligence, polarisation, crisis of trust.
However, after listening to María Urreiztieta, Head of Communication, Marketing and CSR at DHL Supply Chain Iberia, during her appearance on La Cueva de Moe, it made me think that perhaps we are framing the debate incorrectly — and that the problem does not lie in fake news or in artificial intelligence.
The real problem is that we have built an ecosystem in which there is increasingly less space for judgement.
Speed has become a collective obsession. We want to know what is happening before anyone else, react before anyone else and publish before anyone else. On one hand, organisations feel the pressure to communicate constantly and across every channel. On the other, media outlets compete to capture attention in a saturated environment. And then there are those of us who work as communication professionals, operating in a context where news cycles last hours and where silence seems to have become a luxury. And when speed becomes the absolute priority, something inevitably suffers: reflection.
Perhaps that is why it feels so pertinent to return to the subject of ethics at this moment. Not as an abstract concept, nor as a statement of intent that appears in corporate codes of conduct, but as a daily practice that should accompany every communication decision.
But what exactly is ethics?
Ethics appears when we decide to verify information before sharing it. When we abandon a sensationalist headline because it distorts reality. When we prefer to acknowledge a limitation rather than construct a convenient narrative. When we understand that communicating does not consist solely of generating impact, but also of accepting responsibility for the consequences of what we communicate.
The paradox is that we have never had so many tools to inform ourselves and, at the same time, it has never been so difficult to find one’s bearings amongst so much information.
We live surrounded by content, opinions, data, videos, publications, analyses and headlines. But an abundance of information does not guarantee a better understanding of reality. Sometimes precisely the opposite occurs: the more noise there is, the more valuable the capacity to discern becomes.
And that is where judgement becomes a strategic asset.
The same applies to artificial intelligence. Personally, I find it difficult to share the apocalyptic visions of AI. Like any technology, it can be used well or badly. It can help us to be more efficient, to automate repetitive tasks or to dedicate more time to what genuinely adds value. The risk does not lie in artificial intelligence thinking for us. The risk lies in us ceasing to think for ourselves.
Because a tool can propose answers, but it cannot assume responsibilities. It can identify patterns, but it cannot understand contexts. It can generate content, but it cannot replace the experience, judgement or sensitivity that communication demands when decisions have an impact on people, organisations or reputations.
The same applies to corporate transparency and sustainability. In both cases, we have tended to simplify debates that are far more complex than they appear.
Being transparent does not mean telling everything. It means that what is communicated is truthful and coherent with reality.
Being sustainable should not be a reputational matter either. It should be a question of responsibility. Not because markets, regulators or public opinion demand it, but because it is becoming increasingly evident that no reasonable alternative exists.
That is why I have the sense that ethics in communication will not be defined in the coming years by grand statements of intent or by new regulatory frameworks. It will be defined by something far simpler and, at the same time, far more difficult: our capacity to preserve judgement in an environment designed to make us react before we think.
Perhaps that is the real challenge.
Not to communicate more, nor to communicate faster. But to keep communicating with judgement when everything around us is pushing us to do exactly the opposite.