written speech ethics

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.2 Ethics in Public Speaking

Learning objectives.

• Understand how to apply the National Communication Association (NCA) Credo for Ethical Communication within the context of public speaking.
• Understand how you can apply ethics to your public speaking preparation process.

The study of ethics in human communication is hardly a recent endeavor. One of the earliest discussions of ethics in communication (and particularly in public speaking) was conducted by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus . In the centuries since Plato’s time, an entire subfield within the discipline of human communication has developed to explain and understand communication ethics.

Communication Code of Ethics

In 1999, the National Communication Association officially adopted the Credo for Ethical Communication (see the following sidebar). Ultimately, the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is a set of beliefs communication scholars have about the ethics of human communication.

National Communication Association Credo for Ethical Communication

Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following principles of ethical communication:

• We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.
• We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society.
• We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.
• We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society.
• We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators.
• We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.
• We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
• We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality.
• We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences of our own communication and expect the same of others.

Source: http://www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=134&terms=Credo

Applying the NCA Credo to Public Speaking

The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is designed to inspire discussions of ethics related to all aspects of human communication. For our purposes, we want to think about each of these principles in terms of how they affect public speaking.

We Advocate Truthfulness, Accuracy, Honesty, and Reason as Essential to the Integrity of Communication

Carmella Fernando – Promise? – CC BY 2.0.

As public speakers, one of the first ethical areas we should be concerned with is information honesty. While there are cases where speakers have blatantly lied to an audience, it is more common for speakers to prove a point by exaggerating, omitting facts that weigh against their message, or distorting information. We believe that speakers build a relationship with their audiences, and that lying, exaggerating, or distorting information violates this relationship. Ultimately, a speaker will be more persuasive by using reason and logical arguments supported by facts rather than relying on emotional appeals designed to manipulate the audience.

It is also important to be honest about where all your information comes from in a speech. As speakers, examine your information sources and determine whether they are biased or have hidden agendas. For example, you are not likely to get accurate information about nonwhite individuals from a neo-Nazi website. While you may not know all your sources of information firsthand, you should attempt to find objective sources that do not have an overt or covert agenda that skews the argument you are making. We will discuss more about ethical sources of information in Chapter 7 “Researching Your Speech” later in this book.

The second part of information honesty is to fully disclose where we obtain the information in our speeches. As ethical speakers, it is important to always cite your sources of information within the body of a speech. Whether you conducted an interview or read a newspaper article, you must tell your listeners where the information came from. We mentioned earlier in this chapter that using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit is called plagiarism . The word “plagiarism” stems from the Latin word plagiaries , or kidnapper. The American Psychological Association states in its publication manual that ethical speakers do not claim “words and ideas of another as their own; they give credit where credit is due” (American Psychological Association, 2001).

In the previous sentence, we placed quotation marks around the sentence to indicate that the words came from the American Psychological Association and not from us. When speaking informally, people sometimes use “air quotes” to signal direct quotations—but this is not a recommended technique in public speaking. Instead, speakers need to verbally tell an audience when they are using someone else’s information. The consequences for failing to cite sources during public speeches can be substantial. When Senator Joseph Biden was running for president of the United States in 1988, reporters found that he had plagiarized portions of his stump speech from British politician Neil Kinnock. Biden was forced to drop out of the race as a result. More recently, the student newspaper at Malone University in Ohio alleged that the university president, Gary W. Streit, had plagiarized material in a public speech. Streit retired abruptly as a result.

Even if you are not running for president of the United States or serving as a college president, citing sources is important to you as a student. Many universities have policies that include dismissal from the institution for student plagiarism of academic work, including public speeches. Failing to cite your sources might result, at best, in lower credibility with your audience and, at worst, in a failing grade on your assignment or expulsion from your school. While we will talk in more detail about plagiarism later in this book, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of giving credit to the speakers and authors whose ideas we pass on within our own speeches and writing.

Speakers tend to fall into one of three major traps with plagiarism. The first trap is failing to tell the audience the source of a direct quotation. In the previous paragraph, we used a direct quotation from the American Psychological Association; if we had not used the quotation marks and clearly listed where the cited material came from, you, as a reader, wouldn’t have known the source of that information. To avoid plagiarism, you always need to tell your audience when you are directly quoting information within a speech.

The second plagiarism trap public speakers fall into is paraphrasing what someone else said or wrote without giving credit to the speaker or author. For example, you may have read a book and learned that there are three types of schoolyard bullying. In the middle of your speech you talk about those three types of schoolyard bullying. If you do not tell your audience where you found that information, you are plagiarizing. Typically, the only information you do not need to cite is information that is general knowledge. General knowledge is information that is publicly available and widely known by a large segment of society. For example, you would not need to provide a citation within a speech for the name of Delaware’s capital. Although many people do not know the capital of Delaware without looking it up, this information is publicly available and easily accessible, so assigning credit to one specific source is not useful or necessary.

The third plagiarism trap that speakers fall into is re-citing someone else’s sources within a speech. To explain this problem, let’s look at a brief segment from a research paper written by Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam:

The main character on the hit Fox television show House , Dr. Gregory House, has one basic mantra, “It’s a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what” (Shore & Barclay, 2005). This notion that “everybody lies” is so persistent in the series that t-shirts have been printed with the slogan. Surprisingly, research has shown that most people do lie during interpersonal interactions to some degree. In a study conducted by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead (1975), the researchers had 130 participants record their own conversations with others. After recording these conversations, the participants then examined the truthfulness of the statements within the interactions. Only 38.5% of the statements made during these interactions were labeled as “completely honest.”

In this example, we see that the authors of this paragraph cited information from two external sources: Shore and Barclay and Tummer, Edgley, and Olmstead. These two groups of authors are given credit for their ideas. The authors make it clear that they did not produce the television show House or conduct the study that found that only 38.5 percent of statements were completely honest. Instead, these authors cited information found in two other locations. This type of citation is appropriate.

However, if a speaker read the paragraph and said the following during a speech, it would be plagiarism: “According to Wrench DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam, in a study of 130 participants, only 38.5 percent of the responses were completely honest.” In this case, the speaker is attributing the information cited to the authors of the paragraph, which is not accurate. If you want to cite the information within your speech, you need to read the original article by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead and cite that information yourself.

There are two main reasons we do this. First, Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam may have mistyped the information. Suppose the study by Turner, Edgley, and Olstead really actually found that 58.5 percent of the responses were completely honest. If you cited the revised number (38.5 percent) from the paragraph, you would be further spreading incorrect information.

The second reason we do not re-cite someone else’s sources within our speeches is because it’s intellectually dishonest. You owe your listeners an honest description of where the facts you are relating came from, not just the name of an author who cited those facts. It is more work to trace the original source of a fact or statistic, but by doing that extra work you can avoid this plagiarism trap.

We Endorse Freedom of Expression, Diversity of Perspective, and Tolerance of Dissent to Achieve the Informed and Responsible Decision Making Fundamental to a Civil Society

This ethical principle affirms that a civil society depends on freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent and that informed and responsible decisions can only be made if all members of society are free to express their thoughts and opinions. Further, it holds that diverse viewpoints, including those that disagree with accepted authority, are important for the functioning of a democratic society.

If everyone only listened to one source of information, then we would be easily manipulated and controlled. For this reason, we believe that individuals should be willing to listen to a range of speakers on a given subject. As listeners or consumers of communication, we should realize that this diversity of perspectives enables us to be more fully informed on a subject. Imagine voting in an election after listening only to the campaign speeches of one candidate. The perspective of that candidate would be so narrow that you would have no way to accurately understand and assess the issues at hand or the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing candidates. Unfortunately, some voters do limit themselves to listening only to their candidate of choice and, as a result, base their voting decisions on incomplete—and, not infrequently, inaccurate—information.

Listening to diverse perspectives includes being willing to hear dissenting voices. Dissent is by nature uncomfortable, as it entails expressing opposition to authority, often in very unflattering terms. Legal scholar Steven H. Shiffrin has argued in favor of some symbolic speech (e.g., flag burning) because we as a society value the ability of anyone to express their dissent against the will and ideas of the majority (Shiffrin, 1999). Ethical communicators will be receptive to dissent, no matter how strongly they may disagree with the speaker’s message because they realize that a society that forbids dissent cannot function democratically.

Ultimately, honoring free speech and seeking out a variety of perspectives is very important for all listeners. We will discuss this idea further in the chapter on listening.

We Strive to Understand and Respect Other Communicators before Evaluating and Responding to Their Messages

This is another ethical characteristic that is specifically directed at receivers of a message. As listeners, we often let our perceptions of a speaker’s nonverbal behavior—his or her appearance, posture, mannerisms, eye contact, and so on—determine our opinions about a message before the speaker has said a word. We may also find ourselves judging a speaker based on information we have heard about him or her from other people. Perhaps you have heard from other students that a particular teacher is a really boring lecturer or is really entertaining in class. Even though you do not have personal knowledge, you may prejudge the teacher and his or her message based on information you have been given from others. The NCA credo reminds us that to be ethical listeners, we need to avoid such judgments and instead make an effort to listen respectfully; only when we have understood a speaker’s viewpoint are we ready to begin forming our opinions of the message.

Listeners should try to objectively analyze the content and arguments within a speech before deciding how to respond. Especially when we disagree with a speaker, we might find it difficult to listen to the content of the speech and, instead, work on creating a rebuttal the entire time the speaker is talking. When this happens, we do not strive to understand the speaker and do not respect the speaker.

Of course, this does not just affect the listener in the public speaking situation. As speakers, we are often called upon to evaluate and refute potential arguments against our positions. While we always want our speeches to be as persuasive as possible, we do ourselves and our audiences a disservice when we downplay, distort, or refuse to mention important arguments from the opposing side. Fairly researching and evaluating counterarguments is an important ethical obligation for the public speaker.

We Promote Access to Communication Resources and Opportunities as Necessary to Fulfill Human Potential and Contribute to the Well-Being of Families, Communities, and Society

Human communication is a skill that can and should be taught. We strongly believe that you can become a better, more ethical speaker. One of the reasons the authors of this book teach courses in public speaking and wrote this college textbook on public speaking is that we, as communication professionals, have an ethical obligation to provide others, including students like you, with resources and opportunities to become better speakers.

We Promote Communication Climates of Caring and Mutual Understanding That Respect the Unique Needs and Characteristics of Individual Communicators

Speakers need to take a two-pronged approach when addressing any audience: caring about the audience and understanding the audience. When you as a speaker truly care about your audience’s needs and desires, you avoid setting up a manipulative climate. This is not to say that your audience will always perceive their own needs and desires in the same way you do, but if you make an honest effort to speak to your audience in a way that has their best interests at heart, you are more likely to create persuasive arguments that are not just manipulative appeals.

Second, it is important for a speaker to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding. To do this, you should first learn as much as possible about your audience, a process called audience analysis. We will discuss this topic in more detail in the audience analysis chapter.

To create a climate of caring and mutual respect, it is important for us as speakers to be open with our audiences so that our intentions and perceptions are clear. Nothing alienates an audience faster than a speaker with a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated purpose of the speech. One of our coauthors once listened to a speaker give a two-hour talk, allegedly about workplace wellness, which actually turned out to be an infomercial for the speaker’s weight-loss program. In this case, the speaker clearly had a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda, which made the audience feel disrespected.

We Condemn Communication That Degrades Individuals and Humanity through Distortion, Intimidation, Coercion, and Violence and through the Expression of Intolerance and Hatred

This ethical principle is very important for all speakers. Hopefully, intimidation, coercion, and violence will not be part of your public speaking experiences, but some public speakers have been known to call for violence and incite mobs of people to commit attrocities. Thus distortion and expressions of intolerance and hatred are of special concern when it comes to public speaking.

Distortion occurs when someone purposefully twists information in a way that detracts from its original meaning. Unfortunately, some speakers take information and use it in a manner that is not in the spirit of the original information. One place we see distortion frequently is in the political context, where politicians cite a statistic or the results of a study and either completely alter the information or use it in a deceptive manner. FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center ( http://www.factcheck.org ), and the St. Petersburg Times’s Politifact ( http://www.politifact.com ) are nonpartisan organizations devoted to analyzing political messages and demonstrating how information has been distorted.

Expressions of intolerance and hatred that are to be avoided include using ageist , heterosexist , racist , sexist , and any other form of speech that demeans or belittles a group of people. Hate speech from all sides of the political spectrum in our society is detrimental to ethical communication. As such, we as speakers should be acutely aware of how an audience may perceive words that could be considered bigoted. For example, suppose a school board official involved in budget negotiations used the word “shekels” to refer to money, which he believes the teachers’ union should be willing to give up (Associated Press, 2011). The remark would be likely to prompt accusations of anti-Semitism and to distract listeners from any constructive suggestions the official might have for resolving budget issues. Although the official might insist that he meant no offense, he damaged the ethical climate of the budget debate by using a word associated with bigotry.

At the same time, it is important for listeners to pay attention to expressions of intolerance or hatred. Extremist speakers sometimes attempt to disguise their true agendas by avoiding bigoted “buzzwords” and using mild-sounding terms instead. For example, a speaker advocating the overthrow of a government might use the term “regime change” instead of “revolution”; similarly, proponents of genocide in various parts of the world have used the term “ethnic cleansing” instead of “extermination.” By listening critically to the gist of a speaker’s message as well as the specific language he or she uses, we can see how that speaker views the world.

We Are Committed to the Courageous Expression of Personal Convictions in Pursuit of Fairness and Justice

We believe that finding and bringing to light situations of inequality and injustice within our society is important. Public speaking has been used throughout history to point out inequality and injustice, from Patrick Henry arguing against the way the English government treated the American colonists and Sojourner Truth describing the evils of slavery to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and Army Lt. Dan Choi’s speeches arguing that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” is unjust. Many social justice movements have started because young public speakers have decided to stand up for what they believe is fair and just.

We Advocate Sharing Information, Opinions, and Feelings When Facing Significant Choices While Also Respecting Privacy and Confidentiality

This ethical principle involves balancing personal disclosure with discretion. It is perfectly normal for speakers to want to share their own personal opinions and feelings about a topic; however, it is also important to highlight information within a speech that represents your own thoughts and feelings. Your listeners have a right to know the difference between facts and personal opinions.

Similarly, we have an obligation to respect others’ privacy and confidentiality when speaking. If information is obtained from printed or publicly distributed material, it’s perfectly appropriate to use that information without getting permission, as long as you cite it. However, when you have a great anecdote one of your friends told you in confidence, or access to information that is not available to the general public, it is best to seek permission before using the information in a speech.

This ethical obligation even has legal implications in many government and corporate contexts. For example, individuals who work for the Central Intelligence Agency are legally precluded from discussing their work in public without prior review by the agency. And companies such as Google also have policies requiring employees to seek permission before engaging in public speaking in which sensitive information might be leaked.

We Accept Responsibility for the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Our Own Communication and Expect the Same of Others

The last statement of NCA’s ethical credo may be the most important one. We live in a society where a speaker’s message can literally be heard around the world in a matter of minutes, thanks to our global communication networks. Extreme remarks made by politicians, media commentators, and celebrities, as well as ordinary people, can unexpectedly “go viral” with regrettable consequences. It is not unusual to see situations where a speaker talks hatefully about a specific group, but when one of the speaker’s listeners violently attacks a member of the group, the speaker insists that he or she had no way of knowing that this could possibly have happened. Washing one’s hands of responsibility is unacceptable: all speakers should accept responsibility for the short-term and long-term consequences of their speeches. Although it is certainly not always the speaker’s fault if someone commits an act of violence, the speaker should take responsibility for her or his role in the situation. This process involves being truly reflective and willing to examine how one’s speech could have tragic consequences.

Furthermore, attempting to persuade a group of people to take any action means you should make sure that you understand the consequences of that action. Whether you are persuading people to vote for a political candidate or just encouraging them to lose weight, you should know what the short-term and long-term consequences of that decision could be. While our predictions of short-term and long-term consequences may not always be right, we have an ethical duty to at least think through the possible consequences of our speeches and the actions we encourage.

Practicing Ethical Public Speaking

Thus far in this section we’ve introduced you to the basics of thinking through the ethics of public speaking. Knowing about ethics is essential, but even more important to being an ethical public speaker is putting that knowledge into practice by thinking through possible ethical pitfalls prior to standing up and speaking out. Table 2.1 “Public Speaking Ethics Checklist” is a checklist based on our discussion in this chapter to help you think through some of these issues.

Table 2.1 Public Speaking Ethics Checklist

Key Takeaways

• All eight of the principles espoused in the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication can be applied to public speaking. Some of the principles relate more to the speaker’s role in communication, while others relate to both the speaker’s and the audience’s role in public speech.
• When preparing a speech, it is important to think about the ethics of public speaking from the beginning. When a speaker sets out to be ethical in his or her speech from the beginning, arriving at ethical speech is much easier.
• Fill out the “Public Speaking Ethics Checklist” while thinking about your first speech. Did you mark “true” for any of the statements? If so, why? What can you do as a speaker to get to the point where you can check them all as “false”?
• Robert is preparing a speech about legalizing marijuana use in the United States. He knows that his roommate wrote a paper on the topic last semester and asks his roommate about the paper in an attempt to gather information. During his speech, Robert orally cites his roommate by name as a source of his information but does not report that the source is his roommate, whose experience is based on writing a paper. In what ways does Robert’s behavior violate the guidelines set out in the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication?

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author, p. 349.

Associated Press. (2011, May 5). Conn. shekel shellacking. New York Post .

Shiffrin, S. H. (1999). Dissent, injustice and the meanings of America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stand up, Speak out Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter Three – Ethical Implications

Defining Ethics

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again:  I  did not have sexual  relations with that woman , Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you. – President Bill Clinton, 1998

Some of the early leaders in philosophy—Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato—spoke extensively about morality and ethical principles. Aristotle is frequently cited as a central figure in the development of ethics as we discuss them today in the communication discipline. Aristotle claimed that a person who had ethos, or credibility, was not only able to convey good sense and good will, but also good morals. Great philosophers have debated the merits of living well, doing good, and even communicating skillfully. Smitter describes early Greeks and Romans as teachers of public speaking; these philosophers argued that public communication is “a means of civic engagement” and ethics are “a matter of virtue.”

Ethics and ethical communication are not only an important part of our lives and our decision-making but also are crucial to the public speaking process. In 2011, when Representative Anthony Weiner faced accusations of sending sexually explicit photographs, he vehemently denied any wrongdoing and claimed that he had been set up. Shortly after, his denial turned to an admission and apology. This scandal called into question the ethics of Rep. Weiner, yet it was also his lack of ethical communication that exacerbated the situation.

Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts. – Aristotle

Ethics and Ethical Standards

Morality is the process of discerning between right and wrong. Ethics involves making decisions about right and wrong within a dilemma. For example, you might claim that stealing is morally wrong. But is stealing morally wrong when a mother steals a loaf of bread to feed her four starving children? It’s this scenario that requires an understanding of ethics. In a moral dilemma, we apply ethics to make choices about what is good or bad, right or wrong. Sometimes, ethical dilemmas are simple. Other times, they require complex choices, such as the decision to report your immediate boss for misrepresenting expenses or the decision to move your grandmother into a retirement community. These scenarios are more complex than simple choices between right and wrong. Instead, these examples are ethical dilemmas because two “right” choices are pitted against one another. It’s good to report an unethical supervisor, but it’s also good to keep your job. It’s good that your grandmother feels independent, but it’s also positive for her to receive extra assistance as her health deteriorates.

As public speakers, we make ethical choices when preparing and delivering a speech. We can easily be faced with a moral dilemma over what information to provide or how to accurately represent that information. Knowing the speaking setting, the audience, and our knowledge of the topic, we are able to confront ethical dilemmas with a strong moral compass. This process is made easier by our ethical standards. Ethical standards, or moral principles, are the set of rules we abide by that make us “good” people and help us choose right from wrong. The virtuous standards to which we adhere influence our ethical understanding. For instance, followers of Buddha believe that communication should be careful—good communication should exhibit restraint, responsibility, and kindness. [1]

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. – Dalai Lama  

This stance informs one’s ethical standards. In fact, Merrill (2009) explains that the holy Dalai Lama, the Buddhist spiritual leader, believes compassion is even more essential than truth. Therefore, it is justifiable to be untruthful when the deception is part of the process of caring for another. This example illustrates how one’s belief system influences one’s ethical standards. These ethical standards are the guidelines we use to interpret rightness and wrongness in life, in relationships, and in public speaking. Wallace claims that “ethical standards of communication should place emphasis upon the means used to secure the end, rather than upon achieving the end itself.” [2]  This argument suggests that speakers must consider moral standards through every step of the speech process.

“Emerald Buddha”  by WPPilot.  CC-BY-SA .

“Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate.” [3] Once we have identified our ethical standards, we can apply these to make sure that we are communicating ethically. Ethical communication is an exchange of responsible and trustworthy messages determined by our moral principles. Ethical communication can be enacted in written, oral, and non-verbal communication. In public speaking, we use ethical standards to determine what and how to exchange messages with our audience. As you read further in this chapter, you will begin to understand the guidelines for how ethical communication should occur in the public speaking process.

Ethical Speaking

In January 2012, an Australian politician, Anthony Albanese,  presented a speech to the National  Press Club. Several people criticized  this speech, saying that he stole lines  from Michael Douglas’s character  (the U.S. President) in the movie  The  American President . Several specific  lines from Albanese’s speech did  seem to mirror Douglas’s monologue,  with only the names changed. The  Liberal Party federal director, Brian  Loughnane, claimed that this shows Albanese is “unoriginal and devoid of  ideas.” Others stated that he should  be embarrassed and should apologize  to the Parliament. [4]

What do you think about Albanese’s speech? Was this a simple mishap? A funny prank? Something more serious? What do you think this says about Albanese’s character? His reputation as a politician? Assessing your attitudes and values toward this situation is the same as considering how ethics play a role in public speaking.

Ethical public speaking is not a one-time event. It does not just occur when you stand to give a 5-minute presentation to your classmates or co-workers. Ethical public speaking is a process. This process begins when you begin brainstorming the topic of your speech. Every time you plan to speak to an audience—whether it is at a formal speaking event or an impromptu pitch at your workplace—you have ethical responsibilities to fulfill. The two most important aspects in ethical communication include your ability to remain honest while avoiding plagiarism and to set and meet responsible speech goals.

Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people . – Spencer Johnson

Be Honest and Avoid P lagiarism

Credible public speakers are open and honest with their audiences. Honesty includes telling your audience why you’re speaking and what you’ll address throughout your speech (thesis statement). For instance, one example of dishonest speech is when a vacation destination offers “complimentary tours and sessions” which are really opportunities for a salesperson to pitch a timeshare to unsuspecting tourists. In addition to being clear about the speech goal, honest speakers are clear with audience members when providing supporting information.

One example of dishonest public communication occurred in the music industry, where many cases of illegal melody lifting exist. For example, a famous Beach Boys song titled  Surfin’  USA is actually a note-for-note rendition of a 1958 Chuck Berry song. Though it may be common, the practice of not properly crediting an author for their work is unethical. Other examples of deceitful communication include political speeches that intentionally mislead the public. For instance, a former White House press aide, Scott McClellan, claims that President Bush misled the American people about reasons for the Iraqi war. McClellan claims that the President had manipulated sources in order to gain support for the war. Such claims can be damaging to one’s reputation. Thus, responsible public speakers must actively avoid plagiarism and remain committed to honesty and integrity at all costs.

Mimi & Eunice, “Thief”  by Nina Paley.  CC-BY-SA .

Identify Your Sources

The first step of ethical speech preparation is to take notes as you research your speech topic (Chapter 7 will thoroughly discuss research). Careful notes will help you remember where you learned your information. Recalling your sources is important because it enables speaker honesty. Passing off another’s work as your own or neglecting to cite the source for your information is considered  plagiarism . This unethical act can result in several consequences, ranging from a loss in credibility to academic expulsion or job loss. Even with these potential consequences, plagiarism is unfortunately common. In a national survey, 87 percent of students claimed that their peers plagiarized from the Internet at least some of the time. [5] This statistic does not take into account whether or not the plagiarism was intentional, occurring when speakers knowingly present information as their own; or unintentional, occurring when careless citing leads to information being uncredited or miscredited. However, it is important to note that being unaware of how to credit sources should not be an excuse for unintentional plagiarism. In other words, speakers are held accountable for intentional and unintentional plagiarism. The remainder of this section discusses how to ensure proper credit is given when preparing and presenting a speech.

A liar should have a good memory . – Quintilian

There are three distinct types of plagiarism—global, patchwork, and incremental plagiarism. [6]   Global plagiarism , the most obvious form of plagiarism, transpires when a speaker presents a speech that is not their own work. For example, if a student finds a speech on the Internet or borrows a former speech from a roommate and recites that speech verbatim, global plagiarism has occurred. Global plagiarism is the most obvious type of theft. However, other forms of plagiarism are less obvious but still represent dishonest public speaking.

If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything . – Mark Twain  

“Rainbow Dahlia quilt”  by Holice E. Turnbow.  CC-BY-SA .

Sometimes a student neglects to cite a source simply because they forgot where the idea was first learned. Shi explains that many students struggle with plagiarism because they’ve reviewed multiple texts and changed wording so that ideas eventually  feel like their own. Students engage in “‘patchwriting’ by copying from a source text and then deleting or changing a few words and altering the sentence structures.” [7] Patchwork plagiarism is plagiarism that occurs when one “patches” together bits and pieces from one or more sources and represents the end result as one’s own.  An example of patchwork plagiarism is if you create a speech by pasting together parts of another speech or author’s work. If you have ever seen a “patchwork” quilt, you will see the key similarities.

The third type of plagiarism is  incremental plagiarism, or when most of the speech is the speaker’s original work, but quotes or other information have been used without being cited. Incremental plagiarism can occur if, for example, you provide a statistic to support your claim, but do not provide the source for that statistic. Another example would be if a student included a direct quote from former president Ronald Reagan without letting the audience know that those were Reagan’s exact words. Understanding the different types of plagiarism is the first step in ensuring that you prepare an honest speech.

Decide When to Cite

When speaking publicly you must orally cite all information that isn’t general knowledge. For example, if your speech claims that the sun is a star, you do not have to cite that information since it’s general knowledge. If your speech claims that the sun’s temperature is 15.6 million Kelvin, [9]  then you should cite that source aloud. Ethical speakers are not required to cite commonly known information (e.g., skin is the largest human organ; Barack Obama was elected President of the U.S. in 2008). However, any information that isn’t general knowledge must be orally cited during a speech. The same is true in the text of a speech outline: cite all non-general information.

The OWL, an online writing lab at Purdue University, provides an excellent guide for when you need to cite information (see Table 3.1). Understanding when to include source material is the first step in being able to ethically cite sources. The next step in this process is to determine how to appropriately cite sources orally and in written materials.

Cite Sources Properly

You’ve learned the importance of citing sources. Now that you know why written and oral citations are important to the ethical process of public speaking, let’s focus on  how  to cite supporting speech material. Studies show that oftentimes students do not cite a source because they’re unsure of how or when to cite a reference. Shi’s study describes some typical responses for why students did not cite sources, such as “I couldn’t remember where I learned the information,” or “I had already cited that author and didn’t want the audience to think all of my information was from some outside source.” Though these rationales are understandable, they are not ethical.

Understand Paraphrasing and D irect Quotations

It is important to understand the process for paraphrasing and directly quoting sources in order to support your speech claims. First, what is the difference between paraphrasing and directly quoting a source? If you research and learn information from a source—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance— and then share that information in your  own  words; you don’t use quotation marks; but you do credit the CDC as your source. This is known as a  paraphrase —a sentence or string of sentences that shares learned information in your own words. A  direct quote  is any sentence or string of sentences that conveys an author’s idea word-for-word. According to the APA (American Psychological Association), when writing speech content, you must include quotation marks around an author’s work when you use his or her keywords, phrases, or sentences. This would be relevant for a speech outline, a handout, or a visual aid. It is also important to specify a direct quote when you are orally citing during your speech. This indicates to the audience that you are using the original author’s exact words. While it is acceptable to use the phrases “begin quote” and “end quote” to indicate this to your audience, such phrases can be distracting to the audience. One way to clearly and concisely indicate a direct quote is to take a purposeful pause right before and after the quoted material. This differentiates between your words and the source material’s words. See Table 3.2 for examples of how to paraphrase and directly quote an author, both in written speech materials and for an oral citation.

Develop Accurate Citations

Ethical speakers share source information with the audience. On written materials, such as handouts or speech outlines, citations are handled much like they would be in any essay; that is, likely in parenthesis. Oral citations, however, provide source information to audience members who will likely not see your written speech. In all citations, enough information should be given so that the audience can easily find the source.

You may choose to briefly describe the author before citing him or her to lend credibility to your supporting information. Writing style guidebooks, such as APA or MLA (Modern Language Association), teach that a source’s credentials are not necessary in the text of your paper. We can interpret that the same is true for providing oral citations in a speech–the author’s occupation, the source website, or the journal name are not required but may be helpful verbal cues to explain the legitimacy of your chosen source. You should provide enough information so that an audience member can locate the source. For instance, it might be useful to describe the doctor as a leading pediatrician–after which you would state the doctor’s last name, year of publication, and the quote or paraphrase. To orally paraphrase a Langer quote, you might say to your audience:

I really agree with Langer who wrote in her 1989 book Mindfulness , that our world is constructed from the categories we build in our mind. I find that I interpret the world based on my initial understanding of things and have to mindfully force myself to question the categories and biases I’ve formally created in my head.

Note, the Langer paraphrase provides the author’s last name, year of publication, and the title of the book should an audience member want to find the orally cited source.

Ethical speakers provide written, oral,  and visual citations. Visual aids, discussed in Chapter 14, include posters, objects, models, PowerPoints, and handouts. Visual aids are used to enhance your speech message. Visual aids, just like speech content, must be displayed ethically for the audience. In other words, if you use a poster to display a famous quote, then you should cite the author on your poster (see Figure 3.1). Similarly, you should cite sources on your PowerPoint throughout the presentation . It is not sufficient to include a “Sources” or “References” slide at the end of your PowerPoint because that does not accurately link each author to his or her work. Instead, ethical presenters provide an author reference on the slide in which the cited content is shown (see Figure 3.2).

Speakers should also carefully select and correctly cite images displayed in their visual aid. Images should be relevant to the keywords used on your PowerPoint slide. In other words, captions are not necessary because the image can stand alone; images you display should obviously correlate with your speech content (a caption is typically used because the picture  needs  explanation). In other words, the presence of a caption typically means your image does not directly correspond with the verbal speech material. Images should support, not distract, from the verbal or visual message. Hence, there is no need for blinking, rotating, or otherwise distracting visual aids. [12] Images should be simple and relevant. All pictures should be cited, unless the presenter uses a personal, clipart, or purchased stock image. To cite an image, simply include the credit (or web link) to that picture; note, however, the font size of the link should be reduced so that it is visible to the audience without distracting from the content in your visual aid. Seeing an image link should not be distracting to audience members.

It’s also important to understand how copyright law might affect what and how you include information in your speech and on your visual aid. The fair use provision allows for copyrighted information to be shared if it is used for educational benefits, news reporting, research, and in other situations. Nolo explains, “In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.” [13]  In order to determine if the use of content falls under the fair use provision, there are four factors to consider:

• How will this be used?
• What is to be used?
• How much will be used?
• What effect does this have? [14]

You can find more about these four factors at the  U.S. Copyright website .

“Question copyright”  by Ttog~commonswiki.  CC-BY-SA .

Ethical citing includes crediting authors in the text of your written speech materials, acknowledging authors aloud during your speech, and citing images and sources on your visual aid. However, ethics in public speaking encompass more than crediting source material. It’s also necessary to strive for responsible speech goals.

Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar. – David Herbert Lawrence

Set Responsible Speech Goals

Jensen coined the term “rightsabilities” to explain how a communicator must balance tensions between speaker rights and responsibility to others. Ensuring that you have responsible speech goals is one way to achieve ethical communication in public speaking. There are several speech goals that support this mission. This section will focus on five goals: 1) promote diversity, 2) use inclusive language, 3) avoid hate speech, 4) raise social awareness, and 5) employ respectful free speech.

“U.S. Air Force”  by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown. Public domain.

Promote Diversity

One important responsibility speakers have is fostering  diversity,  or an appreciation for differences among individuals and groups. Diversity in public speaking is important when considering both your audience and your speech content. Promoting diversity allows audience members who may be different from the speaker to feel included and can present a perspective to which audience members had not previously been exposed. Speakers may choose a speech topic that introduces a multicultural issue to the audience or can promote diversity by choosing language and visual aids that relate to and support listeners of different backgrounds. Because of the diversity present in our lives, it is necessary to consider how speakers can promote diversity.

One simple way of promoting diversity is to use both sexes in your hypothetical examples and to include co-cultural groups when creating a hypothetical situation. For example, you can use names that represent both sexes and that also stem from different cultural backgrounds. Ethical speakers also encourage diversity in races, socioeconomic status, and other demographics. These choices promote diversity. In addition, ethical speakers can strive to break stereotypes. For instance, if you’re telling a hypothetical story about a top surgeon in the nation, why not make the specialized surgeon a female from a rural area? Or make the hypothetical secretary a man named Frank? You could also include a picture in your visual aid of the female surgeon or the male secretary at work. Ethical speakers should not assume that a nurse is female or that a firefighter is male. Sexist language can alienate your audience from your discussion. [15]

Excellence is the best deterrent to racism or sexism. – Oprah Winfrey

Use Inclusive Language

Avoiding sexist language is one way to use inclusive language. Another important way for speakers to develop responsible language is to use inclusionary pronouns and phrases. For example, novice speakers might tell their audience: “One way for you to get involved in the city’s  Clean Community  Program  is to pick up trash on your street once a month.” Instead, an effective public speaker could exclaim: “One way for all of us to get involved in our local communities is by picking up trash on a regular basis.” This latter statement is an example of  “we”  language —pronouns and phrases that unite the speaker to the audience. “We” language (instead of “I” or “You” language) is a simple way to build a connection between the speaker, speech content, and audience. This is especially important during a persuasive speech as “we” language establishes trust, rapport, and goodwill between the speaker and the audience. Take, for example, the following listener relevance statements in a persuasive speech about volunteering:

“You” language:  You may say that  you’re too busy to volunteer, but I  don’t agree. I’m here to tell you that  you should be volunteering in your  community.

“We” language:  As college  students, we all get busy in our daily  lives and sometimes helpful acts such  as volunteering aren’t priorities in  our schedules. Let’s explore how we  can be more active volunteers in our  community.

In this exchange, the “you” language sets the speaker apart from the audience and could make listeners defensive about their time and lack of volunteering. On the other hand, the “we” language connects the speaker to the audience and lets the audience know that the speaker understands and has some ideas for how to fix the problem. This promotes a feeling of inclusiveness, one of the responsible speech goals.

Avoid Hate Speech

Another key aspect of ethical speaking is to develop an awareness of spoken words and the power of words. The NCA Credo of Ethical Communication highlights the importance of this awareness: “We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.” [16]  Words can be powerful—both in helping you achieve your speech goal and in affecting your audience in significant ways. It is essential that public speakers refrain from hate or sexist language. Hate speech, according to Verderber, Sellnow, and Verderber, “is the use of words and phrases not only to demean another person or group but also to express hatred and prejudice.” [17]  Hate  language  isolates a particular person or group in a derogatory manner. Michael Richards, famous for the role of Cosmo Kramer on  Seinfeld , came under fire for his hate speech during a comedy routine in 2006. Richards used several racial epithets and directed his hate language towards African-Americans and Mexicans. [18]  Richards apologized for his outbursts, but the damage to his reputation and career was irrevocable. Likewise, using hate speech in any public speaking situation can alienate your audience and take away your credibility, leading to more serious implications for your grade, your job, or other serious outcomes. It is your responsibility as the speaker to be aware of sensitive material and be able to navigate language choices to avoid offending your audience.

No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world. – Robin Williams

Raise Social Awareness

Speakers should consider it their ethical responsibility to educate listeners by introducing ideas of racial, gender, or cultural diversity, but also by raising  social awareness , or the recognition of important issues that affect societies. Raising social awareness is a task for ethical speakers because educating peers on important causes empowers others to make a positive change in the world. Oftentimes when you present a speech, you have the opportunity to raise awareness about growing social issues. For example, if you’re asked to present an informative speech to your classmates, you could tell them about your school’s athletic tradition  or  you could discuss  Peace One Day —a campaign that promotes a single day of worldwide cease-fire, allowing crucial food and medicine supplies to be shipped into warzone areas. [19] If your assignment is to present a persuasive speech, you could look at the assignment as an opportunity to convince your classmates to (a) stop texting while they drive, (b) participate in a program that supports US troops by writing personal letters to deployed soldiers or (c) buy a pair of TOMS (tomsshoes.com) and find other ways to provide basic needs to impoverished families around the world. Of course, those are just a few ideas for how an informative or persuasive speech can be used to raise awareness about current social issues. It is your responsibility as a speaker to share information that provides knowledge or activates your audience toward the common good. [20]

“Raising John T. Williams Memorial Totem Pole”  by Joe Mabel.  CC-BY-SA .

One way to be successful in attaining your speech goal while also remaining ethical is to consider your audience’s moral base. Moon identifies a principle that allows the speaker to justify his or her perspective by finding common moral ground with the audience. [21]  This illustrates to the audience that you have goodwill but allows you to still use your moral base as a guide for responsible speech use. For example, even though you are a vegetarian and believe that killing animals for food is murder, you know that the majority of your audience does not feel the same way. Rather than focusing on this argument, you decide to use Moon’s principle and focus on animal cruelty. By highlighting the inhumane ways that animals are raised for food, you appeal to the audience’s moral frame that abusing animals is wrong—something that you and your audience can both agree upon.

If we lose love and self-respect for each other, this is how we finally die. – Maya Angelou

Employ Respectful Free Speech

We live in a nation that values freedom of speech. Of course, due to the First Amendment, you have the right and ability to voice your opinions and values to an audience. However, that freedom of speech must be balanced with your responsibility as a speaker to respect your audience. Offending or degrading the values of your audience members will  not  inform or persuade them. For example, let’s say you want to give a persuasive speech on why abortion is morally wrong. It’s your right to voice that opinion. Nevertheless, it’s important that you build your case without offending your audience members— since you don’t know everyone’s history or stance on the subject. Showing disturbing pictures on your visual aid may not “make your point” in the way you intended. Instead, these pictures may send audience members into an emotional tailspin (making it difficult for them to hear your persuasive points because of their own psychological noise). Freedom of speech is a beautiful American value, but ethical speakers must learn to balance their speech freedom with their obligation to respect each audience member.

Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized. – Benjamin Haydon

• Merrill, J. C. (2009). Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama: Universal compassion. In C. Christians & J. Merrill (Eds.), Ethical communication  (pp. 11 – 17). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.  ↵
• Wallace, K. (1955). An ethical basis of communication. Speech Teacher ,  4 , 1–9. 
• National Communication Association. (1999). NCA credo for ethical communication. Retrieved from  http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/About_NCA/Leadership_and_Governance/Public_Policy_Platform/PDF-PolicyPlatformNCA_Credo_for_Ethical_Communication.pdf   ↵
• ABC News. (2012, January 25). Albanese accused of plagiarising Hollywood speech. Retrieved from  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-25/albanese-accused-ofplagiarising-speech/3793486   ↵
• Cruikshank, B. (2004). Plagiarism: It’s Alive!  Texas Library Journal ,  80 (4), 132–136.  ↵
• Lucas, S. E. (2001).  The art of public speaking  (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.  ↵
• Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–24.  ↵
• O’Neill, M. T. (1980). Plagiarism: Writing Responsibly.  Business Communication Quarterly ,  43 , 34–36.  ↵
• Stolley, K., & Brizee, A. (2011, August 24). Avoiding plagiarism. Retrieved from  https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/   ↵
• Nine Planets. (2011). The Sun. Retrieved from  http://nineplanets.org/sol.html   ↵
• Rohr, R. (2011).  Falling upward: A spirituality for the two halves of life.  San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.  ↵
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Are you at high risk for serious illness from flu? Retrieved from  http://www.cdc.gov/Features/FluHighRisk/   ↵
• Danoff-Burg, J. (2002). PowerPoint writing guide. Retrieved from  http://eices.columbia.edu/education-training/see-u/dr/ppt_writing.html   ↵
• Nolo. (2010). What is fair use? Copyright and fair use, Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved from  http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html   ↵
• Harper, G. K. (2007). Copyright Crash Course. Retrieved from  http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html   ↵
• Driscoll, D. L., & Brizee, A. (2010, July 13). Stereotypes and biased language. Retrieved from  https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/608/05   ↵
• Verderber, R. F., Sellnow, D. D., & Verderber, K. S. (2012).  The challenge of effective speaking  (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.  ↵
• Farhi, P. (2006, November 21). ‘Seinfeld’ comic Richards apologizes for racial rant. The Washington Post. Retrieved from  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/   ↵
• Peace One Day. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from  http://www.peaceoneday.org/en/about/Introduction   ↵
• Mill, J.S. (1987). Utilitarianism. In A. Ryan (Ed.),  Utilitarianism and other essays  (pp. 272 – 338). New York: Penguin Classics.  ↵

CC LICENSED CONTENT, SHARED PREVIOUSLY

• Chapter 3 Ethical Speaking.  Authored by : Alyssa Millner and Rachel Price.  Provided by : King College and University of Kentucky.  Located at :  http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html .  Project : Public Speaking Project.  License :  CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
• ME 109 Thief.  Authored by : Nina Paley.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ME_109_Thief.png .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Rainbow Dhalia quilt. Authored by : Holice E. Turnbow.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RainbowDhalia_quilt.jpg .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Question copyright.  Authored by : Stephan Baum and ttog.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Question_copyright.svg .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Raising John T. Williams Memorial Totem Pole 300.  Authored by : Joe Mabel.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raising_John_T._Williams_Memorial_Totem_Pole_300.jpg .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Chapter 3 Defining Ethics.  Authored by : Alyssa Millner and Rachel Price.  Provided by : King College and University of Kentucky.  Located at :  http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html .  Project : Public Speaking Project.  License :  CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

PUBLIC DOMAIN CONTENT

Principles of Public Speaking Copyright © 2022 by Katie Gruber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3 Understanding the Ethics of Public Speaking

Learning objectives.

• Explain how to use the three levels of the ethics to evaluate the ethical choices of a public speaker or listener.
• Understand how to apply the National Communication Association (NCA) Credo for Ethical Communication within the context of public speaking.
• Understand how you can apply ethics to your public speaking preparation process.

Is it ever appropriate to lie to a group of people if it’s in the group’s best interest? As a speaker, should you use evidence within a speech that you are not sure is correct if it supports the speech’s core argument? As a listener, should you refuse to listen to a speaker with whom you fundamentally disagree? These three examples represent ethical choices speakers and listeners face in the public speaking context. In this chapter, we will explore what it means to be both an ethical speaker and an ethical listener. To help you understand the issues involved with thinking about ethics, this chapter begins by presenting a model for ethical communication known as the ethics pyramid. We will then demonstrate how to apply the National Communication Association (NCA) Credo for Ethical Communication to public speaking. The chapter will conclude with a general discussion of free speech.

The Ethics Pyramid

The word “ethics” can mean different things to different people. Whether it is an ethical lapse in a business plan or a disagreement about medical treatment in end-of-life choices, people come into contact with ethical dilemmas regularly. Speakers and listeners of public speech face numerous ethical dilemmas as well. What kinds of support material and sources are ethical to use? How much should a speaker adapt to an audience without sacrificing their views? What makes a speech ethical?

Figure 1:  Ethical Pyramid

Elspeth Tilley, a public communication ethics expert from Massey University, proposes a structured approach to thinking about ethics (Tilley, 2005). Her ethics pyramid involves three basic concepts: intent, means, and ends. Figure 1 “Ethical Pyramid” illustrates the Tilley pyramid.

According to Tilley, the first significant consideration to be aware of when examining the ethicality of something is the issue of intent . To be ethical, a speaker or a listener must begin with ethical intentions. For example, if we agree that honesty is ethical, it follows that ethical speakers will prepare their remarks with the intention of telling the truth to their audiences. Similarly, if we agree that it is ethical to listen with an open mind, it follows that ethical listeners will be intentional about letting a speaker make his or her case before forming judgments.

One option for assessing intent is to talk with others about how ethical they think a specific behavior is; if you get a variety of answers, it might be a sign that the behavior is not ethical and should be avoided. A second option is to check out existing codes of ethics. Many professional organizations, including the Independent Computer Consultants Association, the American Counseling Association, and the American Society of Home Inspectors, have codes of conduct or ethical guidelines for their members. Individual corporations such as Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Intel, and ConocoPhillips also have ethical guidelines for how their employees should interact with suppliers or clients. Even when specific ethical codes are not present, you can apply general ethical principles. Think about two questions: Is this behavior beneficial for the majority of my listeners? Or, would I approve of the same behavior suggested by a speaker if you were listening to a speech instead of giving it?

Additionally, it is essential to be aware that people can engage in unethical behavior unintentionally. For example, suppose we agree that it is unethical to take someone else’s words and pass them off as your own—a practice known as plagiarism. What happens if a speaker makes a statement that she believes was her own thought? What if she makes a statement that was actually quoted from a radio commentator whom she heard without clearly remembering? The plagiarism was unintentional, but does that make it ethical?

Intent is when the speaker plans to make ethical choices.

Tilley describes the means you use to communicate with others as the second level of the ethics pyramid. According to McCroskey, Wrench, and Richmond (McCroskey, Wrench, & Richmond, 2003), means are the tools or behaviors we employ to achieve a desired outcome. We must realize that there are a range of possible behavioral choices for any situation and that some choices are good, some are bad, and some fall in the middle.

For example, suppose you want your friend Ahmad to spend an hour reviewing a draft of your speech before your speech day. What means might you use to persuade Ahmad to do you this favor? You might explain that you value Ahmad’s opinion and will gladly return the favor the next time Ahmad is preparing a speech (good means); or, you might threaten to tell a professor that Ahmad cheated on a test (bad means). While both of these means may lead to the same end—having Ahmad agree to review your speech—one is clearly more ethical than the other.

The means are the tools or behaviors we employ to achieve a desired outcome.

The final part of the ethics pyramid is the ends. According to McCroskey, Wrench, and Richmond (McCroskey, Wrench, & Richmond, 2003), ends are those outcomes that you desire to achieve. Examples of ends might include persuading your audience to make a financial contribution for your participation in Relay for Life, persuading a group of homeowners that your real estate agency would best meet their needs, or informing your fellow students about newly required university fees. Whereas the means are the behavioral choices we make, the ends are the results of those choices.

Like intentions and means, ends can be good or bad, or they can fall into a gray area where it is unclear just how ethical or unethical they are. For example, suppose a city council wants to balance the city’s annual budget. Balancing the budget may be a good end, assuming that the city has adequate tax revenues and areas of discretionary spending for non-essential services for the year in question. However, voters might argue that balancing the budget is a bad end if the city lacks these things for the year in question because in that case, balancing the budget would require raising taxes, curtailing essential city services, or both.

When examining ends, we need to think about both the source and the receiver of the message or behavior. Some end results could be good for the source but bad for the receiver, or vice versa. Suppose, for example, that Anita belongs to a club that is raffling off a course of dancing lessons. Anita sells Ben a ten-dollar raffle ticket. However, Ben later thinks it over and realizes that he has no desire to take dancing lessons and that if he should win the raffle, he will never take the lessons. Anita’s club has gained ten dollars—a good end—but Ben has lost ten dollars—a bad end. Again, the ethical standards you and your audience expect will help in deciding whether a particular combination of speaker and audience ends is ethical.

The ends are the outcomes you desire to achieve.

Thinking through the Pyramid

Ultimately, understanding ethics is a matter of balancing all three parts of the ethical pyramid: intent, means, and ends. When thinking about the ethics of a given behavior, Tilley recommends asking yourself three basic questions:

• “Have I discussed the ethicality of the behavior with others and come to a general consensus that the behavior is ethical?”
• “Does the behavior adhere to known codes of ethics?”
• “Would I be happy if the outcomes of the behavior were reversed and applied to me?” (Tilley, 2005)

You do not need to ask yourself these three questions before enacting every behavior as you go through a day. However, they do provide a useful framework for thinking through a behavior when you are not sure whether a given action, or statement, may be unethical. Ultimately, understanding ethics is a matter of balancing all three parts of the ethical pyramid: intent, means, and ends.

Ethics in Public Speaking

The study of ethics in human communication is hardly a recent endeavor. The Greek philosopher, Plato, conducted one of the earliest discussions of ethics in communication (and particularly in public speaking) in his dialogue Phaedrus . In the centuries since Plato’s time, an entire subfield within the discipline of human communication has developed to explain and understand communication ethics.

Communication Code of Ethics

In 1999, the National Communication Association, NCA, officially adopted the Credo for Ethical Communication. The organization updated the credo in 2017. Ultimately, the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is a set of beliefs communication scholars have about the ethics of human communication.

National Communication Association Credo for Ethical Communication

Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following principles of ethical communication:

• We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.
• We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society.
• We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.
• We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of individuals, families, communities, and society.
• We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators.
• We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.
• We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
• We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality.
• We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences of our own communication and expect the same of others.

Source: http://www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=134&terms=Credo

Applying the NCA Credo to Public Speaking

The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is designed to inspire discussions of ethics related to all aspects of human communication. For our purposes, we want to think about each of these principles regarding how they affect public speaking.

We Advocate Truthfulness, Accuracy, Honesty, and Reason as Essential to the Integrity of Communication

Carmella Fernando – Promise? – CC BY 2.0.

As public speakers, one of the first ethical areas we should be concerned with is information honesty. While there are cases where speakers have blatantly lied to an audience, it is more common for speakers to prove a point by exaggerating, omitting facts that weigh against their message, or distorting information. We believe that speakers build a relationship with their audiences and that lying, exaggerating, or distorting information violates this relationship. Ultimately, a speaker will be more persuasive by using reason and logical arguments supported by facts rather than relying on emotional appeals designed to manipulate the audience.

It is also important to be honest about where all your information comes from in a speech. As speakers, examine your information sources and determine whether they are biased or have hidden agendas. For example, you are not likely to get accurate information about nonwhite individuals from a neo-Nazi website. While you may not have firsthand knowledge of all of your sources, you should attempt to find objective sources that do not have an overt or covert agenda. Sources with agendas skew the argument you are making.

The second part of information honesty is to disclose where we obtain the information in our speeches thoroughly. As ethical speakers, it is vital to always cite your sources of information within the body of a speech. Whether you conducted an interview or read a newspaper article, you must tell your listeners the source of your information. We mentioned earlier in this chapter that using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit is called plagiarism . The word “plagiarism” stems from the Latin word plagiaries , or kidnapper. The American Psychological Association states in its publication manual that ethical speakers do not claim “words and ideas of another as their own; they give credit where credit is due” (American Psychological Association, 2001).

Plagiarism is using someone else’s words or ideas without giving them credit.

In the previous sentence, we placed quotation marks around the phrase that came from the American Psychological Association and not from us. When speaking informally, people sometimes use “air quotes” to signal direct quotations, but this is not a recommended technique in public speaking. Instead, speakers need to verbally tell an audience when they are using someone else’s information. The consequences for failing to cite sources during public speeches can be substantial. When former Vice President Joseph Biden was running for president of the United States in 1988, reporters found that he had plagiarized portions of his stump speech from British politician Neil Kinnock. Biden was forced to drop out of the race as a result. More recently, the student newspaper at Malone University in Ohio alleged that the university president, Gary W. Streit, had plagiarized material in a public speech. Streit retired abruptly as a result.

Even if you are not running for president of the United States or serving as a college president, citing sources is necessary. Many universities have policies that include dismissal from the institution for student plagiarism of academic work, including public speeches. Failing to cite your sources might result, at best, in lower credibility with your audience and, at worst, in a failing grade on your assignment or expulsion from your school. While we will talk in more detail about plagiarism later in this book, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of giving credit to the speakers and authors whose ideas we pass on within our own speeches and writing.

Speakers tend to fall into one of three significant traps with plagiarism. The first trap is failing to tell the audience the source of a direct quotation. In the previous paragraph, we used a direct quotation from the American Psychological Association. If we had not used the quotation marks and clearly listed where the cited material came from, you, as a reader, wouldn’t have known the source of that information. To avoid plagiarism, you always need to tell your audience when you are directly quoting information within a speech.

The second plagiarism trap public speakers fall into is paraphrasing what someone else said or wrote without giving credit to the speaker or author. For example, you may have read a book and learned that there are three types of schoolyard bullying. In the middle of your speech, you talk about those three types of schoolyard bullying. If you do not tell your audience where you found that information, you are plagiarizing. Typically, the only information you do not need to cite is information that is general knowledge. General knowledge is information that is publicly available and widely known by a large segment of society. For example, you would not need to provide a citation within a speech for the name of Delaware’s capitol. Although many people do not know the capitol of Delaware without looking it up, this information is publicly available and easily accessible, so assigning credit to one specific source is not useful or necessary.

The third plagiarism trap that speakers fall into is re-citing someone else’s sources within a speech. To explain this problem, let’s look at a brief segment from a research paper written by Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam:

The main character on the hit Fox television show House , Dr. Gregory House, has one basic mantra, “It’s a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what” (Shore & Barclay, 2005). This notion that “everybody lies” is so persistent in the series that t-shirts have been printed with the slogan. Surprisingly, research has shown that most people do lie during interpersonal interactions to some degree. In a study conducted by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead (1975), the researchers had 130 participants record their own conversations with others. After recording these conversations, the participants then examined the truthfulness of the statements within the interactions. Only 38.5% of the statements made during these interactions were labeled as “completely honest.”

In this example, we see that the authors of this paragraph cited information from two external sources: Shore and Barclay and Tummer, Edgley, and Olmstead. Both groups of authors are given credit for their ideas. The authors make it clear that they did not produce the television show House or conduct the study that found that only 38.5 percent of statements were completely honest. Instead, these authors cited information found in two other locations. This type of citation is appropriate.

However, if a speaker read the paragraph and said the following during a speech, it would be plagiarism: “According to Wrench DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam, in a study of 130 participants, only 38.5 percent of the responses were completely honest.” In this case, the speaker is attributing the information cited to the authors of the paragraph, which is not accurate. If you want to cite the information within your speech, you need to read the original article by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead and cite that information yourself.

There are two main reasons we do this. First, Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam may have mistyped the information. Suppose the study by Turner, Edgley, and Olstead actually found that 58.5 percent of the responses were completely honest. If you cited the revised number (38.5 percent) from the paragraph, you would be further spreading incorrect information.

The second reason we do not re-cite someone else’s sources within our speeches is that it’s intellectually dishonest. You owe your listeners an honest description of where the facts you are relating came from, not just the name of an author who cited those facts. It is more work to trace the original source of a fact or statistic; but by doing the extra work, you can avoid this plagiarism trap.

We Endorse Freedom of Expression, Diversity of Perspective, and Tolerance of Dissent to Achieve the Informed and Responsible Decision Making Fundamental to a Civil Society

This ethical principle affirms that a civil society depends on freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent and that informed and responsible decisions can only be made if all members of society are free to express their thoughts and opinions. Further, it holds that diverse viewpoints, including those that disagree with accepted authority, are necessary for the functioning of a democratic society.

If everyone only listened to one source of information, then we would be easily manipulated and controlled. For this reason, we believe that individuals should be willing to listen to a range of speakers on a given subject. As listeners or consumers of communication, we should realize that this diversity of perspectives enables us to be more fully informed on a topic. Imagine voting in an election after listening only to the campaign speeches of one candidate. The audience’s perspective of that candidate would be so narrow that you would have no way to accurately understand and assess the issues at hand or the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing candidates. Unfortunately, some voters do limit themselves to listening only to their candidate of choice. As a result, they base their voting decisions on incomplete and, not infrequently, inaccurate information.

Listening to diverse perspectives includes being willing to hear dissenting voices. Dissent is by nature uncomfortable, as it entails expressing opposition to authority, often in very unflattering terms. Legal scholar Steven H. Shiffrin has argued in favor of some symbolic speech (e.g., flag burning) because we as a society value the ability of anyone to express their dissent against the will and ideas of the majority (Shiffrin, 1999). Ethical communicators will be receptive to dissent, no matter how strongly they may disagree with the speaker’s message because they realize that a society that forbids dissent cannot function democratically.

Ultimately, honoring free speech and seeking out a variety of perspectives is very important for all listeners. We will discuss this idea further in the chapter on listening.

We Strive to Understand and Respect Other Communicators before Evaluating and Responding to Their Messages

This ethical characteristic is specifically directed at receivers of a message. As listeners, we often let our perceptions of a speaker’s nonverbal behavior, their appearance, posture, mannerisms, eye contact, and so on, determine our opinions about a message before the speaker has said a word. We may also find ourselves judging a speaker based on information we have heard about him or her from other people. Perhaps you have heard from other students that a particular teacher is very entertaining when lecturing in class. Even though you do not have personal knowledge, you may prejudge the teacher and their message based on information others have given you. The NCA credo reminds us that to be ethical listeners, we need to avoid such judgments and instead make an effort to listen respectfully; only when we have understood a speaker’s viewpoint are we ready to begin forming our opinions of the message.

Listeners should try to objectively analyze the content and arguments within a speech before deciding how to respond. When we disagree with a speaker, we might find it difficult to listen to the content of the speech. Instead, we might work on creating a rebuttal the entire time the speaker is talking. If we work on a rebutal, we do not strive to understand and do not respect the speaker.

Of course, this does not just affect the listener in the public speaking situation. As speakers, we are often called upon to evaluate and refute possible arguments against our positions. While we always want our speeches to be as persuasive as possible, we do ourselves and our audiences a disservice when we downplay, distort, or refuse to mention important arguments from the opposing side. Impartially researching and evaluating counterarguments is an essential ethical obligation for the public speaker.

We Promote Access to Communication Resources and Opportunities as Necessary to Fulfill Human Potential and Contribute to the Well-Being of Individuals, Families, Communities, and Society

Human communication is a skill that can, and should, be taught. We firmly believe that you can become a better, more ethical speaker. One of the reasons the authors of this book teach courses in public speaking is that we, as communication professionals, have an ethical obligation to provide others, including students like you, with resources and opportunities to become better speakers.

We Promote Communication Climates of Caring and Mutual Understanding That Respect the Unique Needs and Characteristics of Individual Communicators

Speakers need to take a two-pronged approach when addressing any audience: caring about the audience and understanding the audience. When you, as a speaker, genuinely care about your audience’s needs and desires, you avoid setting up a manipulative climate. Your audience will not always perceive their own needs and wants in the same way you do. However, if you make an honest effort to speak to your audience in a way that has their best interests at heart, you are more likely to create persuasive arguments that are not just manipulative appeals.

Second, it is important for a speaker to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding. To do this, you should first learn as much as possible about your audience, a process called audience analysis. We will discuss this topic in more detail in the audience analysis chapter.

To create a climate of caring and mutual respect, speakers need to be open with our audiences so that our intentions and perceptions are clear. Nothing alienates an audience faster than a speaker with a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated purpose of the speech. One of our coauthors once listened to a speaker give a two-hour talk, allegedly about workplace wellness, which turned out to be an infomercial for the speaker’s weight-loss program. In this case, the speaker had a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda, which made the audience feel disrespected.

We Condemn Communication That Degrades Individuals and Humanity through Distortion, Intimidation, Coercion, and Violence and through the Expression of Intolerance and Hatred

This ethical principle is very important for all speakers. Hopefully, intimidation, coercion, and violence will not be part of your public speaking experiences, but some public speakers have been known to call for destruction and incite mobs of people to commit atrocities. Thus, distortion and expressions of intolerance and hatred are of particular concern when it comes to public speaking.

Distortion occurs when someone purposefully twists information in a way that detracts from its original meaning. Unfortunately, some speakers take information and uses it in a manner that is not in the spirit of the original information. One place we see distortion frequently is in the political context, where politicians cite data and either completely alters the information or use it deceptively. FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center ( http://www.factcheck.org ), and the St. Petersburg Times’s Politifact ( http://www.politifact.com ) are nonpartisan organizations devoted to analyzing political messages and demonstrating how information has been distorted.

Speakers should avoid expressions of intolerance and hatred such as using ageist, heterosexist, racist, sexist, and any other form of speech that demeans or belittles a group of people. Hate speech from all sides of the political spectrum in our society is detrimental to ethical communication. As such, we as speakers should be acutely aware of how an audience may perceive words that could be considered bigoted. For example, suppose a school board official involved in budget negotiations used the word “shekels” to refer to money, which he believes the teachers’ union should be willing to give up (Associated Press, 2011). The remark would be likely to prompt accusations of anti-Semitism and to distract listeners from any constructive suggestions the official might have for resolving budget issues. Although the official might insist that he meant no offense, he damaged the ethical climate of the budget debate by using a word associated with bigotry.

At the same time, it is important for listeners to pay attention to expressions of intolerance or hatred. Extremist speakers sometimes attempt to disguise their true agendas by avoiding bigoted “buzzwords” and using mild-sounding terms instead. For example, a speaker advocating the overthrow of a government might use the term “regime change” instead of “revolution”; similarly, proponents of genocide in various parts of the world have used the term “ethnic cleansing” instead of “extermination.” By listening critically to the gist of a speaker’s message as well as the specific language he or she uses, we can see how that speaker views the world.

Distortion  occurs when someone purposefully twists information and uses it in a manner that is not in the spirit of the original information.

We Are Committed to the Courageous Expression of Personal Convictions in Pursuit of Fairness and Justice

We believe that finding and bringing to light situations of inequality and injustice within our society is vital. Public speaking has been used throughout history to point out inequality, bias, and injustice. From Sojourner Truth describing the evils of slavery to Army Lt. Dan Choi’s speeches arguing that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy,” speeches have long been used to point out injustice. Many social justice movements have started because young public speakers have decided to stand up for what they believe is fair and just.

We Advocate Sharing Information, Opinions, and Feelings When Facing Significant Choices While Also Respecting Privacy and Confidentiality

This ethical principle involves balancing personal disclosure with discretion. It is perfectly normal for speakers to want to share their personal opinions and feelings about a topic. If you choose to represent your thoughts and feelings in your speech, it is necessary to highlight the information is from your own perspective. Your listeners have a right to know the difference between facts and personal opinions.

Similarly, we must respect others’ privacy and confidentiality when speaking. If you obtain the information from a printed or publicly distributed material, it’s entirely appropriate to use that information without getting permission, as long as you cite it. However, when you have a great anecdote one of your friends told you in confidence or access to information that is not available to the general public, it is best to seek permission before using the information in a speech.

This ethical obligation even has legal implications in many government and corporate contexts. For example, individuals who work for the Central Intelligence Agency are legally precluded from discussing their work in public without prior review by the agency. And, companies, such as Google, also have policies requiring employees to seek permission before engaging in public speaking in which sensitive information might be leaked.

We Accept Responsibility for the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Our Own Communication and Expect the Same of Others

The last statement of NCA’s ethical credo may be the most important one. We live in a society where a speaker’s message can be heard around the world in a matter of minutes, thanks to our global communication networks. Extreme remarks made by politicians, media commentators, and celebrities, as well as ordinary people, can unexpectedly “go viral” with regrettable consequences. It is not unusual to see situations where a speaker talks hatefully about a specific group, but when one of the speaker’s listeners violently attacks a member of the group, the speaker insists that they had no way of knowing that this could have happened. Washing one’s hands of responsibility is unacceptable: all speakers should accept responsibility for the short and long-term consequences of their speeches. Although it is certainly not always the speaker’s fault if someone commits an act of violence, the speaker should take responsibility for their role in the situation. This process involves being genuinely reflective and willing to examine how one’s speech could have tragic consequences.

Furthermore, attempting to persuade a group of people to take any action means you should make sure that you understand the consequences of that action. Whether you are convincing people to vote for a political candidate or just encouraging them to lose weight, you should consider the potential short and long-term consequences of that decision. While our predictions of short and long-term consequences may not always be right, we have an ethical duty to at least think through the possible effects of our speeches and the actions we encourage.

Practicing Ethical Public Speaking

In this section, we’ve introduced you to the basics of thinking through the ethics of public speaking. Knowing about ethics is essential, but even more important to being an ethical public speaker is putting that knowledge into practice. We should begin by thinking through possible ethical pitfalls prior to standing up and speaking out. Table 1 “Public Speaking Ethics Checklist” is a checklist based on our discussion in this chapter to help you think through some of these issues.

Table 1 Public Speaking Ethics Checklist

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author, p. 349.

Associated Press. (2011, May 5). Conn. shekel shellacking. New York Post .

Freedom of speech. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s dictionary of law . Retrieved from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom%20of%20speech

McCroskey, J. C., Wrench, J. S., & Richmond, V. P. (2003).  Principles of public speaking . Indianapolis, IN: The College Network.

National Archives and Records Administration. (2011). Bill of rights transcription. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Shiffrin, S. H. (1999).  Dissent, injustice and the meanings of America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Supreme Court of the United States. (2007). Syllabus: Morse et al. v. Frederick. No. 06–278. Argued March 19, 2007–Decided June 25, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

Tilley, E. (2005). The ethics pyramid: Making ethics unavoidable in the public relations process.  Journal of Mass Media Ethics ,  20 , 305–320.

Stand up, Speak out Copyright © 2017 by Josh Miller; Marnie Lawler-Mcdonough; Megan Orcholski; Kristin Woodward; Lisa Roth; and Emily Mueller is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Help & FAQ

The Ethics of Speechwriting

• Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies

Research output : Chapter in Book/Entry/Poem › Chapter

In this chapter, we discuss ethical issues surrounding the practice of speechwriting. We outline the code of ethics for speechwriters developed in 2015. We recognize that the very act of writing speeches for others can bring a host of ethical questions and that at the heart of the issue stands the speaker whose words have supposedly been written by another. Yet, upon careful assessment, we argue, this is not the case. Instead, we offer the perspective that most individuals in leadership positions have aides and consultants for various tasks and speaking in public is one of them. We take the work of the speechwriters as an advisor who assists those entrusted with speaking to negotiating effectively a text and context and opting for maximizing a speech’s effect.

Publication series

Asjc scopus subject areas.

• Linguistics and Language
• Communication
• Cultural Studies
• Political Science and International Relations

Access to Document

• 10.1007/978-3-030-03685-0_11

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Ethical aspects Engineering & Materials Science 100%
• Code of Ethics Arts & Humanities 95%
• Ethical Issues Arts & Humanities 84%
• Consultants Arts & Humanities 80%
• speaking Social Sciences 58%
• moral philosophy Social Sciences 57%
• leadership Social Sciences 24%

T1 - The Ethics of Speechwriting

AU - Kjeldsen, Jens E.

AU - Kiewe, Amos

AU - Lund, Marie

AU - Barnholdt Hansen, Jette

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2019, The Author(s).

N2 - In this chapter, we discuss ethical issues surrounding the practice of speechwriting. We outline the code of ethics for speechwriters developed in 2015. We recognize that the very act of writing speeches for others can bring a host of ethical questions and that at the heart of the issue stands the speaker whose words have supposedly been written by another. Yet, upon careful assessment, we argue, this is not the case. Instead, we offer the perspective that most individuals in leadership positions have aides and consultants for various tasks and speaking in public is one of them. We take the work of the speechwriters as an advisor who assists those entrusted with speaking to negotiating effectively a text and context and opting for maximizing a speech’s effect.

AB - In this chapter, we discuss ethical issues surrounding the practice of speechwriting. We outline the code of ethics for speechwriters developed in 2015. We recognize that the very act of writing speeches for others can bring a host of ethical questions and that at the heart of the issue stands the speaker whose words have supposedly been written by another. Yet, upon careful assessment, we argue, this is not the case. Instead, we offer the perspective that most individuals in leadership positions have aides and consultants for various tasks and speaking in public is one of them. We take the work of the speechwriters as an advisor who assists those entrusted with speaking to negotiating effectively a text and context and opting for maximizing a speech’s effect.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164742306&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85164742306&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-03685-0_11

DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-03685-0_11

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85164742306

T3 - Rhetoric, Politics and Society

BT - Rhetoric, Politics and Society

PB - Palgrave Macmillan

The Ethics of Speechwriting

• First Online: 15 March 2019

Cite this chapter

• Jens E. Kjeldsen 7 ,
• Amos Kiewe 8 ,
• Marie Lund 9 &
• Jette Barnholdt Hansen  

Part of the book series: Rhetoric, Politics and Society ((RPS))

867 Accesses

In this chapter, we discuss ethical issues surrounding the practice of speechwriting. We outline the code of ethics for speechwriters developed in 2015. We recognize that the very act of writing speeches for others can bring a host of ethical questions and that at the heart of the issue stands the speaker whose words have supposedly been written by another. Yet, upon careful assessment, we argue, this is not the case. Instead, we offer the perspective that most individuals in leadership positions have aides and consultants for various tasks and speaking in public is one of them. We take the work of the speechwriters as an advisor who assists those entrusted with speaking to negotiating effectively a text and context and opting for maximizing a speech’s effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Organized by The Professional Speechwriters Association (see https://www.vsotd.com/speech-writers-association ) at the Georgetown University (McDonough School of Business) on October 7–8, 2015.

The code can be found online at https://www.vsotd.com/PSA/CodeOfEthics . Accessed January 6, 2019.

Richard L. Johannesen , Ethics in Human Communication , 3rd ed. (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1990), 17.

Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students , 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), 7.

Ritter and Medhurst, 6–7.

Ibid., 8–9.

Ibid., 9–10.

Ernest G. Bormann, “Ghostwriting and the Rhetorical Critic,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 46 (1960), 284–288.

Ernest G. Bormann, “Ethics of Ghostwritten Speeches,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 47 (1961), 262–267.

Ernest G. Bormann, “Response (to Franklyn S. Haiman’s “Ghostwriting and the Cult of Leadership”),” Communication Education 33 (1984), 304.

Franklyn S. Haiman , “Ghostwriting and the Cult of Leadership,” Communication Education 33 (1984), 301–304.

Matthew W. Seeger , “Ghostbusting: Exorcising the Great Man Spirit from the Speechwriting Debate,” Communication Education 36, no. 4 (1985), 353–358, 357.

Ibid., 357. Cf. Matthew W. Seeger , “Ethical Issues in Corporate Speechwriting ,” Journal of Business Ethics 11, no. 7 (1992), 501–504.

George Kennedy, “Prooemion,” in Aristotle on Rhetoric : A Theory of Civic Discourse (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), viii.

Cited in Karlyn K. Campbell and Thomas R. Burkholder, Critiques of Contemporary Rhetoric , 2nd ed. (Wadsworth Publishing, 1997), 118.

Ibid., 119.

Jamieson , Eloquence , the following quotes are from pages 204, 217, 218.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Jens E. Kjeldsen

Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens E. Kjeldsen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Kjeldsen, J.E., Kiewe, A., Lund, M., Barnholdt Hansen, J. (2019). The Ethics of Speechwriting. In: Speechwriting in Theory and Practice. Rhetoric, Politics and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03685-0_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03685-0_11

Published : 15 March 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-03684-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-03685-0

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

4.2 Ethics in Public Speaking

The study of ethics in human communication is hardly a recent endeavor. One of the earliest discussions of ethics in communication (and particularly in public speaking) was conducted by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus . In the centuries since Plato’s time, an entire subfield within the discipline of human communication has developed to explain and understand communication ethics.

Communication Code of Ethics

In 1999, the National Communication Association officially adopted the Credo for Ethical Communication (see the text box). Ultimately, the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is a set of beliefs communication scholars have about the ethics of human communication.

National Communication Association Credo for Ethical Communication

Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following principles of ethical communication:

• We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.
• We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society.
• We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.
• We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society.
• We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators.
• We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.
• We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
• We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality.
• We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences of our own communication and expect the same of others.

Source: http://www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=134&terms=Credo

Applying the NCA Credo to Public Speaking

The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is designed to inspire discussions of ethics related to all aspects of human communication. For our purposes, we want to think about each of these principles in terms of how they affect public speaking.

We Advocate Truthfulness, Accuracy, Honesty, and Reason as Essential to the Integrity of Communication

As public speakers, one of the first ethical areas we should be concerned with is information honesty. While there are cases where speakers have blatantly lied to an audience, it is more common for speakers to prove a point by exaggerating, omitting facts that weigh against their message, or distorting information. We believe that speakers build a relationship with their audiences, and that lying, exaggerating, or distorting information violates this relationship. Ultimately, a speaker will be more persuasive by using reason and logical arguments supported by facts rather than relying on emotional appeals designed to manipulate the audience.

It is also important to be honest about where all your information comes from in a speech. As speakers, examine your information sources and determine whether they are biased or have hidden agendas. For example, you are not likely to get accurate information about nonwhite individuals from a neo-Nazi website. While you may not know all your sources of information firsthand, you should attempt to find objective sources that do not have an overt or covert agenda that skews the argument you are making.

The second part of information honesty is to fully disclose where we obtain the information in our speeches. As ethical speakers, it is important to always cite your sources of information within the body of a speech. Whether you conducted an interview or read a newspaper article, you must tell your listeners where the information came from. Using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit is called plagiarism . The word “plagiarism” stems from the Latin word plagiaries , or kidnapper. The American Psychological Association states in its publication manual that ethical speakers do not claim “words and ideas of another as their own; they give credit where credit is due” (American Psychological Association, 2001).

In the previous sentence, we placed quotation marks around the sentence to indicate that the words came from the American Psychological Association and not from us. When speaking informally, people sometimes use “air quotes” to signal direct quotations—but this is not a recommended technique in public speaking. Instead, speakers need to verbally tell an audience when they are using someone else’s information. The consequences for failing to cite sources during public speeches can be substantial. When Senator Joseph Biden was running for president of the United States in 1988, reporters found that he had plagiarized portions of his stump speech from British politician Neil Kinnock. Biden was forced to drop out of the race as a result. More recently, the student newspaper at Malone University in Ohio alleged that the university president, Gary W. Streit, had plagiarized material in a public speech. Streit retired abruptly as a result.

Even if you are not running for president of the United States or serving as a college president, citing sources is important to you as a student. Many universities have policies that include dismissal from the institution for student plagiarism of academic work, including public speeches. Our university’s policies regarding Academic Integrity can be found here . Failing to cite your sources might result, at best, in lower credibility with your audience and, at worst, in a failing grade on your assignment or expulsion from your school. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of giving credit to the speakers and authors whose ideas we pass on within our own speeches and writing.

Speakers tend to fall into one of three major traps with plagiarism. The first trap is failing to tell the audience the source of a direct quotation. In the previous paragraph, we used a direct quotation from the American Psychological Association; if we had not used the quotation marks and clearly listed where the cited material came from, you, as a reader, wouldn’t have known the source of that information. To avoid plagiarism, you always need to tell your audience when you are directly quoting information within a speech.

The second plagiarism trap public speakers fall into is paraphrasing what someone else said or wrote without giving credit to the speaker or author. For example, you may have read a book and learned that there are three types of schoolyard bullying. In the middle of your speech you talk about those three types of schoolyard bullying. If you do not tell your audience where you found that information, you are plagiarizing. Typically, the only information you do not need to cite is information that is general knowledge. General knowledge is information that is publicly available and widely known by a large segment of society. For example, you would not need to provide a citation within a speech for the name of Delaware’s capital. Although many people do not know the capital of Delaware without looking it up, this information is publicly available and easily accessible, so assigning credit to one specific source is not useful or necessary.

The third plagiarism trap that speakers fall into is re-citing someone else’s sources within a speech. To explain this problem, let’s look at a brief segment from a research paper written by Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam:

The main character on the hit Fox television show House , Dr. Gregory House, has one basic mantra, “It’s a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what” (Shore & Barclay, 2005). This notion that “everybody lies” is so persistent in the series that t-shirts have been printed with the slogan. Surprisingly, research has shown that most people do lie during interpersonal interactions to some degree. In a study conducted by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead (1975), the researchers had 130 participants record their own conversations with others. After recording these conversations, the participants then examined the truthfulness of the statements within the interactions. Only 38.5% of the statements made during these interactions were labeled as “completely honest.”

In this example, we see that the authors of this paragraph cited information from two external sources: Shore and Barclay and Tummer, Edgley, and Olmstead. These two groups of authors are given credit for their ideas. The authors make it clear that they did not produce the television show House or conduct the study that found that only 38.5 percent of statements were completely honest. Instead, these authors cited information found in two other locations. This type of citation is appropriate.

However, if a speaker read the paragraph and said the following during a speech, it would be plagiarism: “According to Wrench DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam, in a study of 130 participants, only 38.5 percent of the responses were completely honest.” In this case, the speaker is attributing the information cited to the authors of the paragraph, which is not accurate. If you want to cite the information within your speech, you need to read the original article by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead and cite that information yourself.

There are two main reasons we do this. First, Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam may have mistyped the information. Suppose the study by Turner, Edgley, and Olstead really actually found that 58.5 percent of the responses were completely honest. If you cited the revised number (38.5 percent) from the paragraph, you would be further spreading incorrect information.

The second reason we do not re-cite someone else’s sources within our speeches is because it’s intellectually dishonest. You owe your listeners an honest description of where the facts you are relating came from, not just the name of an author who cited those facts. It is more work to trace the original source of a fact or statistic, but by doing that extra work you can avoid this plagiarism trap.

We Endorse Freedom of Expression, Diversity of Perspective, and Tolerance of Dissent to Achieve the Informed and Responsible Decision Making Fundamental to a Civil Society

This ethical principle affirms that a civil society depends on freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent and that informed and responsible decisions can only be made if all members of society are free to express their thoughts and opinions. Further, it holds that diverse viewpoints, including those that disagree with accepted authority, are important for the functioning of a democratic society.

If everyone only listened to one source of information, then we would be easily manipulated and controlled. For this reason, we believe that individuals should be willing to listen to a range of speakers on a given subject. As listeners or consumers of communication, we should realize that this diversity of perspectives enables us to be more fully informed on a subject. Imagine voting in an election after listening only to the campaign speeches of one candidate. The perspective of that candidate would be so narrow that you would have no way to accurately understand and assess the issues at hand or the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing candidates. Unfortunately, some voters do limit themselves to listening only to their candidate of choice and, as a result, base their voting decisions on incomplete—and, not infrequently, inaccurate—information.

Listening to diverse perspectives includes being willing to hear dissenting voices. Dissent is by nature uncomfortable, as it entails expressing opposition to authority, often in very unflattering terms. Legal scholar Steven H. Shiffrin has argued in favor of some symbolic speech (e.g., flag burning) because we as a society value the ability of anyone to express their dissent against the will and ideas of the majority (Shiffrin, 1999). Ethical communicators will be receptive to dissent, no matter how strongly they may disagree with the speaker’s message because they realize that a society that forbids dissent cannot function democratically.

Ultimately, honoring free speech and seeking out a variety of perspectives is very important for all listeners.

We Strive to Understand and Respect Other Communicators before Evaluating and Responding to Their Messages

This is another ethical characteristic that is specifically directed at receivers of a message. As listeners, we often let our perceptions of a speaker’s nonverbal behavior—his or her appearance, posture, mannerisms, eye contact, and so on—determine our opinions about a message before the speaker has said a word. We may also find ourselves judging a speaker based on information we have heard about him or her from other people. Perhaps you have heard from other students that a particular teacher is a really boring lecturer or is really entertaining in class. Even though you do not have personal knowledge, you may prejudge the teacher and his or her message based on information you have been given from others. The NCA credo reminds us that to be ethical listeners, we need to avoid such judgments and instead make an effort to listen respectfully; only when we have understood a speaker’s viewpoint are we ready to begin forming our opinions of the message.

Listeners should try to objectively analyze the content and arguments within a speech before deciding how to respond. Especially when we disagree with a speaker, we might find it difficult to listen to the content of the speech and, instead, work on creating a rebuttal the entire time the speaker is talking. When this happens, we do not strive to understand the speaker and do not respect the speaker.

Of course, this does not just affect the listener in the public speaking situation. As speakers, we are often called upon to evaluate and refute potential arguments against our positions. While we always want our speeches to be as persuasive as possible, we do ourselves and our audiences a disservice when we downplay, distort, or refuse to mention important arguments from the opposing side. Fairly researching and evaluating counterarguments is an important ethical obligation for the public speaker.

We Promote Access to Communication Resources and Opportunities as Necessary to Fulfill Human Potential and Contribute to the Well-Being of Families, Communities, and Society

Human communication is a skill that can and should be taught. We strongly believe that you can become a better, more ethical speaker. One of the reasons the authors of this book teach courses in public speaking and wrote this college textbook on public speaking is that we, as communication professionals, have an ethical obligation to provide others, including students like you, with resources and opportunities to become better speakers.

We Promote Communication Climates of Caring and Mutual Understanding That Respect the Unique Needs and Characteristics of Individual Communicators

Speakers need to take a two-pronged approach when addressing any audience: caring about the audience and understanding the audience. When you as a speaker truly care about your audience’s needs and desires, you avoid setting up a manipulative climate. This is not to say that your audience will always perceive their own needs and desires in the same way you do, but if you make an honest effort to speak to your audience in a way that has their best interests at heart, you are more likely to create persuasive arguments that are not just manipulative appeals.

Second, it is important for a speaker to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding. To do this, you should first learn as much as possible about your audience, a process called audience analysis.

To create a climate of caring and mutual respect, it is important for us as speakers to be open with our audiences so that our intentions and perceptions are clear. Nothing alienates an audience faster than a speaker with a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated purpose of the speech. One of our coauthors once listened to a speaker give a two-hour talk, allegedly about workplace wellness, which actually turned out to be an infomercial for the speaker’s weight-loss program. In this case, the speaker clearly had a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda, which made the audience feel disrespected.

We Condemn Communication That Degrades Individuals and Humanity through Distortion, Intimidation, Coercion, and Violence and through the Expression of Intolerance and Hatred

This ethical principle is very important for all speakers. Hopefully, intimidation, coercion, and violence will not be part of your public speaking experiences, but some public speakers have been known to call for violence and incite mobs of people to commit atrocities. Thus distortion and expressions of intolerance and hatred are of special concern when it comes to public speaking.

Distortion occurs when someone purposefully twists information in a way that detracts from its original meaning. Unfortunately, some speakers take information and use it in a manner that is not in the spirit of the original information. One place we see distortion frequently is in the political context, where politicians cite a statistic or the results of a study and either completely alter the information or use it in a deceptive manner. FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center ( http://www.factcheck.org ), and the St. Petersburg Times’s Politifact ( http://www.politifact.com ) are nonpartisan organizations devoted to analyzing political messages and demonstrating how information has been distorted.

Expressions of intolerance and hatred that are to be avoided include using ageist , heterosexist , racist , sexist , and any other form of speech that demeans or belittles a group of people. Hate speech from all sides of the political spectrum in our society is detrimental to ethical communication. As such, we as speakers should be acutely aware of how an audience may perceive words that could be considered bigoted. For example, suppose a school board official involved in budget negotiations used the word “shekels” to refer to money, which he believes the teachers’ union should be willing to give up (Associated Press, 2011). The remark would be likely to prompt accusations of anti-Semitism and to distract listeners from any constructive suggestions the official might have for resolving budget issues. Although the official might insist that he meant no offense, he damaged the ethical climate of the budget debate by using a word associated with bigotry.

At the same time, it is important for listeners to pay attention to expressions of intolerance or hatred. Extremist speakers sometimes attempt to disguise their true agendas by avoiding bigoted “buzzwords” and using mild-sounding terms instead. For example, a speaker advocating the overthrow of a government might use the term “regime change” instead of “revolution”; similarly, proponents of genocide in various parts of the world have used the term “ethnic cleansing” instead of “extermination.” By listening critically to the gist of a speaker’s message as well as the specific language he or she uses, we can see how that speaker views the world.

We Are Committed to the Courageous Expression of Personal Convictions in Pursuit of Fairness and Justice

We believe that finding and bringing to light situations of inequality and injustice within our society is important. Public speaking has been used throughout history to point out inequality and injustice, from Patrick Henry arguing against the way the English government treated the American colonists and Sojourner Truth describing the evils of slavery to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and Army Lt. Dan Choi’s speeches arguing that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” is unjust. Many social justice movements have started because young public speakers have decided to stand up for what they believe is fair and just.

We Advocate Sharing Information, Opinions, and Feelings When Facing Significant Choices While Also Respecting Privacy and Confidentiality

This ethical principle involves balancing personal disclosure with discretion. It is perfectly normal for speakers to want to share their own personal opinions and feelings about a topic; however, it is also important to highlight information within a speech that represents your own thoughts and feelings. Your listeners have a right to know the difference between facts and personal opinions.

Similarly, we have an obligation to respect others’ privacy and confidentiality when speaking. If information is obtained from printed or publicly distributed material, it’s perfectly appropriate to use that information without getting permission, as long as you cite it. However, when you have a great anecdote one of your friends told you in confidence, or access to information that is not available to the general public, it is best to seek permission before using the information in a speech.

This ethical obligation even has legal implications in many government and corporate contexts. For example, individuals who work for the Central Intelligence Agency are legally precluded from discussing their work in public without prior review by the agency. And companies such as Google also have policies requiring employees to seek permission before engaging in public speaking in which sensitive information might be leaked.

We Accept Responsibility for the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Our Own Communication and Expect the Same of Others

The last statement of NCA’s ethical credo may be the most important one. We live in a society where a speaker’s message can literally be heard around the world in a matter of minutes, thanks to our global communication networks. Extreme remarks made by politicians, media commentators, and celebrities, as well as ordinary people, can unexpectedly “go viral” with regrettable consequences. It is not unusual to see situations where a speaker talks hatefully about a specific group, but when one of the speaker’s listeners violently attacks a member of the group, the speaker insists that he or she had no way of knowing that this could possibly have happened. Washing one’s hands of responsibility is unacceptable: all speakers should accept responsibility for the short-term and long-term consequences of their speeches. Although it is certainly not always the speaker’s fault if someone commits an act of violence, the speaker should take responsibility for her or his role in the situation. This process involves being truly reflective and willing to examine how one’s speech could have tragic consequences.

Furthermore, attempting to persuade a group of people to take any action means you should make sure that you understand the consequences of that action. Whether you are persuading people to vote for a political candidate or just encouraging them to lose weight, you should know what the short-term and long-term consequences of that decision could be. While our predictions of short-term and long-term consequences may not always be right, we have an ethical duty to at least think through the possible consequences of our speeches and the actions we encourage.

Practicing Ethical Public Speaking

Thus far in this section we’ve introduced you to the basics of thinking through the ethics of public speaking. Knowing about ethics is essential, but even more important to being an ethical public speaker is putting that knowledge into practice by thinking through possible ethical pitfalls prior to standing up and speaking out. Below is a list of some examples of unethical public speaking behaviors based on our discussion in this chapter.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author, p. 349.

Associated Press. (2011, May 5). Conn. shekel shellacking. New York Post .

Shiffrin, S. H. (1999). Dissent, injustice and the meanings of America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit

according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law, free speech entails “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” (Freedom of speech)

occurs when someone purposefully twists information in a way that detracts from its original meaning

prejudice or discrimination against a particular age-group and especially the elderly

a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of female–male sexuality and relationships

a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

prejudice or discrimination based on sex

Introduction to Speech Communication Copyright © 2021 by Individual authors retain copyright of their work. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

2 Ethics and Public Speaking

Anthony Naaeke, Ph.D. and Eva Kolbusz-Kijne, Ph.D.

Learning Objectives

• Explore the meaning of ethics.
• Distinguish between absolute and relativist perspectives on ethics.
• Identify and apply the code of ethics for ethical public speaking established by the National Communication Association
• Distinguish between ethical and unethical speech.

“I regret it now because the information was wrong.”

— Colin Powell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d93_u1HHgM4

The above quotation from former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell directly applies to the discussion we are about to have in this chapter, namely, ethics in public speaking. In this television interview on the Larry King Live CNN program first aired in 2011, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, expressed regret for a speech he delivered before Congress in which he provided what he believed was justifiable reasons for the United States to go to war against Iraq following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. Although Powell believed at the time of his speech to the United Nations that the information and evidence he provided in the speech were accurate, ostensibly because he trusted the officials who vetted the accuracy of the information, he later realized that the speech was based on misinformation and inaccurate evidence. By expressing regret for delivering a speech filled with inaccuracies, Colin Powell basically acknowledged that his speech was unethical. However, by publicly expressing regret for an unethical speech that he delivered, he fulfilled the ninth ethical principle of the National Communication Association’s code for ethical speaking that states, “We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences for our own communication and expect the same of others.” This principle calls for ethical speakers to take responsibility for mistakes and errors made in communication whether in the short or long term when they become aware of the errors and inaccuracies they expressed.

In this chapter we will explore the meaning of ethics, ethical perspectives, the Code of Ethics of the National Communication Association and distinguish between ethical and unethical speeches.

Ethics has to do with social norms regarding right and wrong. It is a branch of philosophy that deals with right and wrong. Because different cultures have different norms about right and wrong, ethics is a very contested zone in all aspects of human encounters. One culture may consider something to be right while another may consider the same thing to be wrong. Hence, the contested nature of ethics. However, for effective communication, especially communication that is intended to move an audience to make choices or decisions, some basic agreement on what is right and wrong is necessary.

In De Oratore (Institutes of Oratory), the Roman rhetorician Quintilian wrote that the perfect orator is first “a good man speaking well.” This simple statement establishes a fundamental expectation for ethical public speaking, namely, that great oratory should entail both an ethical character of the speaker as well as delivery that embodies confidence, competence, dynamism, and good will (addresses the needs of an audience).

For Quintilian and other rhetoricians such as Cicero and St. Augustine, rhetoric or oratory should be grounded in truth and not deception. According to these rhetoricians, the communication of truth distinguishes ethical rhetoric from sophistic rhetoric which uses any means, including deceptive ways, untruths, and outright lies, to persuade an audience.

Ethical Perspectives

There are different perspectives on ethics, but this section will concentrate on two of them, namely, the absolute values perspective and the relativist perspective.

The absolute values perspective on ethics holds that irrespective of person, place, or time, right is right and wrong is wrong. In other words, there are universal ethical values that apply to all people and cultures. For example, it is wrong to kill or to tell a lie or to steal or to defraud. This means that irrespective of person or culture or situation, a person who tells a lie or kills or defrauds others has done an unethical act.

https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/moral-values-and-idea-god/6-relative-and-absolute-value

Ethical relativism on the other hand is the philosophical position that the sense of right and wrong is always relative to the individual and not universal to all people and situations.    The Encyclopedia Britannica defines ethical relativism as “the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society.” The arguments for ethical relativism are mainly two-fold. The Encyclopedia observes that an argument, based on the Greek Philosopher Herodotus (5t Century BC), claims that every culture has its customs and norms and no culture’s values, norms and customs are better than another. A second argument in favor of ethical relativism, according to the Encyclopedia, is based on the 18th century philosopher David Hume who expressed the idea that moral values are grounded in emotion and not reason and can, therefore, not be universalized.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethical-relativism

Implications of Ethical Perspectives for Public Speaking

When applied to public speaking, the absolute values perspective on ethics implies that there are or should be rigorous principles that guide how to teach public speaking, how to write a speech, how to deliver a speech, how to reference sources, what is considered appropriate vocal projection, eye contact, posture, vocabulary, etc. This approach to public speaking can be regarded by minority groups based on race, culture, or nationality, as oppressive in the context of culturally sustaining pedagogies and the ongoing efforts to engage pedagogies that are inclusive, diverse, and equity minded.

On the other hand, a fundamental implication of ethical relativism for public speaking is that there are no universal norms or ethical codes that govern what and how to make public presentations. This means that depending on the speaker, context, audience or purpose, a public speaker decides what and how to make the presentation without following a predetermined style. This also means that the principle of ethical relativism is more respectful of diverse cultural values, culturally relevant speech patterns, thought processes, and language use. In the context of culturally sustaining pedagogies, the relativist ethical perspective would allow more flexibility in how public speaking is taught and how students, depending on their various backgrounds, prepare and deliver speeches.

Despite the implications of the two ethical perspectives on ethics discussed above, the National Communication Association (NCA) has established a Credo for Ethical Communication to guide the practice of the discipline.

NCA Credo for Ethical Communication

The NCA believes ethical communication is “fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media.” Conversely, the NCA believes that unethical communication threatens the well-being of individuals and society. Consequently, the NCA has established a Credo for Ethical Communication referenced in the link below.

https://edge.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/ethics_section_03_module01_0.pdf

The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is extensive, but for the purpose of this chapter which addresses ethics in public speaking, it is important to outline and focus on the following nine principles of the code:

• We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.
• We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society.
• We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.
• We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of individuals, families, communities, and society.
• We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators.
• We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.
• We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
• We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality.
• We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences for our own communication and expect the same of others.

In essence, the principles outlined in the code emphasize the importance of communication that is grounded in truth, honesty, accuracy, and respect for the audience as an ethical responsibility of a speaker.

Distinguishing Between Ethical and Unethical Speeches

Based on the exploration of ethics, perspectives on ethics, and the NCA Credo for ethical communication, it is appropriate to observe that irrespective of cultural background or values, some general principles should guide what is ethical or unethical in public speaking.

Purpose of the Speech

Effective communication must be purpose-driven. The purpose of a speech is important because it lets the speaker and audience know the ultimate outcome of the speech. The purpose of the speech should seek to accomplish something good. If the purpose of a speech is unethical it means that it seeks to accomplish something bad. Let us explore some examples to illustrate. In the speech by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations that we referenced in the introduction of this chapter, his purpose was to persuade the International Community that Saddam Hussien, then President of Iraq, had weapons of mass destruction which posed serious security problems to the world and that the United States would have to go to war against Iraq in order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction against the International Community. The purpose of the speech was ethical in as far as it sought to protect the common good of the International Community by preventing a nation and its leader from doing harm to people. On the other hand, a speech whose purpose is to arouse anger and resentment against specific groups of people, such as immigrants, would be unethical because such a speech aims to do harm to a group of people by appealing to the emotion of anger in its audience who would then act violently or discriminate against immigrants as evidenced by a speech by former President Donald Trump in which he called Mexicans murderers and rapists. See reference to the speech in the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaz1J0s-cL4

Credibility of evidence

Another element of an ethical speech is that the information given should be based on facts and not opinion,, information that is accurate and reliable. Facts can be demonstrated or proven, while opinions are the personal views of a person that may or may not be factual. The evidence should also be accurate in the sense that it should fully and properly represent the ideas or statements of others within the context in which such ideas or statements are made. Evidence that is not accurate distorts the original message of the source of information and misleads an audience. The credibility of evidence is not only about what is stated but also about who says it. To be ethical, a public speaker must verify that the source of information they use as evidence to support claims is reliable or can be trustedtrustworthy. For example, the statements of a racist bigot in defense of racism cannot be considered reliable because of the personal disposition of the source.

Another important consideration about the credibility of evidence is crediting the sources of the information used. An ethical speaker must let the audience know the source of the information or data or statistics or images such as paintings, pictures, and drawings if the information was taken from another person’s work. Failing to credit the sources of information constitutes plagiarism.

Plagiarism is using another person’s ideas or work without crediting the source. There are three types of plagiarism: global, patchwork and incremental.

Global plagiarism is taking the entire work of another person and not crediting the source. For example, if you take a speech that was written by someone else and deliver it to an audience without letting the audience know who the original writer of the speech is, that would constitute global plagiarism.

Patchwork plagiarism on the other hand takes substantive parts, such as a paragraph, from different sources and puts them together without crediting the sources. Patchwork plagiarism is easy to commit when you highlight, copy, and paste information from different sources without crediting the sources.

The third type of plagiarism, incremental plagiarism, happens when you take a phrase or sentence from various sources and fail to credit the sources. Ethical speakers always credit their sources.

Arrangement of Ideas

One other way to be an ethical speaker is to arrange your ideas in a way that makes it easy for the audience to follow the logical flow of the message. An ethical speaker should facilitate the understanding of the message and not confuse the audience with disorderly placement of ideas. In an orderly arrangement of ideas, the audience can easily follow how one idea moves to another or relates to another, whereas in a confusing arrangement of ideas, the audience struggles to see how one point relates to another or flows into another.

An ethical speaker should always be mindful that the language used is familiar to the audience and inclusive, . Language should not toonot be too technical or abstract,; not racist, sexist, or abusive and is inclusive. Using familiar language makes it easy for the audience to understand a message being communicated, while technical or abstract language may be appropriate for a specific audience especially based on profession and level of education. Racist, sexist, and abusive language looks down on a group of people while extolling the perceived superiority of the speaker over the audience.

Respect for the audience

In addition to the above guidelines for ethical speaking, a speaker should show respect to an audience by being on time to the event and respect the time allotted for the speech. The speaker also shows respect to an audience by dressing appropriately and listening to the feedback from the audience and responding to questions from the audience honestly.

Finally, an ethical speaker should know what they are talking about, be well prepared, dress appropriately, speak clearly, engage the audience through direct eye contact and body movements that show physical/mindful presence and attention to the audience.

Other guiding principles for ethical public speaking

Many scholars of ethical communication agree that an ethical speaker should have integrity, competence, responsibility, respect, and concern (Plante, 2004). Integrity means being an honest, fair and a just person. Competence is a quality of someone who is knowledgeable and skilled in some job or task whilst r. Responsibility has to do with keeping promises and being attentive to one’s obligations. An ethical speaker should be respectful of others in terms of paying attention to their rights, needs, dignity and be concerned about the needs of others.

In this chapter, we explored the meaning of ethics, different perspectives on ethics, and distinguished between ethical and unethical speeches. We also outlined the Credo for Ethical Communication by the National Communication Association and provided practical guidelines for ethical public speaking. In the context of higher education that emphasizes the need for culturally sustaining pedagogies, an ethical speaker must be respectful of diverse audiences they address. Ethical speakers should use evidence that is based on reliable facts while considering the lived experiences and needs of the audience.

Review Questions

• What is your understanding of ethics and why is it important for speaking speakers?
• Identify nine principles of ethical communication outlined by the National Communication Association.

Class Exercises

• Show a speech to the class and put students in small groups to discuss and explain why the speech is ethical or unethical.
• Put students in small groups and ask them to make a list of things they consider ethical or unethical in a speech.

Works Cited

Encyclopedia Britannica. Ethical Relativism. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethical-relativism . Accessed 6/5/21.

Plante, Thomas. Do the Right Thing: Living Ethically in an Unethical World . Oakland, CA. New Harbinger Publications, 2004, p. 49-145.

Powell, Colin. Interview on Larry King Live. CNN . 2011. YouTube Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d93_u1HHgM4 . Accessed 6/5/21.

The Gifford Lectures. Relative and Absolute Value. https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/moral-values-and-idea-god/6-relative-and-absolute-value . Accessed 6/5/21.

Trump, Donald. Interview on MSNBC. YouTube Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaz1J0s-cL4 . Accessed 6/5/21.

Ethics and Public Speaking Copyright © by Anthony Naaeke, Ph.D. and Eva Kolbusz-Kijne, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Module 2: Ethical Speech

Putting it together: ethical speech.

As you’ve just seen, the subject of ethics in public speaking covers a lot of ground! That’s because ethics are rarely obvious or self-evident. Instead, they require a lot of thought and a system of principles against which to judge a person’s words, behaviors, and actions. Here are some of the key concepts we discussed:

• Ethics are a set of standards that govern the conduct of a person. Ethical behavior should not be confused with moral or legal behavior.
• Within any public speaking scenario, ethical speech is of paramount importance.
• Unconscious or implicit bias can interfere with fair and ethical communication. Conflicts of interest are an important ethical consideration in public speaking.
• One of the most important parts of ethical communication is to avoid inadvertently excluding parts of the audience. Using inclusive language is a good way to make sure all listeners feel included in our message.
• Hate speech of any kind is never acceptable in public communications.
• Although free speech is Constitutionally protected in the U.S., free speech should not be confused with speech without consequences.
• An important aspect of ethical communication is to give proper credit for other people’s words, ideas, and other intellectual work.
• Putting It Together: Ethical Speech. Authored by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2 Chapter 2: Ethics

Lauren Rome, College of the Canyons

Adapted by William Kelvin, Professor of Communication Studies, Florida SouthWestern State College

Figure 2.1: Ethics 1

Introduction

The explosion of the internet and the constant presence of media have made it impossible to avoid receiving messages. We see messages when we look on social media, when we attend class, when we watch the news, and even when we talk to our friends. I’m willing to bet you haven’t once asked yourself, “are these messages ethical?” And why would you? We don’t tend to live our lives constantly asking ourselves that question. We do, however, ask ourselves if we believe and agree with the information. Both of these questions correspond to the principles of ethical public speaking. Throughout this chapter, we will examine ethics in public speaking, and how it relates to your upcoming speeches.

The Importance of Ethics

When it comes to public speaking, your goal is to communicate a message to your audience. In many cases, this could mean you are simply conveying information and sharing knowledge; other times this could mean you’re actively persuading your audience to change their minds, behaviors, or beliefs. As the person communicating the message, you are tasked with a significant ethical dilemma, whether you are aware of it or not.

In general, ethics examines what society deems as issues of morality, such as what is right, fair, or just. When looking at ethics from a personal standpoint, it guides how you “should” behave in various situations. History is ripe with great speakers who used ethical and passionate messages to make a positive impact or bring people together. Some examples include Martin Luther King Jr., Malala Yousafzai, Mohandas Gandhi, and Maya Angelou. On the other hand, there are cases of notorious speakers who used the power of public speech unethically, bringing about chaos, destruction, or heartbreak. Infamous speakers like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Putin, and Joseph McCarthy serve as stark reminders of the harm of unethical public speech.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Speaker

When choosing to use your voice in a public setting, you will face many ethical considerations because you are speaking to actual people, the audience. As such, you need to make careful decisions when determining your goal, your word choice, how you will accomplish your goal, and giving credit where it is due. Ultimately, ethics in public speaking is about conveying messages honestly, thoughtfully, and responsibly.

Identify Your Speech Goals

Ethics places emphasis on the means used to secure the goal, rather than on achieving the goal, or end, itself. Any audience will be more receptive to your message if you use ethical standards to determine your speech goals. Think about why you are speaking to the audience and what you hope to accomplish. This will allow you to choose the most ethical strategies for achieving your goal.

Have you ever tried asking someone for a favor? Maybe you needed your sibling or roommate to take out the trash. The goal is to get them to complete the task for you, but what method will you use to accomplish this goal? One way may be to explain how busy you are working on an outline for your upcoming speech. Another example would be to strike a deal and offer to take the trash out twice in a row. Or, you could guilt them into taking out the trash because they borrowed your computer last week. Finally, you could lie and say you feel unwell and so you are unable to take the trash out. Any method has the potential to bring about the result, but I’m sure you’re able to identify which paths feel the least ethical; no one likes to be guilted or tricked into doing something.

Send Honest Messages

Have you ever heard the saying “honesty is the best policy?” Although this is most often associated with people telling lies, it also applies to the messages you choose to send in your speeches. Ethical speakers do not deceive their audience. Instead, they present verifiable and researched facts. Ethical speakers should not disguise opinions as fact. All content must come from a place of authenticity. Authenticity builds credibility.

Credibility is a complex concept with several facets. In public speaking, credibility is often referred to as the ancient Greek word ethos , which includes your competence, based on your authority and currency on a subject, as well as your trustworthiness. It’s something that is built through your words and actions. Credibility can become damaged when it is revealed you have either lied or even just slightly bent the truth in your speeches.

Once lost or damaged, credibility is nearly impossible to recover or repair, both during a speech and in life. Build it and treasure it. History is full of examples of people’s credibility eroding seemingly overnight. One recent example is George Santos, a young man who was elected to Congress based on narratives later determined to be mostly false . Many people who voted for Santos felt duped by his fabrications and some within his own party called for his resignation.

Choose Language Carefully

It might be obvious you’re going to use words to communicate messages. Less obvious, is the significance these words hold for your diverse audience who are the focus of your speech. Oftentimes, the speaker thinks of themselves in speechmaking, however, you should be focused on the audience at all times.

Speaking ethically involves striving to use inclusive language, aimed at making all listeners feel represented in the language of the speech. At a minimum, inclusive language avoids the use of words that may exclude or disrespect particular groups of people. For example, avoiding gender-specific terms like “man” or “mankind.” Inclusive language also avoids statements that express or imply ideas that are sexist, racist, otherwise biased, prejudiced, or denigrating to any particular group of people. Even if the speaker means well, certain terms, especially around attributes of identity, can be interpreted as offensive, hurtful, outdated, or inappropriate.

A simple strategy to make people feel included in your speech is to use the plural pronouns “we” and “us” instead of the singular pronouns “I” and “me.” When you linguistically separate your audience from yourself, you create a divide, but when you use words to show your connection, you come together. Imagine the difference in audience reception to “Today I will tell you…” versus “Today we will cover….” This situation can be exacerbated when audience members have some knowledge on the topic. If you treat your audience as complete novices, any members experienced in your topic may feel offended.

Avoid Plagiarism

When we speak ethically, we use our own original speech content. That doesn’t mean you have to come up with the facts and evidence on your own. Just as with any other research project, you must give appropriate credit for the sources used. A good rule of thumb is, “If you didn’t write it, cite it!” Be sure to read closely the Citing Your Sources Correctly section in Ch. 7, Gathering Materials & Supporting Your Ideas. When you cite your sources, you avoid plagiarism , which is passing off other people’s work as your own. Plagiarism can have serious consequences, like failing an assignment, failing a course, or even being kicked out of the educational institution. This occurs in two ways: intentional plagiarism and unintentional plagiarism.

Figure 2.2: Bush Aide Resigns Over Plagiarism 2

Intentional plagiarism is when a speaker purposefully uses content that is not their own. The most egregious example is when someone steals an entire speech or paper and just slaps on their name. Some other instances of intentional plagiarism include: when someone fabricates sources or quotes; strategically changes a few words from a source without citing it (proper paraphrasing requires more than just changing a few words from the original source); or purposefully adds sources to their references that they didn’t use.

Something that happens more commonly is unintentional plagiarism , which occurs inadvertently. Think about what we mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, with how we are constantly taking in messages. Watching a documentary on Netflix does not make you an expert. Although it may be a great place to start building your knowledge, it doesn’t mean it is your intellectual property. That information still came from a source (the documentary), and you’ll need to cite it. Unintentional plagiarism can also occur if we use the same paper for two different classes, quote a source incorrectly, or fail to properly introduce an idea we’ve learned from someone else.

It doesn’t matter whether you meant to be intentional or unintentional, plagiarism is still unethical and can have serious consequences. There are many examples, such as a U.S. professor stepping down from a lucrative vice-chancellor position for plagiarizing passages of a grant application. A political appointee in Germany was compelled to resign from her prestigious post as minister of education and research 40 years after publishing a doctoral dissertation containing many passages with insufficient citation.

To avoid plagiarism, spend time conducting quality research and keep careful notes. Use quote marks to indicate material that is copied verbatim in your own notes so that you avoid passing the material along as paraphrased when it is not. Don’t forget to orally cite your sources in the delivery of your speech at the moment you utilize them. Also, every source cited in your References should be cited in the text of your outline at the places where you use the information. Oral citations during the speech and in-text citations in the outline are both important to avoiding any charges of academic misbehavior.

Be Prepared to Speak

Speech preparation entails picking and researching a topic, analyzing your audience, organizing your main points, creating visual aids, and practicing your delivery. You prepare so that your speech can have the greatest impact. As a speaker, it is your responsibility to consider the impact of your speech and to ensure you are communicating truthful, accurate, and appropriate information. From an ethical standpoint, preparation is crucial to ensure you are thoroughly informed about your topic and allows you to convey a sense of credibility to your audience.

When you are unprepared, you will be embarrassed and your audience will feel that you are wasting their time. Also, plagiarism is often a consequence of procrastination. Preparing well before deadline means you won’t be tempted to recite others words or ideas without proper attribution.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Listener

As you’ve seen throughout this chapter, careful consideration is taken by the speaker to craft a thoughtful and developed speech for their audience. In return, the audience should also behave ethically. When thinking about these responsibilities, identify the expectations you have for an audience when you’re speaking. Do you want them to listen with an open mind? Pay attention to you? Demonstrate respect? Of course, you do, but let’s be honest for a second…do you always listen to messages that way? It is really easy to say we are listening ethically, but this can be harder to apply when we are distracted or unprepared for listening. If this sounds like you, there are several strategies covered in chapter 4.

Figure 2.3: Ethics Committee 3

Be Prepared to Listen

When you find yourself seated in an audience about to listen to a speaker, how do you prepare? Do you tell yourself that you will be actively listening to the speaker for a certain number of minutes? Do you remind yourself to listen with an open mind? Or, do you sit there on your phone, mindlessly scrolling social media? Only one of these examples is common practice, but the others can make a huge difference in how much you take away from a speech. By telling yourself you are committed to listening to the speaker, you won’t be inclined to give in to distractions, or let your mind wander.

Avoid Prejudging and Keep an Open Mind

Unless you are watching a recorded video of a speech, you will never see or hear the same speech twice. Take it from us public speaking teachers who have heard the same speech topic countless times. Even if you think you know what the speaker is going to say, or you think you know more about a topic than the speaker, you can always learn something new. If you spend any time thinking about anything other than listening, you are bound to miss valuable information that will make you an ill-informed listener.

Be Courteous and Pay Attention

It’s simple: treat others how you would like to be treated. Who do you want to see when you are speaking to an audience? Be that person. Pay attention to your body language when sitting in an audience. What do you consider ethical body language?

Information communication technologies (ICTs) such as cell phones and laptops have made it difficult for people to focus and easy for them to be distracted. Silence your cell phones before every class . Keep your phone put away unless you absolutely need it. Likewise, do not have a laptop open during your peers’ performances. Chances are, you’re not taking notes. Looking at screens during speeches is disrespectful. Mastering the art of being in the moment can separate you from your peers in business, politics, and even personal relationships. This lesson will apply beyond the classroom. No matter your future social environments, listening attentively to others will improve your social standing, while allowing yourself to be seduced by screens will make others think you do not value their contributions.

If a speech is not capturing your attention, ask yourself what could have been done better, perhaps jotting down a few notes (paper notes will not make you look inattentive the way a screen will, even if you’re using it for a good reason) to share constructive feedback with your peers later. Even if you do not share the notes, imagining ways to spice up someone else’s speech will make you a better writer and speaker.

Providing Feedback

Public speaking instructors often ask students to provide their classmates with feedback on their speeches. Of course, you have to be paying attention if you are going to ethically provide feedback. Saying “Great job!” or “You did great” is not ethical feedback. Providing feedback to your classmates means that you are supplying them with useful comments about things they did well and/or things they could make stronger in future speeches.

Tasha Souza, a professor at Boise State University who researches classroom practices, taught one of your authors a simple approach to feedback—”gems and opportunities.” Gems are things the speaker did well. Opportunities identify areas for potential improvement. We all love to hear praise, which is good for our self-esteem, but we can’t advance without people letting us know about weaker aspects of our performance. For this reason, the most ethical feedback always helps us feel good, but also helps us move forward. No speech is without merit—we can all find gems in any performance (even our own, as painful as they may be to watch when recorded!). And, no speech is perfect—ask your instructors, most rarely give 100% scores on speeches. So, even when your classmates perform great, you should be able to find more opportunities for them to improve. The highest performers will be eager for such feedback.

Avoid Distractions

Taking care of your body is an important part of being a good listener. Get a good night’s sleep before speech days—even others’ speech days. If you are dozing during someone’s speech, they may think you find them boring, decreasing their self-confidence, or worse, they may be distracted by your fitful motions and lose their concentration. Likewise, make sure you are not starving when class starts. if your belly is rumbling, you cannot focus, and if others hear it, it could distract them, too!

At the end of this chapter, we hope you see the importance of ethics as it pertains to public speaking. Ethics impacts the speaker and the audience, alike. Being honest, thoughtful, respectful, and prepared are the key ingredients to being an ethical public speaker. It is up to you to build your credibility and be a strong speaker. It may not be easy to be ethical, but it is right .

Reflection Questions

• What speakers have you heard speak that you felt were particularly ethical in their speech and why would you say their performance was ethically sound?
• Give an example of a public speaker behaving unethically. What behaviors in your example are problematic and why do you consider them unethical?
• Have you ever questioned the credibility of a speaker? What did they say that made you question their credibility? Did you question their competence, ethics, or both, and why?
• What do you know about plagiarism now that you didn’t know before? If you did not learn anything new, which aspects of plagiarism do you think novice speakers should be most cautious about?
• Which aspects of being an ethical listener do you hope to achieve in this class?

Credibility

Inclusive language

Intentional Plagiarism

Unintentional Plagiarism

Introduction to Public Speaking Copyright © by Jamie C. Votraw, M.A.; Katharine O'Connor, Ph.D.; and William F. Kelvin, Ph.D.. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

Press ESC to close

Public Speaking Ethics: Principles of Responsible Communication

To ensure responsible communication in public speaking, this introduction sets the stage for our exploration of public speaking ethics. By defining public speaking ethics and emphasizing the importance of responsible communication, we establish the foundation for ethical practices and effective public speaking engagement.

Definition of public speaking ethics

Public speaking ethics involve moral standards and principles which guide people when giving speeches or presentations in public. This includes honesty, respect, credibility, and fairness .

To have ethical public speaking, speakers must be honest by giving accurate facts and not lying. They must also show respect to their audience by talking without insults or hurtful language.

Credibility is key too. Speakers must prove they know the subject and provide evidence. They should not exaggerate or lie which would damage their trustworthiness.

Fairness is a must. Speakers must present different points of view without bias. They should give equal attention to counterarguments, without distorting or ignoring them.

To uphold these ethics, speakers can research thoroughly before preparing. They can actively listen to their audience’s needs and interests.

They can also use visuals to help understand and engage their audience. Lastly, they should maintain eye contact with the crowd to build trust.

Adhering to ethical standards in public speaking is very important. It preserves integrity and builds trust with the audience. Honesty, respect, credibility, and fairness are essential for effective communication and inspiring trust.

Importance of responsible communication in public speaking ethics

Public speaking is a responsible communication skill . It needs ideas and info to be shared with an audience, considering their needs, perspectives, and sensitivities. Empathy and emotional intelligence are key to responsible communication. Power dynamics must be respected and not reinforced. An inclusive environment should be created where everyone is valued.

Research and fact-checking is crucial for accurate info . This maintains credibility and encourages trust. Bias should be acknowledged and consciously worked on. Effective listening is also important, to respond respectfully and create dialogue. This encourages critical thinking and openness to other perspectives.

Also Read: Find Your Passion: A Path to Self-Discovery and Fulfillment

Ethical Principles in Public Speaking

To ensure ethical principles in public speaking, address the following sub-sections: honesty and truthfulness, respect for the audience, integrity and transparency, and avoiding plagiarism. Upholding these principles fosters responsible communication and maintains the credibility and trust between speakers and their audience.

Honesty and truthfulness – Public Speaking Ethics

To show honesty and truthfulness in public speaking, one must prepare and research the topic. Get info from reliable sources like journals, websites, and expert opinions . Do this so you can confidently present ideas based on facts.

Be transparent about any biases or conflicts of interest. Acknowledge these to show commitment to honesty and avoid any doubts from the audience.

Avoid exaggeration or embellishment when presenting info. Accurately represent the facts without distorting for dramatic effect. This maintains integrity and ensures the audience gets accurate info.

If there are uncertainties or gaps in knowledge, honestly admit them. Don’t make assumptions or provide misleading info. Show humility and authenticity to prevent misinformation.

Overall, upholding principles of honesty and truthfulness in public speaking leads to credibility and trust with the audience. Listeners rely on accurate info from an honest speaker and are more likely to engage with the message.

Practice active listening skills to understand audience needs and concerns. This will help tailor the message while maintaining honesty and truthfulness.

Respect for audience – Public Speaking Ethics

Respect your audience! It’s key to a successful public speaking engagement. Show that you value them. Make them more likely to engage with your message.

Start by preparing thoroughly. Tailor your speech to their needs and interests. Show that you value their time.

Be mindful of language and tone. Use clear sentences. Avoid jargon unless needed.

Listen to their feedback. Encourage participation with interactive elements. Foster inclusivity within the audience.

Consider the physical aspects. Ensure proper lighting and acoustics. Use visual aids wisely.

Aware of cultural sensitivities. Respect values and beliefs. Avoid offensive topics unless necessary. Create an atmosphere of respect.

Integrity and transparency – Public Speaking Ethics

Be honest in your info-sharing. Don’t distort facts or make exaggerated claims, as this will damage your integrity. Clearly cite sources and provide proof to back up your statements. This shows responsibility and builds credibility. Disclose any affiliations or biases that could affect the speech content, so the audience can make their own decisions. Respect confidentiality when needed. Keep sensitive info secret and don’t share it without permission.

Live with integrity and transparency when speaking publicly. This not only boosts your credibility but also helps you build relationships with the audience. Set expectations for integrity and transparency at the start of your speech. This will help create a trusting space and encourage participation. By following ethical principles, you show others how to do the same and promote a culture of honesty in public speaking. Let’s make use of these values today, for a better tomorrow!

Avoiding plagiarism – Public Speaking Ethics

To dodge plagiarism, here are some important guidelines to follow:

• Principle – Description
• Cite Sources – Give proper credit for info taken from outside.
• Paraphrase – Express your thoughts in your own words.
• Use Quotations – Put quotation marks when quoting directly.
• Reference Page – Include a list of all sources used.

Even if you switch a few words, it still counts as plagiarism.

Plagiarism has been a problem in public speaking for many years. Famous figures like MLK Jr. and Joe Biden have been accused of plagiarism. To keep credibility, public speakers must be original and use ethical practices.

Also Read: Techniques for Innovative Thinking: Boost Creative Thinking

Ethical Challenges in Public Speaking

To navigate ethical challenges in public speaking, employ principles of responsible communication. Balancing persuasion and manipulation, handling sensitive topics, and ensuring diversity and inclusivity in speech content are key sub-sections explored here.

Balancing persuasion and manipulation

Public speaking is a balance between persuasion and manipulation . We can influence others, but we must be careful not to use manipulative tactics. Engage your audience honestly and ethically, with compelling ideas – without resorting to deceptive techniques.

Seek to convince your listeners with logical arguments, supported by evidence. Use rhetoric and storytelling to captivate their attention. There is a fine line between persuasion and manipulation – manipulation involves deceitful tactics or exploiting vulnerabilities, while persuasion relies on honest communication.

Be mindful of your intentions and impact – strive for authenticity. Share accurate and reliable information to build trust with your audience; ensure that they make informed decisions, rather than being coerced or misled.

Choose persuasion over manipulation – let your words empower others, not deceive them!

Handling sensitive topics

Talking in public can be tricky , especially when it’s about delicate themes. You must be careful, respectful and professional when dealing with them. It’s a matter of finding the balance between expressing your opinion while keeping in mind the potential effect on the listeners.

For delicate topics, empathy and understanding are essential. Acknowledge the different views to create an open and welcoming setting. Doing thorough research is also important to have a full grasp of the subject.

Moreover, the language you use is vital. Utilize respectful and inclusive terms to communicate effectively without causing any harm.

Moreover, being aware of your own prejudices and trying to be impartial while speaking is necessary. That way, you can share info without injecting your personal opinions.

As Maya Angelou said: “ Words have more power than what’s written on paper “. So, be mindful of the words you use when talking about sensitive matters publicly.

Ensuring diversity and inclusivity in speech content

Ensuring diverse and inclusive speech content is essential for public speaking. It involves considering different perspectives and engaging with a wide variety of people. Doing this creates a more relatable and meaningful message.

Importance of Diversity:

• Reflects the real world.
• Encourages empathy and understanding.
• Breaks down barriers and encourages inclusivity.

Embracing diversity means recognizing varied cultures, backgrounds, and experiences. It enables speakers to connect deeper with their audience, creating a sense of belonging and appreciation. Considering diverse points of view helps to confront prejudices and stereotypes, enabling a healthier flow of ideas.

To make sure speech content is inclusive, one must strive for representation across different aspects such as gender, race, ethnicity, age, ability, and sexual orientation. This goes beyond tokenism – it requires genuine efforts to understand different perspectives and amplify diverse voices.

Let us keep in mind that embracing diversity in speech content is not only a moral obligation but also a potent force for social change. By creating an atmosphere that values everyone’s contributions equally, we can inspire beneficial changes within ourselves and society.

So let’s include diversity in our speeches today!

Also Read: Impact of Physical Fitness: Boost Self-Improvement

Case Studies: Examples of Ethical and Unethical Public Speaking

To better understand ethical and unethical public speaking, dive into case studies that showcase real-life examples. Explore ethical examples and unethical examples, highlighting the principles of responsible communication.

Ethical examples

Public speaking can either inspire or deceive. Ethically, it must be accurate and honest. Here are examples of ethical public speaking:

• A balanced approach – presenting both sides of an argument.
• Respecting diversity – accepting and valuing different cultures.
• Emphasis on consent – always seek permission before using personal stories.
• Engagement with the audience – active listening, interaction and participation.

Truthfulness is key in ethical public speaking. Present facts without bias to build trust. John Dawson’s TED Talk is a great example. He used complex scientific data in a way that was understandable for all. He communicated the urgency of climate change ethically and accurately.

Unethical examples

Public speaking is a tool to motivate, inform, and convince an audience. But, there are times when it goes against ethics. Here are some:

• Plagiarism: Giving a presentation with other people’s words or ideas without giving due credit is wrong.
• Misrepresentation: Giving false info or distorting facts to manipulate the audience is unethical.
• Exploitation: Using emotionally charged stories or personal tragedies to get sympathy or support is wrong.
• Hate speech: Discriminating, prejudicing, or hating individuals or groups based on race, gender, religion, or any other characteristic is not okay.
• Conflict of interest: Not disclosing financial or personal interests that may influence the message undermines trustworthiness.

Note: These are just a few examples. There might be others.

As public speakers, it’s important to make sure our talks are engaging and ethical. By respecting others’ property rights, giving honest info, avoiding exploitation, promoting inclusivity, and revealing conflicts of interest, we can keep our speeches effective.

Pro Tip: An essential part of ethical speaking is being transparent with your audience. Honesty and truthfulness build trust and credibility.

Also Read: Setting SMART Goals for Personal Growth: A Step-by-Step Guide

Strategies for Responsible Communication

To effectively practice responsible communication, you need strategies that address key aspects of public speaking ethics. In “Strategies for Responsible Communication,” we’ll explore techniques that focus on preparing and researching thoroughly, being mindful of the impact of words and language, as well as engaging in active listening and responding to audience feedback. These approaches will help you become a more ethical and responsible communicator.

Preparing and researching thoroughly

• Research your topic extensively for a deep understanding. This will ensure you give accurate and relevant information.
• Organize your thoughts before communicating. This helps give structure and coherence.
• Double-check facts and figures to maintain credibility. Accurate data adds reliability to your communication.
• For best results, go beyond surface-level details. Look into lesser-known aspects to offer a new viewpoint.

Pro Tip: Use scholarly articles or peer-reviewed publications for reliable info.

Being mindful of the impact of words and language

The power of language can’t be overlooked. Each word we say or type carries the strength to form thoughts, opinions, and even encourage action. We must understand this power and take responsibility for our messages.

To truly grasp the effects of our words, we must consider many factors, such as cultural awareness, emotional responses, and the authority involved in any situation.

Also, when speaking, it’s essential to use language that is open-minded and not prejudicial. This helps make an environment where everyone feels appreciated and accepted. To do this, avoid judgemental terms, stereotypes, or generalizations.

Moreover, it’s important to bear in mind the context in which we communicate. The same message may have different impacts based on if it’s spoken in person, written in an email, or posted on social media. We can make sure our ideas are accurately represented by adjusting our words to the medium.

Furthermore, active listening is a central part of responsible communication. Taking the time to understand someone else’s perspective allows for efficient dialogue and engagement. This shows respect for their views and encourages mutual understanding.

To further improve responsible communication , here are a few tips:

• Show empathy by thinking about how others feel before expressing your views or making judgments. Doing this allows us to connect with people on a deeper level and encourages open-mindedness.
• Ask questions when conversations are unclear or confusing. Not only does this ensure understanding, but it also demonstrates a real interest in what others have to say.

Lastly, always strive for clarity in your own communication. Being straightforward and specific helps avoid misunderstandings and keeps the conversation on track.

By taking into account the impact of our words, selecting inclusive language, adapting to different contexts, actively listening, practicing empathy, seeking clarifications, and striving for clarity, we can create a responsible communication culture where ideas are exchanged and understood with respect.

Engaging in active listening and responding to audience feedback

Active listening involves more than just hearing words. It’s about taking in the non-verbal cues like facial expressions and body language too. This is important as it provides us with invaluable insights into how our audience really feels about our efforts.

An example of this in action is from 2019. A well-known company faced negative feedback about a product launch. Instead of ignoring it, they actively listened. They considered the concerns raised and acted to fix it. By admitting mistakes and finding solutions based on customer feedback, they regained trust, improved customer satisfaction, and even increased sales!

This proves that active listening and responding to audience feedback is key. It can create an open communication culture, strengthen relationships, and help our message resonate. Remember, effective communication is a two-way street! Valuing and responding to feedback ensures success.

Also Read: Top 100 Commonly Used A to Z Phrasal Verbs for English Fluency

To conclude, reinforce the ethical principles in public speaking and emphasize the importance of practicing responsible communication. Recap the ethical principles covered in previous sections and discuss the significance of adopting these principles in our speech. Highlight the value of responsible communication for building trust and fostering positive relationships.

Recap of ethical principles in public speaking

Public speaking requires sticking to ethical principles . Let’s review these key principles:

• Honesty: Be honest to the audience. Don’t exaggerate or lie. This builds trust and reliability.
• Respect: Respect different opinions. No language or behavior which offends or leaves people out.
• Integrity: Be consistent and genuine in what you say and do. Match values and words to gain trust.

Plus, confidentiality, fairness, and responsibility should be kept in mind while speaking publicly.

An example illustrating the importance of ethical principles ? At a conference, the speaker was impressive. But in the Q&A session, he evaded questions and even made false claims. This unethical behavior made people feel deceived. It was a lesson on the importance of ethical standards in public speaking.

Ethical principles make it easier for speakers and audiences to connect. They show respect, trust, and integrity. Remembering these principles helps our message reach each listener in a genuine way.

Importance of practicing responsible communication.

In today’s fast-paced world, responsible communication is essential. It helps us make sure our messages are understood. Plus, it builds trust and maintains healthy relationships.

Responsible communication avoids misinterpretations and conflicts. We can pick our words carefully and think of the impact they have. This way, we show respect and create a positive atmosphere for discussion.

Responsible communication also boosts our credibility and professionalism. We can express ourselves clearly and concisely, so it’s easier for others to understand.

It’s also great for navigating sensitive subjects. We can express criticism without causing offense or harm. This encourages dialogue, rather than shutting it down.

Remember: Responsible communication is a two-way street. Listening is just as important as speaking. Show others the same respect and attention you expect from them. Know More – The Fluent Life

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What are public speaking ethics? A. Public speaking ethics refer to the principles and guidelines that govern responsible communication during public speaking engagements. They outline the ethical obligations and responsibilities speakers have towards their audience, content, and the impact their words may have on individuals or society.

2. Why are public speaking ethics important? A. Public speaking ethics are important because they ensure that speakers communicate responsibly, truthfully, and with integrity. They help maintain credibility, foster trust between the speaker and the audience, and promote respectful and ethical discourse in public spaces.

3. What are some key principles of responsible communication in public speaking? A. Some key principles of responsible communication in public speaking include honesty, accuracy, respect for diverse perspectives, avoiding harm, maintaining confidentiality when required, citing sources properly, and being mindful of the potential impact of words on others.

4. How can a speaker avoid unethical behavior during a public speaking engagement? A. A speaker can avoid unethical behavior during a public speaking engagement by conducting thorough research, fact-checking information before presenting it, avoiding plagiarism, using inclusive language, respecting the audience’s privacy and boundaries, and being open to feedback and constructive criticism.

5. Can public speaking ethics restrict freedom of speech? A. No, public speaking ethics do not restrict freedom of speech. They aim to promote responsible and ethical communication without infringing on individuals’ rights to express their opinions. Public speaking ethics provide guidelines to ensure that speeches are delivered in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of others.

6. What can the audience do if they suspect a speaker is engaging in unethical behavior? A. If an audience member suspects a speaker is engaging in unethical behavior, they can actively listen, critically analyze the speech, and if appropriate, ask for clarifications or challenge the speaker’s statements during Q&A sessions. Additionally, they can report their concerns to event organizers or relevant authorities, where necessary.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Share Article:

You might also like

Public Speaking for Social Impact: A Strong Tool

Public Speaking in Digital Age: Webinars and Online Conferences

Building Confidence in Public Speaking: Be Successful Speaker

Other stories.

Learning Objectives

• Use oral citations to build credibility.
• Use written citations to avoid plagiarism.

Ethos isn’t just about research. You must also cite sources in your speech to ensure ethical speaking and enhance ethos.

Why Cite Sources?

It’s important to cite sources you used in your research for several reasons:

• To show your reader you’ve done proper research by listing sources you used to get your information
• To be a responsible scholar by giving credit to other researchers and acknowledging their ideas
• To avoid plagiarism by quoting words and ideas used by other authors
• To allow your reader to track down the sources you used by citing them accurately in your paper by way of footnotes, a bibliography, or reference list

Cite Sources Properly

You’ve learned the importance of citing sources. Now that you know why written and oral citations are important to the ethical process of public speaking, let’s focus on  how to cite supporting speech material. Studies show that often students do not cite a source because they’re unsure of how or when to cite a reference. Shi’s study describes some typical responses for why students did not cite sources, such as “I couldn’t remember where I learned the information” or “I had already cited that author and didn’t want the audience to think all of my information was from some outside source.” Though these rationales are understandable, they are not ethical.

Understand Paraphrasing and Direct Quotations

Next, it is important to understand the process for paraphrasing and directly quoting sources in order to support your speech claims. First, what is the difference between paraphrasing and directly quoting a source? If you research and learn information from a source—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance— and then share that information in your  own  words; you don’t use quotation marks; but you do credit the CDC as your source. This is known as a  paraphrase —a sentence or string of sentences that shares learned information in your own words. A  direct quote  is any sentence or string of sentences that conveys an author’s idea word-for-word. According to the APA (American Psychological Association), when writing speech content, you must include quotation marks around an author’s work when you use his or her keywords, phrases, or sentences. This would be relevant for a speech outline, a handout, or a visual aid. It is also important to specify a direct quote when you are orally citing during your speech. This indicates to the audience that you are using the original author’s exact words. While it is acceptable to use the phrases “begin quote” and “end quote” to indicate this to your audience, such phrases can be distracting to the audience. One way to clearly and concisely indicate a direct quote is to take a purposeful pause right before and after the quoted material. This differentiates between your words and the source material’s words. See Table 3.2 for examples of how to paraphrase and directly quote an author, both in written speech materials and for an oral citation.

Develop Accurate Citations

Ethical speakers share source information with the audience. On written materials, such as handouts or speech outlines, citations are handled much like they would be in any essay. In addition to written citations, oral citations provide source information to audience members who may not see your written speech. In all citations, enough information should be given so that the audience can easily find the source.

You may choose to briefly describe the author before citing him or her to lend credibility to your supporting information. Writing style guidebooks, such as APA or MLA (Modern Language Association), teach that a source’s credentials are not necessary in the text of your paper. We can interpret that the same is true for providing oral citations in a speech–the author’s occupation, the source website, or the journal name are not required but may be helpful verbal cues to explain the legitimacy of your chosen source. You should provide enough information so that an audience member can locate the source. For instance, it might be useful to describe the doctor as a leading pediatrician–after which you would state the doctor’s last name, year of publication, and the quote or paraphrase. To orally paraphrase a Langer quote (see example poster in Figure 3.1), you might say to your audience:

I really agree with Langer (1989), who wrote in her book Mindfulness, that our world is constructed from the categories we build in our mind. I find that I interpret the world based on my initial understanding of things and have to mindfully force myself to question the categories and biases I’ve formally created in my head. 

Note, the Langer paraphrase provides the author’s last name, year of publication, and the title of the book should an audience member want to find the orally cited source.

Ethical speakers provide written, oral,  and visual citations. Visual aids include posters, objects, models, PowerPoints, and handouts. Visual aids are used to enhance your speech message. Visual aids, just like speech content, must be displayed ethically for the audience. In other words, if you use a poster to display a famous quote, you should cite the author on your poster (see Figure 3.1). Similarly, you should cite sources on your PowerPoint throughout the presentation . It is not sufficient to include a “Sources” or “References” slide at the end of your PowerPoint because that does not accurately link each author to his or her work. Instead, ethical presenters provide an author reference on the slide in which the cited content is shown (see Figure 3.2).

It’s also important to understand how copyright law might affect what and how you include information in your speech and on your visual aid. The fair use provision allows for copyrighted information to be shared if it is used for educational benefits, news reporting, research, and in other situations. Nolo explains, “In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.” [12]  In order to determine if the use of content falls under the fair use provision, there are four factors to consider:

• How will this be used?
• What is to be used?
• How much will be used?
• What effect does this have? [13]

You can find more about these four factors at the  U.S. Copyright website .

Ethical citing includes crediting authors in the text of your written speech materials, acknowledging authors aloud during your speech, and citing images and sources on your visual aid. However, ethics in public speaking encompass more than crediting source material. It’s also necessary to strive for responsible speech goals.

Oral Citations: Using Your Research in a Speech

When mentioning your research in your speech, you should always give an oral citation. Depending on the type of speech and the type of audience, this would be done differently. Citations are about credibility–ethos.  When you use high-quality sources, it instills trust in the minds of your audience. They trust the information that you are giving, and they trust you as a person.

While there are many things you can cite about your source – the author, credentials, organizational affiliation, date, article title, publication, and issue number – it is just too much information, and the audience will lose track of what is important. The trick is to find the information that will provide the most credibility to your audience.

Instead of speaking every single part of the citation, find the part that is the most familiar to the audience (like a prominent name or publication) and speak the parts of the reference that enhances your credibility.

• If the information is from a known magazine or journal, you should mention that.
• If the article comes from a respected author that the audience knows, you should mention them.
• If the person you are citing has a title that is relevant, you should mention that.
• If the research is time-sensitive, you should mention the year of publication.

The key here is to be intentional about which part of the citation you speak by using the information that will provide the most ethos.

While there is no one perfect way to cite your sources, there are a few things you want to stay away from to ensure you work your source in smoothly and effectively.

Do Not Say This

• “According to google.”  Google is not a source; it is a search engine. The equivalent would be to say, according to the university library. The library is where you find the information, not the information itself.
• “According to homedepot.com.”   You would never say, “According to 210 South Main Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas because that is an address. When you say “.com” you are citing an address. Don’t cite a person’s address or a webpage’s address as your source. You can say, “according to the home depot website.”
• “And my source is…”  When saying your source, use the name of the specialist or the name of the article and journal. No need to tell us it is your source; we will figure that out.
• “Quote/Unquote .” Say the author and the quote, no need to say the word “quote.”
• “Thank you and now here are my sources.”  You do not need to show your audience your references on your slide show. To make sure your audience doesn’t accidentally see your reference page, put two blank slides at the end of your presentation and then add your references. Putting them with your slides keeps them available for anyone who wants a copy of your slides.

Instead, check out these example phrases to smoothly work in oral citations: James Madison University

Written Citations

The reference page is where you list all the sources that you used in your speech. This means the books, articles, and internet information you use as well as any interviews, images, videos, and charts. Depending on your class, you will use a style guide such as those published by the Modern Language Association (MLA), American Psychological Association (APA), or The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS). These style guides help you determine the format of your citations, both within the speech and in the bibliography. Your professor will likely assign a particular style guide for you to use. However, if you are not told to use a particular style, choose the one most appropriate for your study area. MLA style is typically used by people in the humanities, APA is typically used by social scientists, and CMS can be used in either type of writing, but is most popular with historians. [1]  These style guides will help you record the places where you found support for your argument so that you can avoid plagiarism.

Your college library will have information on each style guide. Start there for detailed information on citations for each of your sources.

Reference Page

The reference page is where you list all the sources that you used in your speech. This means the books, articles, and internet information that you use as well as any interviews, images, videos, and charts.

• “References” should be at the top.
• Alphabetize references.
• Use a hanging indent
• Every line is double-spaced. (This sample is not correct because of the way this program formats. Every line should be double space with no single-spaced items).

Reference Page Sample APA

References​

Hobbylobby.com (2021) Wheeled Glass Nippers.

Meade, Z. (2021, May 8). Personal Interview.

Samoggia, A., & Riedel, B. (2019). Consumers’ perceptions of coffee health benefits and motives for coffee consumption and purchasing.  Nutrients,  11 (3), 653. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11030653

Starbucks. (n.d) Host your own coffee tasting. Retrieved May 8, 2020,  https://athome.starbucks.com/host-your-own-coffee-tasting/

Taylor, S. R., & Demmig-Adams, B. (2007). To sip or not to sip: The potential health risks and benefits of coffee drinking.  Nutrition and Food Science,  37 (6), 406-418. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00346650710838063

In-text citations

In-text citations will indicate on our outline where you got specific speech content. The citations are similar to what you use while writing a research paper. You will use APA or MLA to indicate your source when including researched information. The information you will include will be different based on your style guide. Consult your college library for information about what in-text citations should include.

APA Examples

Below are differences between oral, in-text, and reference page citations.

This is what you would say in your speech.

According to an article on consumer perception of coffee published in  Nutrients Journal,  those who were surveyed said young males are more likely to be inclined to believe there are health benefits from drinking coffee. In a market where there is increased interest in healthy food, there is room to improve the perception of coffee and the scientifically-based health benefits.

(Nutrients Journal carries the credibility of a journal. Mentioning the authors would be optional. Since most people don’t know who they are, it doesn’t help with the credibility.) 

This is what it would look like on your outline.

According to an article on consumer perception of coffee published in  Nutrients Journal  those who were surveyed said young males are more likely to be inclined to believe there are health benefits from drinking coffee (Samoggia & Riedel, 2019).

This is what you would put on the reference page.

This is what you would say in your speech. 

An article published in the  Nutrition and Food Science Journa l titled, “To sip or not to sip: The potential risks and benefits of coffee drinking” coffee drinking can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease.

(The title of the article is interesting, and the mention of a Journal gives credibility. Once again, I wouldn’t mention the authors since most people don’t know them.)

This is what it would look like on your outline. 

An article published in the  Nutrition and Food Science Journal  titled, “To sip or not to sip: The potential risks and benefits of coffee drinking” coffee drinking can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. (Taylor & Demming-Adams, 2007).

As I was working on this eulogy for today, I talked to a couple of family members and asked them what they most remember about grandpa. Cousin Zena said she remembers him for always wearing bibbed overalls, an International Harvester hat, and for having shoes the size of cars. Most of all, she remembers his laugh.

(In this case, the audience only needs to know the names and relationships. No need for formal titles or last names if the people are familiar)

This is what it would look like on your manuscript. 

This is what you would put on the reference page. 

Let’s be honest, in a real eulogy, you would not turn in a reference page. If you are in a college class, it will be required of you to establish the practice of citing your sources. 

According to the Hobby Lobby website, wheeled glass nippers will cost you $16. These will be essential for cutting glass for your mosaic.

According to the Hobby Lobby website, wheeled glass nippers will cost you $16. These will be essential for cutting glass for your mosaic (2021). 

According to the article, How to Host Your Own Coffee Tasting on the Starbucks website,  when formally coffee tasting, you should slurp your coffee to allow the coffee to spray across your tongue and palate.

According to the article, How to Host Your Own Coffee Tasting on the Starbucks website, when formally coffee tasting, you should slurp your coffee to allow the coffee to spray across your tongue and palate (Starbucks, 2020).

Key Takeaways

• Oral citations can build your credibility as a speaker.
• Written citations allow you to credit work and avoid plagiarism.

AskUs NCSU Libraries. (2014). Peer Review in 3 Minutes. [Video]. YouTube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOCQZ7QnoN0&t=9s  Standard Youtube License.

https://libguides.mit.edu/citing#:~:text=Why%20citing%20is%20important&text=To%20show%20your%20reader%20you,ideas%20used%20by%20other%20authors

Houston Community College Libraries. (2021).  Evaluating sources: C.R.A.P. Test.  https://library.hccs.edu/evaluatingsources/test

Huntress, C. (2017). My favorite quote of all time is a misattribution.  https://medium.com/the-mission/my-favourite-quote-of-all-time-is-a-misattribution-66356f22843d

Portland State University Library (2012).  The C.R.A.P. Test in action.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhwB4zQD4XA&t=139s

Purdue University. English 106/108: Scholarly Sources and Peer Review.  https://guides.lib.purdue.edu/eng106/scholarly-sources-and-peer-review

Samoggia, A., & Riedel, B. (2019). Consumers’ perceptions of coffee health benefits and motives for coffee consumption and purchasing.  Nutrients,  11 (3), 653.  doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11030653

Sheets, R. (2021, May 18). Personal Interview. (Director of the Business Communication Lab, Walton College of Business. University of Arkansas).

Spencer, J. [https://twitter.com/spencerideas]. (July 3, 2018). Research should be fun. It should feel like geeking out. Twitter. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from  https://twitter.com/spencerideas/status/1014178267820118018/photo/1

Taylor, S. R. & Demmig-Adams, B. (2007). To sip or not to sip: The potential health risks and benefits of coffee drinking.  Nutrition and Food Science,  37 (6), 406-418.  doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00346650710838063

University of Arkansas Library Research Guide. CRAAP Test for evaluating.  https://uark.libguides.com/BENG4933/Evaluation

*CRAAP test developed by Meriam Library, California State University, Chico

• Style focuses on the components of your speech that make up the form of your expression rather than your content.
• Social science disciplines, such as psychology, human communication, and business, typically use APA style, while humanities disciplines, such as English, philosophy, and rhetoric, typically use MLA style.
• The APA sixth edition and the MLA seventh edition are the most current style guides and the tables presented in this chapter provide specific examples of common citations for each of these styles.
• Citing sources within your speech is a three-step process: set up the citation, provide the cited information, and interpret the information within the context of your speech.
• A direct quotation is any time you utilize another individual’s words in a format that resembles the way they were originally said or written. On the other hand, a paraphrase is when you take someone’s ideas and restate them using your own words to convey the intended meaning.
• Ethically using sources means avoiding plagiarism, not engaging in academic fraud, making sure not to mislead your audience, providing credentials for your sources so the audience can make judgments about the material, and using primary research in ways that protect the identity of participants.
• Plagiarism is a huge problem and creeps its way into student writing and oral presentations. As ethical communicators, we must always give credit for the information we convey in our writing and our speeches.
• List what you think are the benefits of APA style and the benefits of MLA style. Why do you think some people prefer APA style over MLA style or vice versa?
• Find a direct quotation within a magazine article. Paraphrase that direct quotation. Then attempt to paraphrase the entire article as well. How would you cite each of these orally within the body of your speech?
• Which of Menager-Beeley and Paulos (2009) twelve strategies for avoiding plagiarism do you think you need the most help with right now? Why? What can you do to overcome and avoid that pitfall?

American Psychological Association. (2010).  Publication manual of the American Psychological Association  (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. See also American Psychological Association. (2010).  Concise rules of APA Style: The official pocket style guide from the American Psychological Association  (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Howard, R. M., & Taggart, A. R. (2010).  Research matters . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 131.

Menager-Beeley, R., & Paulos, L. (2009).  Understanding plagiarism: A student guide to writing your own work . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, pp. 5–8.

Modern Language Association. (2009).  MLA handbook for writers of research papers  (7th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association.

Workplace Bullying Institute. (2009). Bullying: Getting away with it WBI Labor Day Study—September, 2009. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from  http://www.workplacebullying.org/res/WBI2009-B-Survey.html

Public Speaking Copyright © by Dr. Layne Goodman; Amber Green, M.A.; and Various is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.3: Ethical Speaking

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 8968

• Alyssa Millner@King College & Rachel Price@University of Kentucky
• Millersville University via Public Speaking Project

In January, 2012, an Australian politician, Anthony Albanese, presented a speech to the National Press Club. Several people criticized this speech, saying that he stole lines from Michael Douglas’s character (the U.S. President) in the movie The American President . Several specific lines from Albanese’s speech did seem to mirror Douglas’s monologue, with only the names changed. The Liberal Party federal director, Brian Loughnane, claimed that this shows Albanese is “unoriginal and devoid of ideas.” Others stated that he should be embarrassed and should apologize to the Parliament (ABC News, 2012).

What do you think about Albanese’s speech? Was this a simple mishap? A funny prank? Something more serious? What do you think this says about Albanese’s character? His reputation as a politician? Assessing your attitudes and values toward this situation is the same as considering how ethics play a role in public speaking.

Ethical public speaking is not a onetime event. It does not just occur when you stand to give a 5-minute presentation to your classmates or coworkers. Ethical public speaking is a process. This process begins when you begin brainstorming the topic of your speech. Every time you plan to speak to an audience—whether it is at a formal speaking event or an impromptu pitch at your workplace—you have ethical responsibilities to fulfill. The two most important aspects in ethical communication include your ability to remain honest while avoiding plagiarism and to set and meet responsible speech goals.

Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people/ ~ Spencer Johnson

Be Honest and Avoid Plagiarism

plagiarism Credible public speakers are open and honest with their audiences. Honesty includes telling your audience why you’re speaking (thesis statement) and what you’ll address throughout your speech (preview). For instance, one example of dishonest speech is when a vacation destination offers “complimentary tours and sessions” which are really opportunities for a sales person to pitch a timeshare to unsuspecting tourists. In addition to being clear about the speech goal, honest speakers are clear with audience members when providing supporting information.

One example of dishonest public communication occurs in the music industry where many cases of illegal melody lifting exist. For example, a famous Beach Boys song titled Surfin’ USA is actually a note-for-note rendition of a 1958 Chuck Berry song (Pegg, 2000). Though it may be common, the practice of not properly crediting an author for his or her work is unethical. Other examples of deceitful communication include political speeches that intentionally mislead the public. For instance, a former White House press aide, Scott McClellan, claims that President Bush misled the American people about reasons for the Iraqi war (Shear, 2008). McClellan claims that the President had manipulated sources in order to gain support for the war. Such claims can be damaging to one’s reputation. Thus, responsible public speakers must actively avoid plagiarism and remain committed to honesty and integrity at all costs.

Identify your sources

identify your sources The first step of ethical speech preparation is to take notes as you research your speech topic. Careful notes will help you remember where you learned your information. Recalling your sources is important because it enables speaker honesty. Passing off another’s work as your own or neglecting to cite the source for your information is considered plagiarism . This unethical act can result in several consequences, ranging from a loss in credibility to academic expulsion or job loss. Even with these potential consequences, plagiarism is unfortunately common. In a national survey, 87 percent of students claimed that their peers plagiarized from the Internet at least some of the time (Cruikshank, 2004). This statistic does not take into account whether or not the plagiarism was intentional, occurring when the writer or speaker knowingly presented information as his or her own; or unintentional, occurring when careless citing leads to information being uncredited or miscredited (Wilhoit, 1994). However, it is important to note that being unaware of how to credit sources should not be an excuse for unintentional plagiarism. In other words, speakers are held accountable for intentional and unintentional plagiarism. The remainder of this section discusses how to ensure proper credit is given when preparing and presenting a speech.

A liar should have a good memory. ~ Quintilian

There are three distinct types of plagiarism – global, patchwork, and incremental plagiarism (Lucas, 2011). Global plagiarism , the most obvious form of plagiarism, transpires when a speaker presents a speech that is not his or her own work. For example, if a student finds a speech on the Internet or borrows a former speech from a roommate and recites that speech verbatim, global plagiarism has occurred. Global plagiarism is the most obvious type of theft. However, other forms of plagiarism are less obvious but still represent dishonest public speaking.

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. ~ Mark Twain

Sometimes a student neglects to cite a source simply because she or he forgot where the idea was first learned. Shi (2010) explains that many students struggle with plagiarism because they’ve reviewed multiple texts and changed wording so that ideas eventually feel like their own. Students engage in “‘patchwriting’ by copying from a source text and then deleting or changing a few words and altering the sentence structures” (Shi, 2010, p. 1). Patchwork plagiarism is plagiarism that occurs when one “patches” together bits and pieces from one or more sources and represents the end result as his or her own. Michael O’Neill (1980) also coined the term “paraplaging” to explain how an author simply uses partial text of sources with partial original writing. An example of patchwork plagiarism is if you create a speech by pasting together parts of another speech or author’s work. Read the following hypothetical scenario to get a better understanding of subtle plagiarism.

Three months ago, Carley was talking to her coworkers about expanding their company’s client base. Carley reported some of the ideas she’d been pondering with Stephen and Juan. The three employees shared ideas and provided constructive criticism in order to perfect each notion, and then mentioned they’d revisit the conversation over lunch sometime soon. A week later, Carley shared one of her ideas during the company’s Monday morning staff meeting. Carley came up with the idea, but Stephen and Juan helped her think through some of the logistics of bringing in more clients. Her peers’ input was key to making Carley’s client-building idea work. When Carley pitched her idea at the company staff meeting, she didn’t mention Stephen or Juan. She shared her idea with senior management and then waited for feedback.

Did Carley behave unethically? Some would say: “No!” since she shared her own idea. Did Carley speak honestly? Perhaps not because she didn’t account for how her idea took shape— with the help of Stephen and Juan. This scenario is an example of how complicated honesty becomes when speaking to an audience.

The third type of plagiarism is incremental plagiarism , or when most of the speech is the speaker’s original work, but quotes or other information have been used without being cited. Incremental plagiarism can occur if, for example, you provide a statistic to support your claim, but do not provide the source for that statistic. Another example would be if a student included a direct quote from former president Ronald Reagan without letting the audience know that those were Reagan’s exact words. Understanding the different types of plagiarism is the first step in ensuring that you prepare an honest speech.

Decide when to cite

When speaking publically you must orally cite all information that isn’t general knowledge. For example, if your speech claims that the sun is a star, you do not have to cite that information since it’s general knowledge. If your speech claims that the sun’s temperature is 15.6 million Kelvin (Nine Planets, 2011), then you should cite that source aloud. Ethical speakers are not required to cite commonly known information (e.g., skin is the largest human organ; Barack Obama was elected President of the U.S. in 2008). However, any information that isn’t general knowledge must be orally cited during a speech. The same is true in the text of a speech outline: cite all non-general information.

The OWL, an online writing lab at Purdue University, provides an excellent guide for when you need to cite information (see Table 3.1). Understanding when to include source material is the first step in being able to ethically cite sources. The next step in this process is to determine how to appropriately cite sources orally and in written materials.

Cite Sources Properly

You’ve learned the importance of citing sources. Now that you know why written and oral citations are important to the ethical process of public speaking, let’s focus on how to cite supporting speech material. Studies show that oftentimes students do not cite a source because they’re unsure of how or when to cite a reference (Shi, 2010). Shi’s study describes some typical responses for why students did not cite sources, such as “I couldn’t remember where I learned the information,” or “I had already cited that author and didn’t want the audience to think all of my information was from some outside source.” Though these rationales are understandable, they are not ethical.

Understand paraphrasing and direct quotations

Next, it is important to understand the process for paraphrasing and directly quoting sources in order to support your speech claims. First, what is the difference between paraphrasing and directly quoting a source? If you research and learn information from a source—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance— and then share that information in your own words; you don’t use quotation marks; but you do credit the CDC as your source. This is known as a paraphrase —a sentence or string of sentences that shares learned information in your own words. A direct quote is any sentence or string of sentences that conveys an author’s idea word-for-word. According to the APA (American Psychological Association) Publication Manual (2010), when writing speech content, you must include quotation marks around an author’s work when you use his or her keywords, phrases, or sentences. This would be relevant for a speech outline, a handout, or a visual aid. It is also important to specify a direct quote when you are orally citing during your speech. This indicates to the audience that you are using the original author’s exact words. While it is acceptable to use the phrases “begin quote” and “end quote” to indicate this to your audience, such phrases can be distracting to the audience. One way to clearly and concisely indicate a direct quote is to take a purposeful pause right before and after the quoted material. This differentiates between your words and the source material’s words. See Table 3.2 for examples of how to paraphrase and directly quote an author, both in written speech materials and for an oral citation.

Develop accurate citations

Ethical speakers share source information with the audience. On written materials, such as handouts or speech outlines, citations are handled much like they would be in any essay. In addition to written citations, oral citations provide source information to audience members who may not see your written speech. In all citations, enough information should be given so that the audience can easily find the source.

You may choose to briefly describe the author before citing him or her to lend credibility to your supporting information. Writing style guidebooks, such as APA or MLA (Modern Language Association), teach that a source's credentials are not necessary in the text of your paper. We can interpret that the same is true for providing oral citations in a speech----the author's occupation, the source website, or the journal name are not required bu may be helpful verbal cues to explain the legitimacy of your chosen source. You should provide enough information so that an audience member can locate the source. For instance, if explaining the research of a medical doctor, it might be useful to describe the doctor as a leading pediatrician--after which you would state the doctor's last name, year of publication, and the quote or paraphrase. To orally paraphrase a Langer quote (see example poster in Figure 3.1), you might say to your audience:

I really agree with Langer (1989), who wrote in her book Mindfulness , that our world is constructed from the categories we build in our mind. I find that I interpret the world based in my initial understanding of things and have to mindfully force myself to question the categories and biases I've formally created in my head.

Note, the Langer paraphrase provides the author's last name, year of publication, and the title of the book should an audience member want to find the orally cited source.

Ethical speakers provide written, oral, and visual citations. Visual aids, discussed in Chapter 13, include posters, objects, models, PowerPoints, and handouts. Visual aids are used to enhance your speech message. Visual aids, just like speech content, must be displayed ethically for the audience. In other words, if you use a poster to display a famous quote, then you should cite the author on your poster (see Figure 3.1). Similarly, you should cite sources on your PowerPoint throughout the presentation. It is not sufficient to include a "Sources" or "References" slide at the end of your PowerPoint presentation because that does not accurately link each author to his or her work. Instead, ethical presenters provide an author reference on the slide in which the cited content is shown (see Figure 3.2).

Speakers should also carefully select and correctly cite images displayed in their visual aid. Images should be relevant to the keywords used on your PowerPoint slide. In other words, captions are not necessary because the image can stand alone; images you display should obviously correlate with your speech content (a caption is typically used because the picture needs explanation). In other words, the presence of a caption typically means your image does not directly correspond with the verbal speech material. Images should support, not distract, from the verbal or visual message. Hence, there is no need for blinking, rotating, or otherwise distracting visual aids (Danoff-Burg 2002). Images should be simple and relevant. All pictures should be cited, unless the presenter uses a personal clipart, or purchased stock image. To cite an image, simply include the credit (or web link) to that picture; note, however, the font of the link should be reduced so that it is visible to the audience without distracting from the content in your visual aid. Seeing an image link should not be distracting to audience members.

It’s also important to understand how copyright law might affect what and how you include information in your speech and on your visual aid. The fair use provision allows for copyrighted information to be shared if it is used for educational benefits, news reporting, research, and in other situations. Nolo (2010) explains, “In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner” (para. 1). In order to determine if the use of content falls under the fair use provision, there are four factors to consider:

1. How will this be used?

2. What is to be used?

3. How much will be used?

4. What effect does this have? (Harper, 2007)

You can find more about these four factors at the U.S. Copyright website – www.copyright.gov.

Ethical citing includes crediting authors in the text of your written speech materials, acknowledging authors aloud during your speech, and citing images and sources on your visual aid. However, ethics in public speaking encompass more than crediting source material. It’s also necessary to strive for responsible speech goals.

Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar. ~ David Herbert Lawrence

Set Responsible Speech Goals

Jensen (1997) coined the term “rightsabilities” to explain how a communicator must balance tensions between speaker rights and responsibility to others. Ensuring that you have responsible speech goals is one way to achieve ethical communication in public speaking. There are several speech goals that support this mission. This section will focus on five goals: 1) promote diversity, 2) use inclusive language, 3) avoid hate speech, 4) raise social awareness, and 5) employ respectful free speech.

Promote diversity

One important responsibility speakers have is fostering diversity , or an appreciation for differences among individuals and groups. Diversity in public speaking is important when considering both your audience and your speech content. Promoting diversity allows audience members who may be different from the speaker to feel included and can present a perspective to which audience members had not previously been exposed. Speakers may choose a speech topic that introduces a multicultural issue to the audience or can promote diversity by choosing language and visual aids that relate to and support listeners of different backgrounds. Because of the diversity present in our lives, it is necessary to consider how speakers can promote diversity.

One simple way of promoting diversity is to use both sexes in your hypothetical examples and to include co-cultural groups when creating a hypothetical situation. For example, you can use names that represent both sexes and that also stem from different cultural backgrounds. In the story about Carley and her co-workers, her co-workers were deliberately given male names so that both sexes were represented. Ethical speakers also encourage diversity in races, socioeconomic status, and other demographics. These choices promote diversity. In addition, ethical speakers can strive to break stereotypes. For instance, if you’re telling a hypothetical story about a top surgeon in the nation, why not make the specialized surgeon a female from a rural area? Or make the hypothetical secretary a man named Frank? You could also include a picture in your visual aid of the female surgeon or the male secretary at work. Ethical speakers should not assume that a nurse is female or that a firefighter is male. Sexist language can alienate your audience from your discussion (Driscoll & Brizee, 2010).

Another way that sexist language occurs in speeches is when certain statements or ideas are directed at a particular sex. For example, the “Selecting a Florist” speech described at the beginning of this chapter may be considered sexist by many audience members. Another example is the following statement, which implies only males might be interested in learning how to fix a car: “I think that fixing a car is one of the most important things you can learn how to do. Am I right, guys?” Promoting diversity is related to using inclusive language, discussed in the following sections.

Excellence is the best deterrent to racism or sexism. ~Oprah Winfrey

Use inclusive language

Avoiding sexist language is one way to use inclusive language. Another important way for speakers to develop responsible language is to use inclusionary pronouns and phrases. For example, novice speakers might tell their audience: “One way for you to get involved in the city’s Clean Community Program is to pick up trash on your street once a month.” Instead, an effective public speaker could exclaim: “One way for all of us to get involved in our local communities is by picking up trash on a regular basis.” This latter statement is an example of “we” language —pronouns and phrases that unite the speaker to the audience. “We” language (instead of “I” or “You” language) is a simple way to build a connection between the speaker, speech content, and audience. This is especially important during a persuasive speech as “we” language establishes trust, rapport, and goodwill between the speaker and the audience. Take, for example, the following listener relevance statements in a persuasive speech about volunteering:

“You” language : You may say that you’re too busy to volunteer, but I don’t agree. I’m here to tell you that you should be volunteering in your community.

“We” language : As college students, we all get busy in our daily lives and sometimes helpful acts such as volunteering aren’t priorities in our schedules. Let’s explore how we can be more active volunteers in our community.

In this exchange, the “you” language sets the speaker apart from the audience and could make listeners defensive about their time and lack of volunteering. On the other hand, the “we” language connects the speaker to the audience and lets the audience know that the speaker understands and has some ideas for how to fix the problem. This promotes a feeling of inclusiveness, one of the responsible speech goals.

Avoid hate speech

Another key aspect of ethical speaking is to develop an awareness of spoken words and the power of words. The NCA Credo of Ethical Communication (1999) highlights the importance of this awareness: “We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred” (para. 2). Words can be powerful—both in helping you achieve your speech goal and in affecting your audience in significant ways. It is essential that public speakers refrain from hate or sexist language. Hate speech, according to Verderber, Sellnow, and Verderber (2012), “is the use of words and phrases not only to demean another person or group but also to express hatred and prejudice” (p. 195). Hate language isolates a particular person or group in a derogatory manner. Michael Richards, famous for the role of Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld, came under fire for his hate speech during a comedy routine in 2006. Richards used several racial epithets and directed his hate language towards African-Americans and Mexicans (Farhi, 2006). Richards apologized for his outbursts, but the damage to his reputation and career was irrevocable. Likewise, using hate speech in any public speaking situation can alienate your audience and take away your credibility, leading to more serious implications for your grade, your job, or other serious outcomes. It is your responsibility as the speaker to be aware of sensitive material and be able to navigate language choices to avoid offending your audience.

No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world. ~ Robin Williams

Raise social awareness

Speakers should consider it their ethical responsibility to educate listeners by introducing ideas of racial, gender, or cultural diversity, but also by raising social awareness , or the recognition of important issues that affect societies. Raising social awareness is a task for ethical speakers because educating peers on important causes empowers others to make a positive change in the world. Many times when you present a speech, you have the opportunity to raise awareness about growing social issues. For example, if you’re asked to present an informative speech to your classmates, you could tell them about your school’s athletic tradition or you could discuss Peace One Day —a campaign that promotes a single day of worldwide cease-fire, allowing crucial food and medicine supplies to be shipped into warzone areas (PeaceOneDay, n.d.). If your assignment is to present a persuasive speech, you could look at the assignment as an opportunity to convince your classmates to (a) stop texting while they drive, (b) participate in a program that supports US troops by writing personal letters to deployed soldiers or (c) buy a pair of TOMS (tomsshoes.com) and find other ways to provide basic needs to impoverished families around the world. Of course, those are just a few ideas for how an informative or persuasive speech can be used to raise awareness about current social issues. It is your responsibility, as a person and speaker, to share information that provides knowledge or activates your audience toward the common good (Mill, 1987).

One way to be successful in attaining your speech goal while also remaining ethical is to consider your audience’s moral base. Moon (1993) identifies a principle that allows the speaker to justify his or her perspective by finding common moral ground with the audience. This illustrates to the audience that you have goodwill but allows you to still use your moral base as a guide for responsible speech use. For example, even though you are a vegetarian and believe that killing animals for food is murder, you know that the majority of your audience does not feel the same way. Rather than focusing on this argument, you decide to use Moon’s principle and focus on animal cruelty. By highlighting the inhumane ways that animals are raised for food, you appeal to the audience’s moral frame that abusing animals is wrong—something that you and your audience can both agree upon.

If we lose love and selfrespect for each other, this is how we finally die. ~ Maya Angelou

Employ respectful free speech

We live in a nation that values freedom of speech. Of course, due to the First Amendment, you have the right and ability to voice your opinions and values to an audience. However, that freedom of speech must be balanced with your responsibility as a speaker to respect your audience. Offending or degrading the values of your audience members will not inform or persuade them. For example, let’s say you want to give a persuasive speech on why abortion is morally wrong. It’s your right to voice that opinion. Nevertheless, it’s important that you build your case without offending your audience members— since you don’t know everyone’s history or stance on the subject. Showing disturbing pictures on your visual aid may not “make your point” in the way you intended. Instead, these pictures may send audience members into an emotional tailspin (making it difficult for them to hear your persuasive points because of their own psychological noise). Freedom of speech is a beautiful American value, but ethical speakers must learn to balance their speech freedom with their obligation to respect each audience member.

Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized. ~ Benjamin Haydon

Ethics in Public Speaking

In this Chapter

In this chapter, you will learn about the importance of ethics in both writing and delivering public speeches. The two major aspects of ethics are credibility and plagiarism. We define these issues and present strategies for increasing your credibility and preventing plagiarism.

In the fourth century BCE, the classic philosopher Aristotle took up the study of the public speaking practices of the ruling class in Athenian society. For two years he observed the men (it was only men) who spoke publicly in the assembly and the courts. In the end, he developed a theory about persuasiveness that has come down to us in history as a written treatise called Rhetoric. Among his many ideas was the identification of three elements essential to effective public speaking:  ethos ,  logos , and pathos . In short, these mean credibility, reasonability, and emotion.

In this chapter, we will focus on what Aristotle called ethos and what we today would call ethical public speaking . Ethics refers to the branch of philosophy that involves a determination of what is right and moral. On a personal level, it’s a standard of what you should and should not do in various situations. Although ethics are based on personal decisions and values, they are also influenced by factors outside of you.

Informative speeches most often use research to support their claims and to add credibility. An argument is always more persuasive when it’s bolstered by credible outside sources. Thus, most public speeches will involve utilizing sources and ethically citing them. Students are often puzzled about what and when to cite borrowed material from sources. Below we review the basics of how to use citations and the differences in spoken citations.

Ethical Public Speaking 

Ethical Public Speaking refers to those aspects of public speaking that pertain to the personal character of a public speaker and the quality of the content they present in a speech. It involves honest research and truthful presentation, good intentions towards the audience, and the integrity of ideas. We are ethical speakers when we write and present speeches that respect these values.

Honesty & Truthfulness:  Ethical public speaking requires adherence to factual truth and respect for your audience. This means that you’ll do your best to present factual, well-documented information designed to improve their lives and help them make informed, intelligent decisions with it. Honesty and truthfulness mean not telling lies and being thorough in representing the truth. We may have heard of “cherry picking” facts. That’s when essential information is ignored in order to promote one version of the facts. When this happens, honesty fails because the truth is no longer being told.

Good Will:  A speaker is ethical when the intention of their communication is in the best interest of the audience. It means approaching the speech with honest purpose and wanting the best experience for the audience. If a speaker aims at manipulation, falsifies, insults the audience, or simply has no intention of fulfilling the purpose of a speech, then they are not acting with good will.

Integrity:  When public speakers research and write speeches, they are expected to do so in a way that respects the sources from which they gain their knowledge and ideas. This is no different from the way that any writers (students, journalists, researchers, and teachers) are expected to acknowledge the sources of ideas. When we fail to do that, it’s called plagiarism. Plagiarism is unethical and will be discussed in depth below.

When a public speaker successfully conveys to their audience that they possess the qualities of integrity, good will, honesty, and truthfulness, then they have established speaker credibility. “Credibility” means the “quality that someone or something has that makes people believe or trust them” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary). The success of any speech depends on the speaker’s establishing credibility with their audience. Simple forms of credibility statements form a part of the introduction of a speech, as described in the chapter “Introductions and Conclusions.”  What follows in this chapter is a more in-depth discussion of this important quality.

Being a Credible Speaker

Speaker credibility  is the positive attitude that the audience acquires toward a speaker. It’s based on both reality and perception and leads the audience to believe that the speaker is honest and competent. An audience wants to be “in good hands” and they use their intelligence and powers of observation to judge whether they should put their trust in a speaker.

Credibility is a product of both the content of a speech and its delivery. It’s related to what the audience hears in a speech as well as their perceptions, or even gut feelings, about the intangible characteristics of the speaker such as appearance, friendliness, sense of humor, likability, poise, and communication ability. It’s hard to overestimate the importance of establishing speaker credibility.

Let’s assume you’re giving an informative speech and you have worked diligently on all the elements of ethical public speaking. The content of your speech is honest (based on fact) and truthful (not “cherry-picked”). You’ve been careful to cite your research sources properly. You have the good intention to educate your audience about the topic and you will avoid manipulating, talking down to, or insulting your audience. You’re a credible speaker, certainly. However, your challenge is this: how do you convey to the audience that you are credible? What are the signs of credibility that they will hear and see? What do you say or do as a speaker so that the audience knows they are “in good hands”—that they can trust in you and in what you have to say?

Because credibility is made up of many factors, both verbal and non-verbal, this isn’t a simple question to answer.

Establishing Credibility through Speechwriting

Some of the traits of credibility that a speaker conveys through speechwriting include:

Competence: A speaker is credible when they establish their competence on a topic. Competence means the speaker possesses the right level of expertise and sound knowledge about the speech topic, which they have acquired through research or firsthand experience. The speaker explains what the topic means to them and how they learned about it, with statements like: “I started studying the history of Ukraine last year and became fascinated by the people I met” or “I’ve always loved animals, and have been volunteering at my local humane society for the past three years.”

Organization:   A speaker establishes credibility with a speech that is organized and allows the audience to follow. Good, structured speeches allow the audience to relax and trust the speaker. Organized speeches state and restate their thesis and main ideas, using redundancy to beneficial effect. They allow the audience to follow along by providing connections, summaries, and previews.

Relationship:   A speaker becomes credible by establishing a relationship with the audience. The speaker shows that they have thought about who the audience is, both demographically and psychographically and may say something like “I’m happy to be speaking to a group of new voters.”  The speaker introduces themselves (if they haven’t already been introduced by a host); and finds common ground with the audience and communicates these similarities. “Like you, I understand the challenges of being a student athlete . . . ” or “I know it must be strange to hear a 21-year-old talk to you today about retirement, but I helped my grandparents for several years and . . .”

Citation: A speaker is credible to an audience when they make use of, and cite, credible sources. Quotations without acknowledgments or mentioning sources by saying “I read on a website that . . . ” will not gain the trust of audience. In speeches that involve research, that present information beyond your own experience, be sure to properly acknowledge your sources. Not doing so will sow the seeds of doubt in an audience and undermine their trust. In speechwriting, this is called “spoken citation” and will be discussed further on in this chapter.

The Importance of the Introduction

While credibility through speechwriting is established throughout the entire speech, pay close attention to the introduction. The introduction is crucial to establishing your credibility. The introduction is the part of the speech where you state your topic and tell the audience why you chose it, what expertise you bring to it, and what it means to you. It’s also the part of the speech when you state your name and affiliation and establish the common interests you share with your audience.

Establishing Credibility through Delivery

Preparation : A speakers are credible to an audience when they show they are prepared. Unless it’s an entirely impromptu speech occasion, the audience expects a speaker to be ready to speak. Unprepared, unrehearsed, messy, or incomplete notes, losing their place, going off on a tangent, going over allotted time—these are things that will diminish credibility.

A proper start . Pay attention to how you enter the space and take stage. Body language speaks volumes. This is where “good will” shows itself. If you drag your feet to the stage and look as if giving a speech is the   last   thing you want to do, why would the audience trust you to care about them? Similarly, maintaining good posture throughout the speech gives the audience more confidence in you.

Pace and Volume:   An audience feels that they can trust a speaker who takes the time to speak to them at an even pace and with a volume they can hear.

Eye Contact : A speaker enhances their credibility with an audience through eye contact, establishing a relationship with the audience. An audience wants to be seen.

A proper ending . As with a proper start, how you leave the stage is an element in the impression the audience will take away.

On Credibility—Other Considerations

Before you can encourage the audience’s trust in you, you need to do some self-examination about the elements of credibility that you possess in general and in relation to the specific speech occasion. This is a necessary step. An honest assessment of your credibility will help you in two ways: First, it helps you strategize how you will convey your strengths to the audience, and second, it helps you avoid dishonest or exaggerated claims of credibility. Ask yourself: Is your speech content honest and truthful? Have you done your best to make your speech easy to follow and understand? What do you want for your audience? Who is your audience and what do you have in common with them?

If credibility is a matter of audience perception, does that mean that credibility is only what a speaker manages to get the audience to believe about them, rather than what is  actually  true about the speaker? Of course not. The factors of credibility and ethical public speaking  must be real  before a speaker can successfully convey these qualities to an audience.

That said, it’s an unfortunate fact of public discourse that speakers misrepresent their credibility all the time, either intentionally or unintentionally. Can you think of situations where speakers pretended to be experts when they were not? When they say that they really care about a subject when there is evidence to the contrary? Or, they boast of having similarities with an audience—for example, boasting of a religious affiliation with the audience—but they don’t really possess these similarities? To intentionally misrepresent your background, such as experience and credentials, is clearly unethical. No doubt you can think of many such instances.

Unethical speakers do this because they know how important it is to establish credibility with an audience. But managing to pass off lies about your credibility doesn’t mean you’re  actually   credible ! Perceptive audience members will know the difference.

Defining Plagiarism

An ethical public speaker has integrity. Although there are many ways that you could undermine your ethical stance before an audience, the one that stands out and is committed most in academic contexts is plagiarism . A dictionary definition of plagiarism would be “the act of using another person’s words or ideas without giving credit to that person” (Merriam-Webster, 2015). According to the student help website Plagiarism.org, sponsored by WriteCheck, plagiarism is often thought of as “copying another’s work or borrowing someone else’s original ideas” (“What is Plagiarism?” 2014). However, this source goes on to say that the common definition may mislead some people. Plagiarism also includes:

• Turning in someone else’s work as your own
• Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
• Failing to put quotation marks around an exact quotation correctly
• Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
• Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
• Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up most of your work, whether you give credit or not.

Plagiarism exists outside of the classroom and is a temptation in business, creative endeavors, and politics.

Types of Plagiarism

Generally, there are three types of plagiarism: direct, incorrect paraphrasing, and self-plagiarism. Sometimes these types of plagiarism are intentional, and sometimes they occur unintentionally (you may not know you’re plagiarizing). However, as everyone knows, “Ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for breaking it.” Unintentional or accidental plagiarism is still plagiarism. Furthermore, the penalties for plagiarism are steep and it’s considered a serious act of misconduct. So, let’s familiarize you with how plagiarism occurs in order to prevent it from happening.

No one wants to be the victim of theft; if it has ever happened to you, you know how awful it feels. When a student takes an essay, research paper, speech, or outline completely from another source, whether it’s a classmate who submitted it for another instructor, from some sort of online essay mill, or from elsewhere, this is an act of theft. If you take a whole text and claim it’s yours, you are committing plagiarism. As this involves deliberately and directly lying about the authorship of a work. Even just lifting a short passage directly from a source without quoting it and using proper citation, is a form of stealing. If the structure and most of the words are the same as in the original, this counts as direct plagiarism, even if you delete or change a couple of words. If properly acknowledged and justified, it’s permissible to use  verbatim  short parts of another work, as discussed below.

Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing means taking someone else’s ideas and rephrasing them in your own words. There’s nothing wrong with rephrasing, in fact, it’s the basis of how we write and think. However, ethical writing (including speechwriting) means acknowledging the source of your ideas by citing or mentioning it. When you restate or summarize information from a source and don’t include a citation you are implying that those ideas came from you. Paraphrasing without citation is the most common form of plagiarism because it often happens unintentionally.

Another unethical, and more deliberate, form of incorrect paraphrasing is when you take two out of every three sentences and mix them up, so they don’t appear in the same order as in the original work. Perhaps the student will add a fresh introduction, a personal example or two, and an original conclusion.

Many students don’t see this as the same thing as stealing because they think “I did some research, I looked some stuff up, and I added some of my own work.” Yet this is only marginally better than direct plagiarism. Why? Because no source has been credited, and the student has “misappropriated” the expression of the ideas as well as the ideas themselves.

A similar sort of paraphrasing plagiarism involves copying passages from various sources and editing them together, mixed with some of your own words. If you do this and don’t correctly cite each source, it’s plagiarism. Furthermore, if your entire paper consists of predominantly the work of other authors that you have stitched together, whether you cite it or not, it is plagiarism.

Self-Plagiarism

Some colleges and universities have a policy that penalizes or forbids “self-plagiarism.” This means that you can’t use a paper or outline that you presented in another class a second time. You may think, “How can this be plagiarism or wrong if I wrote both and, in my work, I cited sources correctly?” The issue with re-using your own work is that you are not putting in the amount of effort expected for an assignment. One way to avoid self-plagiarism, particularly if your previous work is published, is to cite yourself. When in doubt, ask first.

Other Considerations

One area in speeches where students are not careful about citing is on their presentation slides. If a graphic or photo is borrowed from a website (that is, you did not design it), there should be a citation in small letters on the slide. The same would be true of borrowed quotations, data, and ideas. Students also like to put their “works cited” or “references” on the last slide, but this really does not help the audience to match particular images or material to the original source.

An issue that often comes up with students happens when two or more students submit the same assignment. When confronted, the student says, “We worked on it together.” If your instructor wants you to work collaboratively, they will make that clear. Otherwise, don’t do this. Any use of unauthorized assistance is considered cheating.

Finally, using AI technologies such as chat bots to produce the text of a speech is equivalent to turning in something written by someone else. While it may be permissible to use technology for editing grammar and spelling, you are the author and the idea you present should be the result of your own thinking. Unless stated otherwise in your instructor’s policy, using AI to write a speech constitutes plagiarism.

Avoiding Plagiarism

Avoiding plagiarism involves, first, the intention to create your own work. If you begin by assuming you can take other work and present it as your own, you will surely be in the realm of plagiarism. The second part of avoiding plagiarism is to learn the proper way to cite the sources you use. To “cite” means to provide the sources for your research, creating what is called a “citation.” Citations appear in written work, including essays and speeches, and on many websites, images, and more. Explaining exactly how to create citations for a written essay or research paper is outside the scope of this textbook. That topic is typically part of a course in writing. In this section and the one following it, we will focus on spoken citations  as they appear in a speech—in other words, how to create a citation for listeners, not readers.

Avoiding Plagiarism with Direct Sources

As explained above, copying whole works from another source is plagiarism. But there are times when it’s appropriate to use a small amount of a source’s exact wording. You should have a good reason for inserting a direct quote. Typically, we quote then the source or author is highly respected, or they have stated the idea in a compelling way, or the material is well known, and others would recognize it. We also quote when we are discussing or analyzing a specific part of a text.

Whether you are using a phrase, a sentence, or even several sentences from another’s work, if you use exact words from a source, it requires quotation. Quoting tells the reader and listener that you are using the exact words from a source. The proper way to manage direct quotes in a speech text is to provide quotation marks at the beginning and end of the quote followed a source citation. The most common citation is a parenthetical reference such as (Smith 12) where the author’s last name and the page number are written in parentheses following the quote. Alternatively, you can use a superscript number at the end of the quotation that corresponds to a full citation listed in footnotes/endnotes.

When using direct quotations, you should make it clear you’re quoting by the way in which you introduce and end the borrowed material, as in examples further below. A common practice in public speaking is to say quote and/or make air quotes to specify you are about to give a direct quote. It can also be beneficial to change your vocal tone and use appropriate gestures to help differentiate the quote from your own words.

Avoiding Plagiarism when Paraphrasing

As stated earlier, paraphrasing is common form of plagiarism because it often happens unintentionally. It’s important to understand what good paraphrasing is. Look at this example of an original source and three possible ways to paraphrase it.

Original information, posted on CNN.com website, October 31, 2015:

“The biggest federal inmate release on record will take place this weekend. About 6,600 inmates will be released, with 16,500 expected to get out the first year. More than 40,000 federal felons could be released early over the next several years, the U.S. Sentencing Commission said. The sentencing commission decided a year ago to lower maximum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and to make the change retro-active, with the inmate releases effective November 1, 2015. Sentences were reduced an average of 18%, the commission said. Early release will be a challenge for the inmates as well as the judicial bureaucracy” (Casarez, 2015).

With that as the original source, which of the following three is truly paraphrasing?

• The CNN News website says the federal government is releasing 40,000 felons from prison in the next few years.
• According to a report posted on CNN’s website on October 31 of 2015, the federal government’s Sentencing Commission is beginning to release prisoners in November based on a decision made in 2014. That decision was to make maximum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders shorter by an average of 18%. Over the next several years over 40,000 federal felons could be let go. However, this policy change to early release will not be easy for the justice system or those released.
• The largest release ever of federal inmates will take place in early November. At first 6,600 inmates will be released, and then over 16,000 over the first year. The U.S. Sentencing Commission says it could release over 40,000 federal felons over the upcoming years because the sentencing commission decided a year ago to lessen maximum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and to make this happen for those already in jail. When the Sentencing Commission says that when it made that decision, the sentences were reduced by an average of 18%. Early release will be a challenge for the felons as well as the judicial system. This came from a story on CNN News website in later October 2015.

If you chose the second paraphrase, you would be correct. It uses different language and identifies the source of the information clearly at the beginning. The first version does not really interpret the original statement correctly, and the third choice imitates the original almost entirely. Neither of these two would be good paraphrasing.

Notice that each paraphrase example includes a citation that provides the source of the material, but only the second paraphrase does so completely: “According to a report posted on CNN’s website on October 31 of 2015 . . . “

There is a general rule of research that says that if the information you are using is “common knowledge”—dates and facts for example or other information a general reader should know—then it doesn’t need to be cited. A good rule of thumb is if the same information can be found in 4-5 sources where it was not cited, it’s common knowledge. But if it’s an original idea, research results, or the author’s interpretation of common facts then it needs to be cited. If you are in doubt whether you should cite something or not, always err on the side of caution. Over-citing is much better than the alternative: plagiarism.

One way to avoid accidental plagiarism is to keep track of your citations as you are researching and writing. This prevents forgetting where a quotation came from or misattributing the source. Citation managers such as Zotero and Mendeley (which are free to download) not only keep track of all your sources while you research and write they can create instant bibliographies.

Creating Spoken Citations

Now that you understand using two forms of source material—direct quotation, and paraphrase—and you understand the importance of communicating your sources to your audience, exactly how should you include a citation in a speech?

In a paper, you would only need to include a written citation such as “(Jones 78)” for a source that the reader can find in the bibliography. But it doesn’t work like for a speech. In a speech, saying “Jones, 78” doesn’t mean anything. Even saying “According to Jones, p. 78,” does little for the audience. Why? Because they can’t turn to a bibliography. They don’t have another way to understand the type of information being conveyed. In speeches it’s necessary, therefore, to give more complete information that would help the audience understand its value. This is why these are called  spoken citations .

What information needs to be included in a spoken citation? The page number, the publishing company, and city it was published in are not very important. What is important is the  type of source : for example, a website, scholarly article, newspaper article, or a book. Then, you should include when it was written, if possible, and the  position, background, or credentials  of the source. There are no fixed rules, however. In determining what you should go into the verbal citation. Think about the information that is necessary to clarify the relevance and credibility of your source for your audience and let that be your guide.

For example, instead of saying “According to Jones, p. 78,” a better approach would be,

According to Dr. Samuel Jones, Head of Cardiology at Vanderbilt University, in a 2010 article . . .

Whether you are introducing a direct quote or a paraphrase, you can see that it’s best to begin with the citation . Take these examples:

In her 2012 book,  The Iraq War in Context,  historian Mary Smith of the University of Georgia states that . . .

In consulting the website for the American Humane Society, I found these statistics about animal abuse compiled by the Society in 2023:

In the first example, you would insert a quote from Smith’s book after your spoken citation. In the second example, a paraphrase would be appropriate. For example:

In his 2014 book,  Talk Like Ted,  public speaking guru Carmine Gallo states that “Ideas are the currency of the twenty-first century.”

In consulting the website TED.org, I learned that the TED organization does much more than sponsoring TED talks. There are also podcasts, a video series, and television programs.

Sometimes when using direct quotes, speakers find it helpful to clarify where the quote begins and ends by saying the word “quote.”  In that case, this is an example of exactly what a speaker would say:

In her 2023 memoir entitled  Finding Me , the actor Viola Davis writes, quote, “I felt my call was to become an actress. It wasn’t. It was bigger than that. I was bigger than my successes.” End quote.

As mentioned above, a speaker can achieve the same effect by making a gesture of air quotes or changing the tone of the voice.

To conclude, citing your sources is immensely important. It shows that you have done proper research to support your ideas and arguments and it allows your audience to find the material if they want more information. Using clear citations makes your speech more credible to the audience.

This chapter introduced you to the ethics of public speaking and how being an ethical public speaker makes you a credible public speaker that audiences will trust. Using sources ethically means not only proper citation, but taking care that information you use is relevant and presented in context. Avoiding manipulating statistical information or taking a quotation from an expert in one field and applying it to another field. Differentiate facts from opinions, especially when dealing with controversial subjects. In addition, be sure you understand the material you’re citing before using it. If you’re unsure of any words, look their definitions up so you’re sure to be using the material as it’s intended. Finally, it’s important that you understand the type of publication or source you’re using and any potential biases.

Something to Think About

The following exercise might be helpful for you to develop an understanding of orally citing your sources.

Choose one of your sources for an upcoming speech for this exercise. On a sheet of paper, answer these questions.

• Is this information you found in a unique source, or information that was repeated in all or most of your sources? (This may bear upon whether you need to cite the information or not.)
• Who is the original author or “speaker” of this quotation or material? Are they an expert, such as a scientist, doctor, government official, college professor, etc.?
• What is the title of source?
• What do you know about the source of the citation? What is the medium (book, article, website)?
• If a website, who sponsors the website (what organization, government, company)?
• When was this information published? What is the date on it?

It’s not necessary to give all this information, but most of it should be included in the citation.

THR 120 Spring 23 Textbook Copyright © by Mechele Leon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Speeches > Rex E. Lee > Honesty and Integrity

Honesty and Integrity

President of Brigham Young University

September 5, 1995

Today is literally one of the highlights of my life. My soul is filled with joy and thanksgiving. From the time I was a little boy, the opening day of school has always been one of excitement and anticipation. It is for this reason that a high point of my years as president of BYU has been the opportunity for Janet and me to share some thoughts with you at the beginning of each fall semester.

This one, of course—for reasons Brother Hafen has explained—is also laden with an extra element of emotion. It is our seventh September devotional, and we realize that it will be our last. I have appreciated more than words can tell the expressions of support, loyalty, and love that I have received from you, and I want you to know how deeply Janet and I care for each of you and the great hopes that we have for your success and happiness not only during your time here at BYU, but also throughout this life and the next.

It is for this reason that I have pondered and prayed long over what message I want to leave with you on this very special day, my last devotional at the beginning of a new school year. There are so many hopes I have for each of you. I want you to be well educated, in the fullest sense of that word. I want you to be learned in the wisdom of the world. I want your education to help you to be happier and give you a fuller understanding of the awesome significance of what it means that in these last days the Father and the Son have actually come here to this earth and personally chosen a prophet through whom the great prophecies of Daniel and Peter have come to pass and through whom a restitution of all things is possible.

We could discuss so many things as a consequence of these grand truths. I have chosen one topic, and I hope it will be helpful to you. The principle of living that I want to discuss with you today can carry anyone of several possible labels. A very popular one, and a good one, is  ethics.  Another is  honesty.  Frankly, the one that I slightly prefer is  integrity  because for me it includes not only the values implicit in the other two, but also reminds us that what we are striving for is a wholeness and completeness of all that is good. As President Kimball has taught us: “Integrity is one of the cornerstones of character. . . . [It] is a state or quality of being complete, undivided, or unbroken” ( TSWK,  p. 192).

Whatever we call it, the quality we are talking about is easier to illustrate than it is to label or to define, and both negative as well as affirmative illustrations are available. At the negative end is the classic statement of Leona Helmsley that “only little people pay taxes” or Ivan Boesky’s equally insightful counsel to UCLA business students in 1986 that “greed is a good thing” or Leo Durocher’s well-known observation that “nice guys finish last.”

There is a  Peanuts  cartoon in which Charlie Brown first shot the arrow and then drew the bull’s-eye and the rest of the supporting target around his arrow. When Lucy complained that that was not the way it was supposed to be done, Charlie Brown responded, “If you do it my way, you never miss!”

Let me give you an example at the opposite end of the spectrum. It involves a boyhood hero of mine, Ted Williams, one of the greatest baseball players of all time. A. Thomas Young, president and chief operating officer of Martin Marietta Corporation, who observed that “ethics will continue to be the issue of the 90s,” reports Williams’ experience as follows:

More than 30 years ago, Ted Williams was closing out his career with the Boston Red Sox. He was suffering from a pinched nerve in his neck that season.

“The thing was so bad,” he later explained, “that I could hardly turn my head to look at the pitcher. “

For the first time in his career he batted under .300, hitting just .254 with 10 home runs. He was the highest salaried player in sports, making $125,000. The next year, the Red Sox sent him the same contract.

When he got the contract, Williams sent it back with a note saying that he would not sign it until they gave him the full pay  cut  allowed.

“I was always treated fairly by the Red Sox when it came to contracts,” Williams said. “Now they were offering me a contract I didn’t deserve. And I only wanted what I deserved.”

Williams cut his own salary by 25 percent, raised his batting average by 62 points and closed out a brilliant career by hitting a home run in his final at bat.  [A. Thomas Young, “Ethics in Business,”  Vital Speeches of the Day,  15 September 1992, pp. 725–26; emphasis in original]

Wallace F. Smith, a Berkeley business school professor, defines ethics as “the inherent inner voice, the source of self-control in the absence of external pressure or compulsion” (“Readers Report,”  Business Week,  4 May 1992, p. 11).

This Ted Williams story is, I submit, the classic illustration. This great hero did what he did because he was exercising “self-control in the absence of external pressure or compulsion.” My own favorite definition comes from Potter Stewart, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. He defines ethics as “knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do.”

Justice Stewart is also one of my heroes and was one of history’s finest justices and lawyers. I hope that throughout your lives you will remember and ponder his advice about the distinction between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do. You have a legal right, for example, to gossip, lie (unless you do it under oath), cut corners across BYU grass, burn flags, read pornography, be disrespectful to your parents, criticize and attack your Church leaders, apostatize from the Church, pay less than a full tithing, smoke cigarettes, be insensitive to your family members’ needs, sit by silently doing nothing while your neighbor drowns—all the while writing a poem called “Ode to a Drowning Man”—or wear a red sweater in Cougar stadium the afternoon of November 18, when the Cougars play the University of Utah. But the fact that you have a right to do these things does not make any of them the right thing to do, and ethics, as defined by Justice Stewart, consists of knowing the difference between the two.

One of the most important observations to make about ethics or integrity or whatever we call it is the danger of over-compartmentalization, that is, treating ethical issues as something separate and apart from other aspects of what we do. A law student reported, for example, that when she raised a question in one of her first-year classes whether a certain practice might be ethical, the professor responded, “You will take your ethics course next year.” When I read this law professor’s response, it reminded me of Elder Neal A. Maxwell’s insightful observation that:

Developing congruency and avoiding the compartmentalization of one’s life is, of course, necessary for the wholeness and integrity we all crave, but which is so elusive at times. So many of us have a “public self” and a “private self.” Jesus made it crystal clear that outer appearances and inner feelings must, ultimately, coincide. If the teachings of the gospel about honesty make for an honest tithe but wash against an attitudinal wall in terms of business practices, honesty is being applied differentially. We are saying that “honesty is the best policy—part of the time!”  [ “A More Excellent Way”  (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), pp. 126–127]

One of the best tests of whether we are or are not compartmentalizing our lives, I submit, is whether we would be willing to give our pet parrot to the town gossip.

I also like Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s explanation that these principles of ethics, which are so universally accepted, and properly so, are grounded in more than common sense and respect for others. In his words:

In teaching the gospel, it is far less effective to say “Be honest, for honesty is the best policy,” and then to reason from a social standpoint why this is so, than to link honesty with the gospel out of which it grows by teaching: “Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.” (2 Nephi 9:34.) It is only when gospel ethics are tied to gospel doctrines that they rest on a sure and enduring foundation and gain full operation in the lives of the saints.  [ A New Witness for the Articles of Faith  (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1985), p. 700]

I believe that one of the most important indicators of how honest we are is the seriousness with which we keep agreements that we have made. One of the most sobering problems facing our society today, in my opinion, is the failure of so many people simply to do what they have agreed to do. It is becoming quite commonplace, for example, not only for professional athletes but also for others to insist on “renegotiating” their contracts because they conclude that they are now in a position to make a better deal than the one to which they earlier committed themselves.

A bit more subtle perhaps, but certainly just as important, are our obligations to organizations and institutions to which we belong, and with whom we have made certain commitments, either expressly or by virtue of our membership or affiliation.

One of the institutions—and the people who compose it—to whom we have an integrity obligation is the nation of which we are citizens. In the case of most of us, that country is the United States of America. For me, the most consistently dismaying lack of individual integrity in this respect is the failure of rather large numbers of American citizens to pay their income taxes. Equally dismaying are the reasons given by some of these people. The two most common are that the income tax is either unconstitutional or (in the case of some LDS Church members) inconsistent with gospel principles. Each of these positions is absurd. Concerning constitutionality, the income tax is explicitly authorized by the Constitution itself. The Sixteenth Amendment states, in words that could not be more plain: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.” I have spent a good part of my life arguing and litigating over what is and is not constitutional. But I have never understood how any rational human being can take the position that a part of the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. And the notion that the anti-income tax position is rooted in gospel principles is equally insupportable in light of President Harold B. Lee’s statement describing as “vicious and wicked” the practice of those “who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities” (“Admonitions for the Priesthood of God,”  Ensign,  January 1973, pp. 105, 106).

Another opportunity to demonstrate our institutional integrity is provided by our membership in the BYU community, whose Honor Code is one of our distinguishing features. Some people are fond of pointing out, and very correctly so, that some aspects of our Honor Code are founded on principles of fundamental morality and integrity that would apply to any member of the Church and any ethical person regardless of affiliation or nonaffiliation with BYU—or for that matter with the Church. Examples are those principles dealing with observing the criminal laws of the land, academic honesty, and sexual morality. But it does not follow that we have a two-tiered Honor Code, the first tier consisting of those values that are to be taken seriously, and whose violation should be a matter for some kind of official university response, whereas those in the second tier, most notably our Dress and Grooming Standards, fall into a category of admonitions that we might call good ideas if you’re into that kind of thing, but since they’re not required for a temple recommend, don’t sweat it.

What this two-tiered approach ignores, of course, is that there is another overarching principle at work, not applicable to members of the Church in general. It has to do with keeping the deals we have made, precisely the kind of thing that we have been talking about this morning. Members of the Church at large have not signed a formal commitment in the presence of their bishop to keep all aspects of the Honor Code, with solemn assurances that the applicants are serious about the commitments they have made and will honor them.

The fact that you and I have made such a commitment should be the end of the matter. Having made such a formal promise, we are bound by it just as Karl G. Maeser was bound by the hypothetical lines of his famous circle. That’s what we mean by honor, and that’s what we mean by integrity. A different standard does apply to those of us at BYU, a standard that has been determined very consciously by our board of trustees, and which each of us has solemnly agreed to follow. I hope that no one on this campus will ever adopt a two-tiered approach to the Honor Code, observing those provisions that in the individual’s view are important and disregarding the others. They are all important precisely because we have agreed to honor them.

In conclusion, let me tell you about one of our alumni who met the full measure of honesty. He is a retired gentleman, living on a modest pension, who sat in my office a few years ago and told me that in the 1930s he had attended BYU for one quarter. Due to some administrative error, he had never been billed for the $32 that at that time, according to his recollection, was the amount BYU charged for a quarter’s tuition. He told me, “For over 50 years that unpaid tuition has weighed heavily on my mind, and I want to make it right. You tell me what I owe, and I will pay.” I told him that he owed us absolutely nothing. The statute of limitations on that claim had run a half century ago. He patiently pointed out that he was not talking about a legal obligation but a moral one.

When I could see that nothing less than satisfaction of my estimate of the present value of that original $32 obligation would calm his soul, I told him that I thought a reasonable present value for the unpaid tuition of years ago would be about $500. He thought about my answer for a minute and then said, “Could I have a little time to pay it off?” We worked out a payment schedule, and that obligation has now been completely satisfied.

I refer back to Elder McConkie’s observation that for a believing, practicing Latter-day Saint, we are honest and ethical not only because it is the best policy but also because it is solidly tied to the principles of restored truth. Everything we do should be guided by restored truth, by our conviction that once again prophets walk upon the earth, and we have the benefit, both through modern scripture and through their teachings, of the will of our Heavenly Father. It’s not just another Church. Joseph Smith really did see the Father and the Son, the priesthood is once again on the earth, and the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be, a new witness for Christ received by revelation and translated under the direct inspiration of our Heavenly Father. We must first secure our knowledge of these truths, and they will then become the foundation for everything else we do. That honesty and integrity in all things and with respect to all persons and institutions may be one of the results of that conviction is my prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

© Brigham Young University. All rights reserved.

Rex E. Lee was president of Brigham Young University when this devotional address was given on 5 September 1995.

Related Speeches

Personal Integrity

“To Thine Own Self Be True”

12 Speeches on Ethics

From Business Transparency Online to

Venezuela: why Maduro is ramping up his attack on free speech

Professor of Management and Co-director of the Centre for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, University of Essex

Disclosure statement

Nicolas Forsans does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Essex provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Oscar Alejandro Pérez , a popular Venezuelan YouTuber who uploads travel videos, was arrested on terrorism charges on Sunday, March 31.

Pérez was detained, and subsequently held for 32 hours, over a video he uploaded in 2023. In the video, he points to the Credicard Tower, a building in Caracas that hosts the servers that facilitate the country’s financial transactions, and jokingly adds: “If a bomb were to be thrown at that building, the whole national banking system would collapse.” He was accused of urging people to blow up the building, something Pérez denies .

His arrest is the latest evidence of President Nicolás Maduro’s growing crackdown on human rights and civil liberties as the country prepares for presidential elections in July.

Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, was a hugely popular president. While in office, he led a social and political movement called the “Bolivarian Revolution” , which aimed to address social, economic and political inequalities through a series of progressive reforms funded by Venezuela’s vast oil wealth.

Then, in 2013, Chávez died and Maduro (who was then vice president) came to power after narrowly winning a special election. Initially, Maduro enjoyed the sympathy and support of many Venezuelans loyal to Chávez and his socialist ideals.

But since taking office Maduro has presided over a series of economic crises . Hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a deep recession have all made him increasingly unpopular. And Venezuela’s economy has contracted by about 70% under Maduro’s leadership.

Consolidating power

The last time Venezuelans went to the polls was in 2018. The contest was so rigged that many neighbouring countries branded the election illegitimate. Two of the most popular opposition candidates were disqualified or barred from running, and Maduro won the contest amid claims of vote rigging and other irregularities.

Many Venezuelans have grown disillusioned with Maduro and have taken to the streets to vent their anger. But widespread discontent and protests have only fed more insecurity, criminality, poverty and social unrest.

Now lacking support from within the Chavista political movement and the Venezuelan military, Maduro has turned to criminal groups to promote a state where illegal armed groups act at the service of the government.

Maduro has consolidated power by using state institutions to silence critics, while at the same time engaging in human rights abuses and profiting from corruption. He has been accused of committing crimes against humanity, including torture, kidnapping and extrajudicial killings. And according to Amnesty International, between 240 and 310 people remain arbitrarily detained on political grounds.

Unsurprisingly, around 7.7 million Venezuelans have fled repression and economic hardship at home. Roughly 3 million of those displaced have started a new life in Colombia, 1.5 million of them have migrated to Peru, while others have made their way north to the US.

The Venezuelan migrant crisis has become the largest in the world, with the number of displaced people exceeding that seen in Ukraine and Syria.

Silencing dissent

Venezuelans will head to the polls on July 28. The arrest of Pérez is part of a wider strategy aimed at silencing dissent and strengthening the regime’s hold over its people as Maduro seeks re-election.

On February 9, a prominent lawyer and military expert Rocío San Miguel was arrested in Caracas before several members of her family disappeared . San Miguel is known for her work exposing corruption in the Venezuelan army. She appeared at a hearing four days later accused of “treason, conspiracy and terrorism” for her purported role in an alleged plot to assassinate Maduro.

Her arrest set off a wave of criticism both inside and outside Venezuela, including from the UN Human Rights Council. Its office in Caracas was subsequently ordered to stop operations on the grounds that it promoted opposition to the country and staff were told to leave the country within 72 hours. It is unclear whether San Miguel remains in jail.

In March, Ronald Ojeda, a 32-year-old former lieutenant in Venezuela’s military, was found dead in Chile ten days after he had gone missing. He had protested against the Maduro government on social media wearing a T-shirt with “freedom” written on the collar and prison bars drawn on the map of Venezuela.

His body was found in a suitcase beneath a metre of concrete. Chilean prosecutors later announced that his abduction and killing was the work of El Tren de Aragua, one of Venezuela’s most powerful criminal organisations.

Don’t bank on free and fair elections

The crackdown on civic society poses a dilemma for the Biden administration. In October 2023, Maduro secured a partial lifting of US economic sanctions (which have been in place since 2019) in return for a commitment to holding “free and fair” presidential elections, in addition to political reforms and the release of political prisoners.

But that deal is quickly unwinding. In January, the leader of the opposition and a clear favourite in the polls, María Corina Machada was banned from holding office for 15 years. The Biden administration has since reimposed some sanctions and has threatened new ones on Venezuela’s vital oil sector if political reforms are not made.

Venezuela has become a deeply corrupt, authoritarian and criminal state that shuts down dissent, forces millions of its own people to flee, and kills or abducts whoever threatens the regime. Its occasional displays of reason are motivated purely by economic gain.

In many ways, Maduro’s political repression reflects his growing fear that his regime’s days are numbered, driving him to desperate measures to force a different fate. Once a dictator takes hold, it becomes very difficult to dislodge them.

• Human rights
• Dictatorship
• Free speech
• Hugo Chávez
• Venezuela elections
• Nicolás Maduro
• Venezuela crisis
• Venezuela protests
• Venezuelan migrants
• Keep me on trend

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Technical Skills Laboratory Officer

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin
• April 15, 2024   •   24:07 Iran’s Unprecedented Attack on Israel
• April 14, 2024   •   46:17 The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’
• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam
• April 11, 2024   •   28:39 The Staggering Success of Trump’s Trial Delay Tactics
• April 10, 2024   •   22:49 Trump’s Abortion Dilemma
• April 9, 2024   •   30:48 How Tesla Planted the Seeds for Its Own Potential Downfall
• April 8, 2024   •   30:28 The Eclipse Chaser
• April 7, 2024 The Sunday Read: ‘What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living’
• April 5, 2024   •   29:11 An Engineering Experiment to Cool the Earth
• April 4, 2024   •   32:37 Israel’s Deadly Airstrike on the World Central Kitchen
• April 3, 2024   •   27:42 The Accidental Tax Cutter in Chief

The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’

Inside the notorious “catch and kill” campaign that now stands at the heart of the former president’s legal trial..

By Lachlan Cartwright

Read by David Linski

Produced by Jack D’Isidoro and Aaron Esposito

Narration produced by Anna Diamond

Edited by John Woo

Original music by Aaron Esposito

Engineered by Corey Schreppel and Steven Szczesniak

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify

At the center of the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Manhattan is the accusation that Trump took part in a scheme to turn The National Enquirer and its sister publications into an arm of his 2016 presidential campaign. The documents detailed three “hush money” payments made to a series of individuals to guarantee their silence about potentially damaging stories in the months before the election. Because this was done with the goal of helping his election chances, the case implied, these payments amounted to a form of illegal, undisclosed campaign spending. And because Trump created paperwork to make the payments seem like regular legal expenses, that amounted to a criminal effort at a coverup, argued Alvin Bragg, the district attorney of Manhattan. Trump has denied the charges against him.

For Lachlan Cartwright, reading the indictment was like stepping through the looking glass, because it described a three-year period in his own professional life, one that he has come to deeply regret. Now, as a former president faces a criminal trial for the first time in American history, Cartwright is forced to grapple with what really happened at The Enquirer in those years — and whether and how he can ever set things right.

There are a lot of ways to listen to ‘The Daily.’ Here’s how.

We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at [email protected] . Follow Michael Barbaro on X: @mikiebarb . And if you’re interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at [email protected] .

Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Pérez, Frannie Carr Toth and Krish Seenivasan.

Corey Schreppel leads the technical team that supports all Times audio shows, including “The Daily,” “Hard Fork,” “The Run-Up,” and “Modern Love.” More about Corey Schreppel

Advertisement

Create a free profile to get unlimited access to exclusive videos, sweepstakes, and more!

Sutton Stracke Is “Different” Now and Here’s How Her Ex-Husband Feels About It

Plus, find out what has the RHOBH cast member admitting that she's "had enough." 

On Season 13 of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills , viewers saw a new side of Sutton Stracke as she opened up like never before about dating, her family , and health . Throughout the season, Sutton always remained true to herself, but whenever she talked about her divorce from her ex-husband, Christian Stracke , she often became emotional.

How to Watch

Watch The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills  on  Peacock  and the Bravo App .

In the latest episode of  Bravo's  Hot Mic  podcast  (clip above),  The Sutton Concept boutique owner sat down with host Alex Baskin to discuss how she's “grown” since her divorce. During the chat, she is joined by her friend and castmate, Garcelle Beauvais , who also went through a difficult divorce with her ex, Mike Nilon .

Sutton Stracke reveals why her ex-husband  thinks she’s “different”

Here's What You May Have Missed on Bravo:

Sutton Stracke Shares a Look at Her Gorgeous House in Augusta, Georgia (PHOTOS)

Kathy Hilton Honors Late Mom After Attending Cancer Charity Event with Kyle Richards

Erika Jayne Shows Off Her Beautiful Backyard Pool — With Some Unexpected Guests

Bravo fans may recall, on Season 13 of RHOBH , Sutton revealed that her “power diminished” in her marriage to Christian because they weren’t on “equal footing.” However, the dynamics shifted once their divorce was finalized in 2016. When Sutton looked back on the situation, she credited her personal evolution, saying, “I’ve grown up a lot and I had enough.”

With a new sense of confidence, Alex then asked Sutton if she had “hurt” anyone since she’d “been comfortable expressing” her feelings. Before her response, Garcelle intervened to express how Sutton is “stronger,” and it could cause people to think “different[ly]” of her.

And to our surprise, Sutton admitted, “My ex-husband feels the same way.”

When do new episodes of  Bravo's   Hot Mic  podcast premiere?

Mark your calendars! New episodes of  Bravo's Hot Mic  will be released bi-weekly and are only available with a paid subscription ($3.99/month).

Who are the guests on  Bravo 's  Hot Mic  podcast?

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills   cast member  Kyle Richards  and  The Real Housewives of Orange County 's  Tamra Judge  appeared in Episode 1 and Episode 2 of  Bravo's Hot Mic , respectively.  Vanderpump Rules '  Scheana Shay  appears in Episode 3 with  The Real Housewives of Orange County 's  Shannon Storms Beador  appearing in Episode 4. Episode 5 featured  The Real Housewives of Miami 's  Larsa Pippen .  Heather Dubrow  and Terry Dubrow appear together in Episode 6. Episode 7 featured  The Real Housewives of Orange County   alums  Gretchen Rossi  and  Slade Smiley . Episode 8 featured  Shahs of Sunset 's  Mercedes "MJ" Javid . Episode 9 featured  Jax Taylor  and  Brittany Cartwright  from  The Valley .  Vanderpump Rules '  Tom Sandoval  and  Tom Schwartz  were guests on Episode 10. In Episode 11  The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills '  Erika Jayne  stopped by to chat. 

Now, the current episode features Sutton Stracke and Garcelle Beauvais, so make sure to tune in to see what the besties are revealing. 

What is Bravo's official podcast  Bravo's   Hot Mic  about?

Bravo's   Hot Mic  offers a behind-the-scenes look at some of Bravo's biggest moments from the people who know the  real  story. Host Alex Baskin is a longtime Executive Producer across multiple Bravo series and sits down with the stars of Bravo shows to discuss memorable moments and the things you didn't see.

Who is  Bravo's   Hot Mic  host Alex Baskin?

Alex Baskin is the man behind the curtain of so much iconic   reality TV action. Having produced more than 50 shows for nearly every network around, he currently serves as Executive Producer of multiple series including Bravo's  RHOBH, RHOC,  Vanderpump Rules ,  and E!'s  Botched .

• Sutton Stracke

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

• Producer Secrets
• Relationships

Related Stories

Read Crystal's Husband's Response to Her RHOBH Departure

Lindsay's Exes Austen and Carl Are "Besties"

Brittany Tearfully Reveals Jax Didn’t Make Her “Feel Attractive"

Alexia and Todd Getting a Divorce After 2 Years of Marriage

Mauricio and PK Are BFFs Amid Kyle and Dorit's Estranged Friendship

Jasmine Goode Reacts to All the Breakups on The Valley

Alexis Bellino Claps Back at Patti Stanger's John Janssen Diss

Ashley Tells All on New Love Interest & Why She Won't Marry Him

How Alexia Learned About Kyle and Mauricio's Split

Amanda Reveals Her Time Frame for Getting Pregnant

Kyle Praises Daughters' Handling of Mauricio Split

Austen Sent West *This* DM About the Ciara Drama

Latest Videos

Kyle Richards on Why She Filmed That Music Video with Morgan Wade

Start Watching Part 3 of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Season 13 Reunion

Sutton Stracke Says She "Got a Spanking" for Suggesting PK Might Have Cheated

Recommended for you.

We Have a Major Update on Tom, Katie, and Katie

Kyle Says She Will Spend Christmas with Mauricio

Kim Richards Just Shocked Kyle with a New Update