Does lying make sense?

Column Lying as an indispensable part of communication: Has the truth become obsolete as the highest standard?
waited: When media professionals, be they journalists, PR people or
other communications managers, in all kinds of ethical codes on
truth as the supreme norm, then it must finally be
a scientist will come along and "prove" what we have been told.
now the Münster-based communication researcher Klaus Merten has in mind
has led to: That "lying is an indispensable part of all
communication". And that this is probably why all the apostles of ethics
want to commit to truthfulness and truthfulness, hypocritically
are.

Merten is not wrong: we are all familiar with situations in which
cheating is regarded as a peccadillo or even as a kindness, or in
which - a little full-bodied in system-theoretical
In sociologist's Chinese - "the lie as one of the most effective
mechanisms of system maintenance" is indispensable.  

But because good arguments alone are obviously not enough, Merten has also
followed up with an empirical study. In a survey of
over 650 PR experts, he found that the rejection of the
following statements is rather lukewarm: "If I am always loyal
to my company, there are occasionally situations where
I sometimes have to lie to protect the company." According to Merten
this means: "The consensus about lying or not lying does not hold."

After all, Merten is by no means advocating the release of lies, but rather
instead for a "more conscious handling of the same" and for a
communication ethics, which "unforgivingly" gives us a more differentiated
and a more reflective approach to lying. Good so far
roar, lion!

But the first example of how this could be meant in concrete terms,
will certainly not meet with undivided approval: It could be demanded,
according to Merten, that "the written lie should be measured with a harder yardstick.
than the non-fossilizing, verbally presented lie". Which is
then it would probably mean that it is more of a petitesse if politicians,
Business leaders or even journalists tell the untruth on television
say - whether on the talk show or the "Tagesschau". On the other hand
would probably be something of a capital offense if they had the same
Statement in a press release or newspaper in black and white
to paper.

Because the PR expert "his boss, his company, his ideas
Merten went on to say that he should or must "protect" the
for this reason "withhold truths in case of doubt" or even
"lie - but then, of course, as skillfully as possible". The "dirty image
of PR" is thus "structurally conditioned"; public relations workers
would have to "do the dirty work, so to speak - for which they always have a
would have earned a considerable dirt bonus on top of their monthly salary".
Not only refuse collectors will find this statement rather cynical ...

Other questions remain unanswered: whether Merten's breach of taboo really
is helped, for example. And whether we are well advised to give
scientist in the future, who with his research
so vehemently questions that supreme norm to which ultimately also
he is obliged to as a scientist. With this objection, after all
Merten seems to have done the math. For scientists postulate
As with the oath in court, he has "increased truthfulness requirements".

After all, perhaps it is time for social researchers to first
once about the meaningfulness of certain taboos in our society
before they do so for the sake of enlightenment (or perhaps only for the sake of
public attention).

Stephan Russ-Mohl heads the European Journalism Observatory at the University of Lugano.