Security communication and ethics
Tommi Lehtonen
Numerous crises around the world, including the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, the war in Ukraine, the climate change, and the Covid pandemic, have intensified people’s feelings of insecurity and uncertainty, attracting substantial worldwide attention. Wars, viruses, and natural disasters have produced an atmosphere of insecurity, posing challenges for public authorities in particular. The news media and social media have a significant impact on citizens’ perceptions of safety. Many security and resilience challenges require effective organizational communication. The rising demand for security makes the ethics of security communication an urgent concern.
International research shows that individuals and communities cherish and aspire to security (Pew Research Center 2019, Pinker 2018). Security is a value, or a feature that is seen advantageous and desirable. Citizens are interested in security issues, therefore communication about and for security has importance. Despite this, not everyone is concerned about safety, and many people love adventure and risk-taking in proper situations. People can also erode security by their own activities, even on a global scale, as seen by the climate crisis and environmental destruction. Therefore, simply valuing security does not guarantee its protection. At the same time, we can and should evaluate all human activity, including security efforts and communication, from an ethical standpoint.
Why do we need to communicate about safety?
We need to communicate about safety to help citizens and society prepare for different threats and reduce the likelihood of risks materializing. However, if risks do materialize, security communication can help reduce harm and speed up recovery from damage. Communicating safety knowledge, skills, and attitudes is important to enable citizens and society to act responsibly and to remain resilient in difficult and uncertain times. However, security communication is not only about teaching civic skills but also has a critical social dimension. One can criticize the creation of threats and risks, as well as shortcomings in public authority action, risk prevention, and risk reduction.
Security communication is carried out by a variety of entities, including public authorities, research institutes, companies, public organizations, NGOs, and news and current affairs media. Social media also contributes to communication about security. The role of public authorities is to inform all citizens about sudden threats and dangers. News media or social media can also serve this purpose. Private companies and public organizations often focus on security communication concerning their own activities. Security communication can also be part of wider corporate communication and marketing.
For better or worse, social media shapes our sense of security and serves as a platform for disseminating safety messages from various media outlets. However, social media is also a breeding ground for disinformation and various forms of influencing, such as extremism and conspiracy theories, reducing security and increasing feelings of insecurity. Policy makers and authorities should also strive to enhance the interactive nature of security communication via social media. (See Lehtonen 2021.)
The sense of security can exist independently of objective security, or lack thereof. This is especially true when an individual or society lacks adequate information about major risks or hazards. Indulging in a sense of safety and security can be fatal. This is precisely why communicating about safety concerns is critical, since it can help to prevent accidents from occurring at all.
What useful guidance should communication professionals receive?
Given the aforementioned considerations, it is critical for the communicator to identify the causes and restrictions that influence security communication. This includes:
1. Only an individual can experience security, whether personally or as a part of a community. The primacy of the individual’s perspective also influences what security communication should look like. It is important to recognize the value and experience of the individual.
2. This involves considering the communication context, transparency, and anticipation. It is also critical to examine security disinformation and attempts to persuade, including conspiracy theories.
3. Safety involves both subjective and objective elements: the sense of security and the state of safety. Security communication should consider both elements.
4. Communication on security has an important practical aim, both in terms of preparing for threats and maintaining the ability to act in challenging situations.
5. It is important to see that talking and communicating about safety issues, especially threats and dangers, can also have unintended consequences, such as increasing insecurity or making someone feel blamed.
6. When the communication professional’s personal safety and sense of security are on trial, the support, debriefing, and open discussion of the workplace community are critical.
References
Lehtonen, Tommi (2021). “Ethics of security: from personal safety to cyber security”. In: Meliha Nurdan Taskiran and Fatih Pinarbaşi (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Ethics in the Digital Era. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 44–59.
Pew Research Center (2019). “Public’s 2019 Priorities: Economy, Health Care, Education and Security All Near Top of List”.
Pinker, Steven (2018). Enlightment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Viking.
Author
Tommi Lehtonen is the Director of Responsibility and Ethics at the University of Vaasa, Finland. He specialises in ethics, social philosophy, and philosophy of science. His areas of expertise include attitudes in decision-making and choice behaviour, management values and ethics, and sustainability in economic, social, and cultural contexts. Lehtonen has published widely in philosophical and social scientific journals.
Article published as part of Global Alliance´s Responsible Communication: Ethics First Month 2025.
Any thoughts or opinions expressed are that of the authors and not of Global Alliance.