Weak propoganda and ethics

Parsons(2004) in a guide to PR ethics writes ' In the name of strategic persuasion, public relations practitioners have, over the years, resorted to a variety of techniques that hover on the border between persuasion and balant propoganda, or between the truth and lying by omission,'

I came across another quote, ' public relaitions?' Don't be fooled by the grandiose title: it is simply propoganda in a dinner jacket'( ibid).

Kevin Moloney in Rethinking Public Relation writes,' PR in USA and UK has been , and still is manipulative communications, or weak propoganda- more 'ordering' and telling than 'listening' and 'talking', with a selection of supportive facts and some appeals to emotion in the message , presented many times without the source being identified. '

now lets talk about the code of conduct devised by CIPR,

There should be honest and responsible regard to public interest,and no misleading .

but after reading the lines from PR scholars , I wonder do PR practitioner really follow code of conduct and are ethical? If PR is manipulative communications as said by Kevin Moloney, can it be honest? If it is not honest, can it be ethical? and if it is unethical, whats the point in following it as a profession?

Morals are personal, and my moral says I should not do anything that is unethical,and if PR as a practice is manipulative communication and more like one way communication, it is not my cup of tea.

May be I believe in Cognitive theory and believe that objective moral truth exist, and to me PR is not manipulative, truth is not substituted by spin, reality is not substuted by perception and success by victory. PR to me is the sum of all those PR activities inside the nut shell of ethics.

If I am the only one to think this way, God save Pukar.