Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Hana S. Callaghan

Hana Callaghan is the director of the Government Ethics Program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. She has a background in law, government, and politics and is the author of Campaign Ethics; A Field Guide. @scuethics

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

Our political process is based on the ethical ideal of creating an informed electorate. In order to fulfill their duty to inform, candidates’ communications should always be truthful, fair, relevant, and substantive. 

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

All people in politics, be they candidate, staff, consultant, or volunteer have a duty to preserve the integrity of the electoral process because when the public loses faith in their representative institutions, government doesn’t work. It is also in the candidate’s self interest to behave ethically.  Voters perceive that how a candidate campaigns is a good indicator on how he or she will govern. Studies have shown that when a candidate attacks a candidate unethically, the attack impacts public perception of the attacker.  

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

One of pleasant surprises in the 2020 presidential race was a mass email from Pete Buttigiege’s campaign manager to supporters clearly articulating the values that inform the campaign.  This was not a set of policy positions, but rather a code of conduct for everyone associated with the campaign. The Mayor not only asked his staff to sign “Pete’s Rules of the Road,” but he asked supporters as well. 

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

One of the best examples of ethical campaigning was seen in the 2008 race between Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain corrected a supporter in a town hall meeting who said she couldn’t vote for Obama because he was, “An Arab.” Instead of agreeing with a potential supporter, McCain responded, “No, ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]." He told the crowd, "I have to tell you, Senator Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States."  At John McCain’s funeral, Barack Obama relayed this story and said, “[T]hat was John's instinct. I never saw John treat anyone differently because of their race or religion or gender. That in those moments that have been referred to during the campaign he saw himself as defending America's character, not just mine. He considered it the imperative of every citizen that loves this country to treat all people fairly.”

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field? 

Everyone participating in civic engagement is to be praised for their commitment to our democratic ideals. Although politics is a noble pursuit, there will be many times when you are faced with ethical dilemmas on the campaign trail. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics has designed a Framework for Ethical Decision Making to help people reflect and engage in an ethical process when faced with difficult choices. It is available for free on our website at https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication - Olga Moshinsky Woltman

Olga Moshinsky Woltman, LemonSkies, describes herself as “a nonprofit strategist for good causes.” Olga has nearly two decades of broad-reaching experience helping nonprofits raise funds and awareness, with specialty in planning, messaging, and creative concepting. She has extensive experience working with Chapters and Affiliates and is a frequent contributor to industry publications. https://www.linkedin.com/in/olgawoltman/ or https://www.lemon-skies.com/

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

To give you my simple definition, ethical standard that ought to guide political communications is about doing the right thing (not to be confused with what’s legal). I differentiate between ethical and legal because you cannot automatically assume that as long as it is by the letter of the law it is by default ethical, not to mention that not all laws are ethical. Also, this might sound idealistic, but I’d like to see political communications decoupled from agendas and elections ratings.

The other consideration is intent, is your motivation pure or corrupt? This doesn’t always change the outcome but with ethics there is a lot of gray and sometimes trying to do the right thing is all you can do.

 All of this of course is theoretical, each situation is unique so we can probably talk a lot about contributing factors in application.

 2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

Ethics are about right and wrong. Not to oversimplify this question, but isn’t by the very definition doing the right thing is what we should thrive for? Words matter and political communicators have a platform and a megaphone to amplify their message. The message that’s being put out creates a ripple effect impacting wellbeing of real people and communities so one has a responsibility to be thoughtful and deliberate.  

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say, “do more of that?”

Scary thing, often it is it’s hard to distinguish if political communications are authentic. Spinning probably has always been a part of the game, but maybe more subtle compared to what has become the norm today. When you asked this question New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern came to mind straight away. After the tragic shooting at the country’s mosques Prime Minister Ardern showed true leadership and grace. She showed empathy and respect but at the same time took swift action. We need more of that. As a young female leader of a country (yes, I am going there), she managed to thread the needle, showing the world that compassion and decisiveness are not mutually exclusive. I’d like to think that her handling of this complex and nuanced situation was not just about communications mastery, but also about who she is as a human.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

I am a fundraiser and so much of what we do is about messaging and positioning, so you face ethical considerations, large and small, all the time! An obvious one is being honest about what the funds will support. I always want to emphasize the importance of donors’ support and that even a small contribution makes a difference (100% true), while avoiding hyperbole and being too specific about what particular program dollars support because when running an effective and efficient organization you just can’t be that specific.

A more nuanced question is how you balance raising money effectively without diminishing the very people you are helping. I am not saying shy away from emotion, but it is important to stay true to the mission and when sharing stories to maintain dignity of your constituents, not representing them as objects of pity. This goes for the photos you select also, by the way, and photoshopping to exaggerate is a hard no for me.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

So here it goes - you didn’t say it had to be practical by the way, since I suspect when rising through the ranks one doesn’t always get to choose position, so maybe this isn’t about what you say but about how you say it.

• Context matters, especially when it comes to nuanced issues. There is a way to present information or even facts in favorable or negative light. But leaving out the bigger picture colors perception. Fault by omission is still dishonest when knowingly done to shift how audience will interpret information.

• Don’t dig in on a topic or issue just to be right or stick to it. It’s okay to change your mind in light of new information and acknowledge it. Not sure I’ve ever seen it happen in political space though unless it was in a “damage control” situation.

• Just be straight and direct, don’t tap dance and dodge the issues. Burying the “lead” amongst a bunch of unnecessary distracting details is like camouflage to divert attention. 

• Lastly, would you say whatever information is in question to someone’s face without a screen or Twitter handle to hide behind? What if are talking to a friend? Or your mom? That’s your North Star.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Pete Leon and Mike Scrivner

Pete Leon

Mike Scrivner

Mike Scrivner and Pete Leon are partners in their bipartisan lobbying firm that focuses on telecommunications, technology, energy and health care. Mike and Pete have more than a half century of professional political experience between them. When he was a staffer on Capitol Hill, Mike first worked for Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) and then moved onto to work for Rep. Norm Lent (R-NY) as his Legislative Director and then Chief of staff while Lent was the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Pete started his career in the personal office of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) , who is now Speaker of the House, and over ten years rose to be senior staff ending his career as Legislative Director for Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) who now serves as Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

Pete: The simple answer is the highest standard. The American people have lost faith in their government because of disinformation campaigns, half-truths and fuzzy logic answers. This lack of faith has harmed our nation and political communicators have an ethical responsibility to not only stop doing this but seek ways to repair the damage.

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

Pete: Regardless of title, most people working in politics are political communicators.  Whether the audience is constituents, the media or elected/appointed officials one thing remains the same. Never lie! Getting caught in a lie often results (and should) with the relationship being forever broken.  The open exchange of information is vital to a functioning democracy. For an individual who lies, they suffer damage to their own reputation, but they also add to the deterioration of democratic government.

Mike:  Agree - at the end of the day all you have is your reputation and trust.  Once lost it’s impossible to recover.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say, “do more of that?”

Pete: As a lobbyist, I am often asked who opposes the position that I am advocating. It is my ethical responsibility to be able to name those groups and provide some examples of their arguments. I model myself after a lobbyist I met when I started as a new staffer for a member of Congress.  This lobbyist had recently changed jobs but had a long history with my new boss.  This lobbyist came in and discussed a piece of legislation that his new company strongly supported.  He then explained to me why my new boss could not support the bill. This lobbyist knew more about my boss’ positions than I did and was more concerned with maintaining a good relationship than putting my boss in a difficult position.

Mike:  I agree and would note that an advocate also has an ethical responsibility to the client to make the strongest factual representation of their case or cause.  It is professionally sound to make the audience aware of the other side and where they can find relevant information but would leave it to the adversary to make their own case.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

Pete: I have been asked to represent foreign governments where being openly gay is a criminal offense and, often, punishable by death.  As an openly gay, married man, this is a line I cannot cross.

Mike:  If you’re not comfortable making the case – for whatever reason – don’t take the client.  It’s not fair to anyone concerned – you, the client or the audience.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

Pete: Read as much as you can before you open your mouth.  Too often today, political communicators just spout off with little actual fact in hand.  They should also meet people – in person not just communicate via email or social media.  Interpersonal skills and relationships are how we build trust and become better communicators.

Mike: Agree and believe it’s a problem with young staff more used to communicating through email, text and social media.  They don’t often see the value of personally knowing the person on the other side of the issue even when they’re in close proximity.  I’m still surprised when I come across this, but it seems to be increasingly the case.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Craig Vachon

Craig Vachon is a senior partner at NextStage, a Paris-based private equity firm. For the last thirty years, he's been an entrepreneur and seed investor in founders of impactful start-ups. Craig's first novel, The Knucklehead of Silicon Valley, is being published in late October 2019.   @c_ster

1 ) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?
Sociologists contend that trust is foundational to functioning societies. In business communications, we often rely on the quantifiable to assist us in determining the trustworthiness of a partner or transactor. This is relatively simple as in most transactions, the quantifiable claim gives confidence to the transactors as to the fairness of the transaction. If something is amiss, confidence and trust is removed, and those transactors will have numerous avenues for redress. Simply put, they probably will cease to transact in the future. (Example: Enron)

But in political communications, claims are more difficult to quantify. (While undoubtedly some jobs were created in the last 12 months in America, should all the credit for these newly-created jobs be attributed to Ivanka Trump?) Hence, to my perception, political communications often tend to stretch the boundaries of trustworthiness and honesty. Since lack of trust creates shakier societal foundations, political communication should have an ethical responsibility to society to pursue only honest, truthful communication, and that which is quantifiable. Failure to communicate with honesty, should have similar results to business communication, where the parties cease to further transactions (politician’s get voted out of their roles).    

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?
Because failure to do so erodes the most basic foundations of our society. Our trading partners, allies, and everyone else, including our future-allies (as an entrepreneur, I suffer from never-ending-optimism) rely on our communication to judge our trustworthiness. Our communication that is less than ethical, strains our trustworthiness, whether our community, fellow countrymen or world-wide. 

When we act and communicate ethically, all participants benefit.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”
I’m fond of mea culpas. Reagan’s apology after the Iran-Contra situation elevated him to a trustworthy leader for most. If Bill Clinton had the testicular fortitude to do so after the Lewinsky affair, I believe he would have elevated himself in the eyes of the world considerably.

Ethical political communication is probably the norm. But the drama of non-ethical communication sells more advertising, so media entities tend to focus on it (either to make political points or to attempt to diminish its import). Seemingly, if the populace voted more often (perhaps digitally every three months), we might have more responsiveness from our political leaders (CEO’s of small and large businesses have quarterly hurdles when they report results to their stakeholders). 

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

I think we all face these challenges daily. My mother was an exceptional entrepreneur and inspiring, ethical human. Over the years, when making ethically-challenging decisions, I often play-out in my mind how I would explain my decision to her in the future. I find this to be an extremely potent litmus test. If I am apprehensive about the hypothetical explanation to Mom, then I rethink my approach.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?
Being in politics means you have many more bosses than the average human. You serve your constituents. If your communication doesn’t serve the well-being of your populace in an honest and forthright manner (like you would want to be treated), then perhaps you need to reevaluate your career or approach to solving challenging issues.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Prof. Ben Voth

Ben Voth is an associate professor and the director of debate and speech at Southern Methodist University. @BenjaminVoth

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

The notion of beloved community organized the American Civil Rights movement from at least 1942 to 1970.  While containing important Christian premises, the notions were shared by Jewish, Secular, Hindu and even Muslim participants.  The idea of love can be simply expressed in the notion of meeting the need of another person. Communication is a need that all human beings have and so facilitating communication among all people is an act of love.

King said that people fear each other because they don't know each other and that they don't know each other because they cannot communicate.  Ethical communication should further our human communication needs. Ethical communication leads to more communication not less. Intimidating strategies that make us unwilling to speak are not ethical.  This fits with a research point from my 2014 book The Rhetoric of Genocide. A concept of discursive complexity should reign in individuals, groups and nations. Profound moral problems like genocide can be evaded and prevented by adhering the communication precept articulated by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:  What hurts the victim most is not the physical cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander.

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

Ideal political communication improves individual and collective conditions.  The existence of discursive complexity—the ability to consider and hear multiple points of views—is well correlated with higher life expectancy and better human outcomes.  South Korea has better outcomes for its human communities than North Korea because of communication ethics.

The recent declines in US life expectancy are likely tied to our inability to have more free conversations about health care and related problems.  Unethical communication gives rise to propaganda and fuels a cycle of genocide as individuals resort to violence in the absence of options.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

Two of my favorite examples of ethical political communication are:  Calvin Coolidge and James Farmer Jr. Coolidge had a careful habit of using words with discretion.  He made the following observations at the end of his Presidential career in his autobiography:

“Perhaps one of the reasons I have been a target for so little abuse is because I have tried to refrain from abusing other people.” pp. 185-186.

“The words of the President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately.” p. 186

“It would be exceedingly easy to set the country all by the ears and foment hatreds and jealousies, which, by destroying faith and confidence, would help nobody and harm everybody.  The end would be the destruction of all progress.” p. 186

“While everyone knows that evil exists, there is yet sufficient good in the people to supply material for most of the comment that needs to be made.

The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.  The country is better off tranquilly considering its blessing and merits, and earnestly striving to secure more of them, than it would be in nursing hostile bitterness about its deficiencies and faults.”  p. 186

James Farmer Jr. had the nickname the Great Debater and his internalized ethics about debate created in him an extraordinary sense of patience in communication aimed at justice.  He would dialogue with a wide range of actors who held highly disparate and antagonistic beliefs. He was nonetheless successful in destroying segregation in the United States between 1942 and 1970 using non violence direct action communication techniques derived from Gandhi.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

A major challenge we face is escalating sense of cynicism among those who teach young people.  Afro-pessimism and ecological pessimism can lead students and young people to the false conclusion that nothing can be improved.  This is untrue and we need to work to reverse this destructive spiral of cynicism as it was termed by Kathleen Jamieson.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

Be idealistic.  Think about the hows and whys of idealism.  Draw from empirically successful examples. If you cannot think of successful examples in relation to a theory—it is probably not a good theory about political communication and ethics.  

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: David Murray

David Murray is executive director of the Professional Speechwriters Association, and editor and publisher of Vital Speeches of the Day magazine. With Lt. Col. Mark Weber, he co-wrote the New York Times best-selling book, "Tell My Sons" (Random House), and he's the author of a memoir about his advertising copywriter parents, Raised By Mad Men. Murray’s next book, An Effort to Understand, explores “why Americans must stop shaking our heads at one another and start communicating more honestly with ourselves." It’s available for pre-order through Publishizer.  @PSAPodium

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

"Political communication ethics." Aside from being a standalone headline in The Onion, I'd say political communication should be held to journalistic standards. But I'm afraid the best we can hope for is: As candid as socially acceptable and politically feasible. (Which, if practiced by political figures and operatives of good intention and imagination, can be pretty darned good.)

 2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

Leaving the public interest out of it because it's too obvious--rhetorical excesses come back to bite you, and anyone playing the long game in politics ought to play as straight as possible for their own sustained self-preservation.

  3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

In political communication, people are judged not by the nuance of their individual statements as much as: By what they always do, and by what they never do, over time. People who maintain their credibility in political communication always maintain a tone of civility, they always speak with a sense of responsibility, they always stick to their areas of expertise. They never pile on gratuitously, they never speak just to get camera time, and they never lie.

 4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

In speechwriting, the central challenge isn't usually ethics. It's courage. The courage to be compelling, to advance a bold idea or to say something familiar in a fresh way. To show one's humanity, and to connect.

 5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

Try to work for political leaders who use words aggressively, not defensively: To bring people together and stir their imaginations, to clarify the complex, to inspire constructive action. Rather than to confuse perceptions of reality, repulse investigations, to fog up the lens.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Max Burns

Max Burns is a Democratic media strategist and opinion columnist for The Independent with over a decade of advocacy and nonprofit communications experience. He regularly appears as a news analyst on Fox News, CNN and i24 News. For his work Burns was named a 2019 Public Relations Society of America/PRSA-NY Exceptional Communicators Under 35. @themaxburns

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

Anyone practicing political communication must be loyal to the truth. In this field, lying is not only the quickest way to destroy a professional reputation, it undermines the very goal of political communication: generating better policy outcomes through issue advocacy. There are few other lines of work where deception so directly harms the culture as a whole.

Our society once invested institutions like the press with public trust to accurately present reality to us – but with that social contract breaking down, it’s on practitioners to avoid further damage to a weakened system. As media institutions continue to bleed public trust, we face a future without consensus symbols of public integrity or truth. Self-policing our field has become even more important in a time when established trust institutions are in decline.  

 2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

There is, or should be, an understanding among political communicators that we have chosen to take part in a tradition that not only spans nations and cultures, but that through its exercise created those very concepts. Politics and policy, at core, are about making better the lives of many people. They are powerful tools that are too often misused, with the sole result being a great many people harmed because a few individuals manipulated this trunk line of public life for selfish ends.

Unethical communication is a vicious cycle that corrupts everything it touches. No sooner has one group broken the norms of truthfulness in pursuit of their goal than an opposed group, emboldened by the success of that initial deception, pushes the envelope further to balance the scales. It’s this nasty back-and-forth that leads us to a society where “alternative facts” and “post-truth” are unironic phrases.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

Our field is filled with good people who commit themselves to honesty and maintain that commitment in their careers and lives. What’s so tragic is that unethical communicators have become so dominant at the top of our political life. The higher profile of their deceptions drowns out political communicators of every political persuasion. It makes the job of persuading and informing the public that much harder for honest communicators when you have very visible individuals gleefully undermining the core principles of our profession.

I take great inspiration from the criminal justice and LGBTQI advocacy organizations in the United States and abroad. They don’t have the luxury of lies – their survival against abuse, imprisonment and murder depends on the full truth being shared as broadly and as effectively as possible. They use the truth as a shield in service of justice. Do more of that.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

The constant ethics-check situation comes when you’re deciding whether or not to omit information that hasn’t been specifically requested. Normally, this will come when a reporter is searching for something, but either doesn’t know what specifically to ask for, or is unsure how to ask. If what they’re looking for weakens your client, do you get pedantic and justify your omission by saying ‘Well, they didn’t ask specifically…”? In a media environment where dogged journalists have more resources than ever for uncovering information, I tend to err on the side of transparency.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

If your goal is to become a television pundit commenting on politics, study broadcasting. I’ve worked with many people whose primary goal was to land on television or sign a contributor contract, and they treat the actual work of political advocacy as a vehicle to get there. That’s not fair to the people who depend on you, and it undermines the seriousness of the task we’ve set for ourselves as voices for those who often lack the resources to engage with the political process on their own.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Bill Dauster

Bill Dauster worked for more than 30 years on Senate, White House, and campaign staffs, including as deputy chief of staff for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and deputy director of the National Economic Council in the Clinton Administration.  @Bill_Dauster

1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

Too many people seem to think that the standards for political communication can somehow differ from the standards for how they live their lives elsewhere.  Maybe it’s because real power is at stake. Or maybe it’s because folks see others getting away with — or even gaining advantage from — bad behavior. But there’s no defensible reason to hold political communication to any lower standard.  And there’s every reason to hold it to at least as high an ethical standard as anything else in life. After all, we need good political communication to make our democracy work. Most of the people whom I’ve met in politics and government really do want to make the country a better place.  What we say should be grounded in that desire. In the end, don’t we want to aspire to so live our lives that the sum of our actions leaves the world a better place because of our having been here?

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

First: It’s nearly impossible to repair your reputation if you damage it.

Second: Political communication can have real-life consequences for real people.  When you get the point in your life when know someone whom a public figure has unfairly maligned, you learn how powerful and dangerous careless words can be.

Third: When you look back at your career, you’ll want to be able to do so without embarrassment.  And that career, even if decades long, can end a lot quicker than you might think.

3 ) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

I admire folks who say what they believe, even if it doesn’t serve their short-term interests.  In 1995, the House of Representatives passed a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, and Senator Mark Hatfield came under enormous pressure to support it.  But Senator Hatfield called it a “budget gimmick” and voted against it, the only Republican in the Senate to do so, and his vote determined the outcome. I wish that there were more people like Mark Hatfield.

Participating in White House economic meetings in the Clinton Administration also allowed me to see another true professional, Press Secretary Joe Lockhart, doing his job.  What the public and press will not have seen is that he would often sit in on White House policy discussions to learn the issues. His example counsels: Do the homework to know what you’re talking about and get it right.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

In the course of a career, it may well happen that your boss or client takes a position on an important matter with which you disagree.  Too many folks feel — or are made to feel — that they need to suck it up and represent that position. If the matter is important enough, it ought to be important enough to find another job.  But short of that, too many of us think that we’re indispensable. It’s an old saying that the graveyards are full of indispensable people. There will probably be others who are willing to represent the client on the matter in question, and one should have the strength to step aside and let someone else handle it, even if the client’s esteem then rises for that other person and falls for you.  When you look back on your life, your opinion of yourself will be more important.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

Don’t do a job just for the money.  One can live well enough and keep one’s self-respect at the same time.

A career is a short time.  Try to live each day as if your career would be judged on what you did that day. Because the day will inevitably come when you’ll be doing the things on which your career will be judged.