My views are not much different from yours, Daniel. There's nothing wrong with the practice of identifying and providing access/factual info to third-party "experts" so they may advocate one's POV. As I said, there isn't an enterprise or institution, including most NGOs (and every PR agency), that doesn't do this today.
The problems arise when those induced to speak on behalf of an issue do so with the knowledge that their position is without foundation...as appears to be the case with many of the Pentagon's surrogates.
And it goes without saying that those who benefited financially from these speaking "assignments" should be investigated and prosecuted.
I have a different viewpoint on this story. I think it is a bit overblown, for two reasons:
1. I don’t think anyone should be surprised that the Administration is aggressively courting influencers to support its foreign policy objectives, or that many retired military officers would be supportive of the Pentagon’s position on issues such as the war in Iraq. The military service of these officers gives them credibility on the subject, but it also gives them the natural inclination to be supportive of their former comrades in arms.
2. I do not believe that total and immediate transparency on issues such as shortages of body armor and up-armored Humvees is a responsible communications practice, given that we know our enemies closely monitor our media and could use this information to kill Americans.
I do agree with you about the problem if these analysts are touting the Administration’s line purely to advance their business interests. The article did not claim that the Pentagon was explicitly linking the two, but it sure seems like the networks should have been more diligent in monitoring and disclosing the potential conflicts of interest of the experts they put up.
Your article did, however, make me think again about the role of an influencer program in authentic public relations. As PR professionals we work to find analysts who view the companies we represent in a positive light, and provide them with access to information so they can provide positive quotes to media. We assume that they will be objective, but these analysts have something to gain from us as well. Some may be seeking to do business with the company, and most will benefit from the media exposure gained through being quoted as an expert on the particular topic.
Do you think that the very act of briefing an analyst make them less credible even if all relationships are disclosed, and if so, what is the proper way to manage an authentic influencer program?
My view is that as long as all financial and business relationships are disclosed, it is perfectly legitimate for a company to seek to elevate those influencers who are favorable towards the company. I think the responsibility falls on the organization presenting these sources to the public to properly define their relationship to the subjects they are commenting on.
Commenting by HaloScan
