Communication Overtones Comments
Kami, excellent post - love the way you write!
I think PR people get into trouble because often they spout the "company line" without really understanding all of the key issues at stake. So while they don't intentionally deceive, they may in effect end up doing so by leaving out relevant data (because they never thought to ask for it from their superiors). Or they may make irrelevant and misleading comparisons (again, due to lack of knowledge of real issues and/or lack of intellectual curiousity).
Too often, I've seen PR people simply take what they've been told by the product manager, sales person, engineer (insert title) and parrot that information out to the world without any form of critical questioning or analysis.
I think this is how many of the PR "lies" actually originate.
Lynn; Thanks for stopping by and adding your thoughts.
You make an excellent point, and that is indeed the shades of gray I was hinting at. Most PR tacticians are not strategists. That is why it is so important that schools teach critical thinking. It is so important to personal integrity to understand what you are saying, and possibly more important, why.
A great post as always, Kami.
As you'd expect, I agree (and recently wrote) that in the Social Media age, "Public Relations is less about the publicity and more about the relations."
Where it gets hard (as I and others have written) is when the PR pro needs to have relationships with hundreds of contacts. Since most "outreach" is handled by relatively junior staffers at most agencies, this paradigm shift is compounded by the fact that they literally haven't had enough time on the planet (much less in the industry) to forge all those relationships.
We'll figure it out, though. One thing you need to be, to be a PR pro, is an OPTIMIST.
Where do I start? First of all, although PRSA would never say this, Cohen could have just as easily been talking about journalists and the state of the news media today. He hardly enjoys a place of moral authority in this discussion.
Second, people in general, not just PR pros or journalists, use facts to create their own truth. Crisis communication guru Jim Lukaszewski once stated, “Truth is 15% facts and 85% perception."
In the February 7, 2007 edition of Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, Lukaszewski illustrated his point this way," if a car accident were witnessed by four people on different corners, each would have a different version of what happened when the cops showed up."
That doesn't make them liars or unethical, they simply have a different point of view. The problem is when one's POV crosses over into intellectual dishonesty.
Unfortunately, we can all identify with reading or listening to news stories where journalists unabashedly use facts to tell a version of the truth that suits their vantage point. Political ads and campaign spin are designed to achieve the same result: take a small misstatement or an obscure vote in Congress, and use such a fact to explain the whole “truth” about a candidate and his/her record. It’s intellectually dishonest and everyone knows it. One is left to conclude that the truth lies on the street corner that sells the most newspapers or will garner the greatest number of votes.
I'm reminded of the movie Contact where David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt) was schooling Eleanor Arroway (Jodi Foster) on the unfair way the world works, to which Jodi replied, "I always thought the world is what we make it."
The fact is, we all have to do better - much better to make that more ideal world possible.
As I pointed out in my own post on this issue, the problem is that people form their beliefs based on what they see. What they see of PR is (a) lots of clueless pitches and (b) media and blogger coverage of unethical PR practices. All the good, sound, ethical PR occurs without any fanfare. The fact that it's not noticed is part of what makes it good!
However, given social media's ability to spread perceptions quickly, it has become incumbent upon the PR business to start shining that spotlight, which is why I've proposed a clearinghouse of quick-and-dirty case studies of PR efforts that reflect the ethics to which the vast majority of practitioners adhere.
Kami,
As reflected in several comments to your post and your responses, a major problem is that in many cases, public relations practitioners are excluded from strategy discussions (or what is referred to as the "dominant coalition" in the excellence study).
Dick Morris says that press secretaries traditionally lack strategy information and are not included in decisions. I thought you might enjoy reading his discussion here in preparation for your talk: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2...er-in-the-loop/
Thank you for hosting this conversation, Kami. It's important to draw distinctions between what is seen publicly and what are essentially personal and professional decisions we are all called to make. Generalizations are hard to make - and dangerous. As are rationalizations. I echo the sentiments of many who have left comments here, too, esp. Leo. Eye witness accounts are influenced by who is behind those eyes - what they see depends on who they are and how they feel at the moment as well.
Kami,
I am glad you blogged about this! I was so upset when I watched the segment on Sunday morning. I simply couldn't believe it. I had hoped the PR community wouldn't sit idol. Certainly there are unethical people in the communications field, as there are unethical people in all fields. It was an excellent post, Mrs. Huyse. I hope you and the fam are settling in well! We miss you all! Please tell them hello.
Tiffany; I am glad that you brought this issue up because I think it is the single most important issue that keeps the public relations professional from really being effective. If you do not have any policy or organizational pull, then you are largely a mouthpiece. Of course this is an age old cry for a "seat at the table" that I personally have heard since I started in PR in the '90s. Luckily most of my employers and later my clients have given me a say in strategy, which has been a blessing. But for those that don't have this advantage, I suggest working to become a strategic thinking and using the skill to prove yourself. If you can't eventually get a seat at the table I personally would look for a new job. However, you must gain that respect first.
Valeria; I agree that there are always circumstances, but I hesitate to go toward relativism in these things. There is a right and a wrong path, though it sometimes can only be seen in hindsight.
Aileen; Yeah, the lurker speaks up 
I am glad that you weighed in on this, being that you were formerly one of us before you became a more respectable banker. This broad brush against all PR practitioners, plus the clear misundertanding about the profession was clearly meant to incite - and believe me, there has been plenty of response and will be plenty more. I recommend that people take the time to visit Mr. Cohen's articles and voice your distress directly as well.
We are saying the same thing! Now I'm confused. I am echoing what everyone here has been saying in support of ethics...
Valeria; yes, I know you support ethics. I guess I am saying that while I agree with the idea that each person sees things differently, I also wanted to come out and say that in the end I do believe there is a definitive right and wrong too. I wasn't trying to be critical - sorry for the misunderstanding.
I find it upsetting that after 17 years in the profession we are still having this discussion. I've posted about it in the past a number of times. Here's one. http://strivepr.com/wordpress/20...ing-profession/
Thanks for the measure, thoughtful analysis. I was a little less charitable.
I think your two categories make good sense. But, unfortunately, the entire profession is moving in the direction of image building... to our detriment.
http://www.literalmayhem.com/200...as-an-obituary/
Letterhead; No, I don't think the ENTIRE profession is moving that way. Possibly agencies on a whole are doing that, but most inside PR, non-profit, trade association, etc., is not that way at all.
I would have to agree that the PRSA response was laden with jargon, but they aren't the best yet at plain talk. Still, I applaud that they answered at all.
As for the idea of having more in-depth discussion about where the profession is going wrong, I am all for that. But, I also believe that there is hope for those that take the "road less travelled."
Until deceptive practices are made illegal (read: not likely) each practitioner has to look in the mirror and decide which of these roads to travel.
Agreed. "Illegal" is highly unlikely.
Although Kekst is working with Smithfield Foods on that very program. Smithfield filed a RICCO suit against the union seeking to bar them from using "press releases and other PR tactics" on the basis that these are extortionate activities... and Kekst is making their case on the PR side. An interesting idea that a PR firm is working on a case that criminalizes PR.
I was thinking more along the lines of PR pros being held legally liable -- just as CEOs and CFOs are when companies mislead (e.g., Worldcom, Enron). At some point when the Scott McLellans of the corporate world start being subject to prosecution as abettors of white collar crime, it will have the ad hoc disciplinary effect of regulation without the bureaucratic nightmare.
And I am less sanguine about the profession, especially on the trade association side. But maybe if I keep reading Communications Overtones it might brighten up my outlook!
Thanks for the great blog.
Letterhead; Well, I am not a completely bright eyed optimist. I have been preparing this week to talk to a Washington DC comms crowd about ethics. Since I was in DC for 13 years, I know how this can be a completely jaded environment. I really am interested to see what that crowd says.
And yes, I read about Kekst, what a joke that is. I saved it in my PRWorst file on delicious.
No, all PR people aren't liars. But PRSA exposed its profession to even more ridicule by exaggerating its integrity in response to an exaggeration about the lack of it:
http://www.stevensilvers.com/200...one-good-
e.html
Steven; I see your point, but I don't totally agree with it. I do agree that enforcement may be the real issue here, which is pretty hard to do in the association environment that we live in in America. Legally it leaves big organizations open to some legal issues that I am not qualified to discuss, but which I knew to be a big problem in my association days.
While PRSA's response was not perfect, but any means, it was a step forward from the complete silence of the past, but any organization. The reiteration of the ethical code is a little something more than deaf and dumb responses by the rest of the trade organizations.
Now, I DO believe that this should spark a discussion about ethical behavior and what can be done. But that discussion is usually not sexy enough to hold anyone's attention.
Commenting by HaloScan
