The issue
of PR and its influence on the media is never far away, the underlying concern
being that PR either distorts the truth or blatantly hides it.
It’s a
continuing debate about ethics, and the extent to which public relations should
be completely open and transparent.
The Oxford
English Dictionary defines ethics as “moral principles that govern a person’s
behaviour or the conducting of an activity.”
Moral
principles are themselves about defining good and evil, right and wrong, but
the real question is – to what extent is PR the servant of absolute truth, or
the servant of those who pay for the service?
The Roman orator Cicero made the point that public relations mainly operates to benefit those
who commission it. (A great blog on
Cicero and PR from Paul Seaman can be found here).
More recently, Joe Haines, Harold Wilson’s press guru, remarked that PR
people have to be economical with the truth and sometimes “have to dispense
with it altogether.”
In the UK, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) has a code
of ethics that sets out comprehensive principles and guidelines, grounding the
PR profession into a framework that clearly delineates right from wrong. The International PR Association extends
ethics internationally.
But moral frameworks only take us so far. For example, how does a PR deal with a
client’s poor financial results? Is it
unethical to focus on exceptional restructuring costs or international market
conditions to try and divert attention away from underlying problems?
The uncomfortable fact is that there is a thin line between truth and
falsehood, and an even thinner one between truth and half-truth. That vacuum is filled with omission and spin
– the subtle art of saying nothing or deliberate obfuscation. It’s what clients want (sometimes), PRs
(often) deliver, and the media (always) expects.
Perhaps the worst example of a downright lie happened in 1990, when a volunteer
nurse in Kuwait claimed that she’d seen Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of
incubators, at a time when President Bush was being urged to take military
action against Saddam Hussein who had invaded the oil-rich country.
It was reminiscent of the U-boat sinking of the RMS Lusitania in World
War One, which helped to propel the USA into the conflict.
Except that the nurse’s testimony was a fabrication. She
was, in fact, a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. America took military action, and Saddam was
expelled from Kuwait.
Her testimony was, of course, unethical; so too the activity of PRs who
promulgated it. However, the really
tricky Machiavellian question is: did the means justify the end? Was the West right to take military
action? Were all the deaths worth
it? Was kicking out one dictator to
restore another dictator a good thing?
From a Kuwaiti perspective, yes.
From a Western perspective, no.
Truth might be the first casualty of war, but a lie is never a good
justification for war.
In the scales of ethical balance, it’s worth noting that there are now
many more PRs than journalists. Chuck in
constantly-evolving websites, blogs, forums and social media and ethical
questions proliferate. As Mark Twain
remarked: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still
putting on its shoes.”
In other words, in a news landscape where the media are following target
individuals, companies and organisations on Facebook or Twitter, there are no
longer any clear boundaries to where PR begins or ends or, therefore, codes of
ethics that apply to everyone.
However, I
remain sanguine about the role that PR plays in our society, and of the
professionalism of the media to see through flim-flam and the fog of spin. In a democratic society, we have the right to
voice our opinions, sometimes bend the truth – but, hopefully, never, never
lie.
The conduct
of PR in liberal democracies might not be perfect, but compare that to some
other regimes around the world, where PR and propaganda have entirely replaced
an independent press and media.
According
to one estimate, 1.6 billion people – over 20% of the world’s population – have
no say in how they’re governed, and can face extreme consequences if they try
to kick the system.
Take
Syria. The Syria Times is currently running with a “story” that suggests
that “the recent US Israeli escalation against Syria after the failure of their
successive sinister attempts…explains the real objectives of the US Zionist
project in the region.” Really?
Or North
Korea’s Rodong Sinmum newspaper which
this month carried an article extolling the publication of supreme leader Kim
Jong Un’s work, “Let Us Brilliantly Accomplish the Revolutionary Cause of
Juche, Holding Kim Jong Il in High Esteem as the Eternal General Secretary of
Our Party.”
Snappy
title, and I won’t bore you with the newspaper’s fawning coverage that makes
reading a telephone directory seem interesting.
Suffice to say, I would rather live in a free country than in the
shadowland that is Pyongyang.
Maybe PRs
and the media should try to get on a bit better, or recognise that creative
tension and differing agendas are pivotal to press freedom and public
accountability. I could, of course, be
quite wrong but, for moral and ethical reasons, would never say so publicly.
We are specialists
in national and international PR strategy and delivery. You can contact us at +44 (0) 1620 844736 or Charlie@davidgraypr.com or connect with us on LinkedIn,
Facebook or Google+.
No comments:
Post a Comment