...according to an audience of over 260 public relations executives (and me). 138 voted against the motion in last night's PR Week sponsored debate that 'PR has a duty to tell the truth', vs 124 for.
Should we be surprised or is this simply a (rare) truthful confession? Well it helped that Max Clifford was arguing against the motion. In a low-key, frank and absorbingly anecdotal performance he told the audience how his first duty was always to his client and that he had been "telling lies on behalf of my clients for 40 years". He chose to lie in certain instances because the "price of telling that truth would be terribly destructive to lots of people". He told us how he had stopped newspapers exposing a footballer for being gay, because it would have ruined his career. How he had prevented the media revealing a very senior corporate couple were having an affair with the same woman for the same reason... You could feel the audience craning to hear the gossip, dying to hear the clients' names. Much more entertaining than the rather more staid and worthy explanation of the ethical obligations of communicating Vodafone, described by its Group corporate affairs director Simon Lewis. Or even the wonderfully incongruous musings of George Pitcher, now curate at St Bride's, who previously founded the PR agency Luther Pendragon.
No, we should not be surprised - not just because of Max Clifford but because of the wording of the motion. PR does not have a 'duty' to tell the truth it has a duty to serve its client (as Clifford and Simon Goldsworthy frequently pointed out). Should it aspire to tell the truth? Absolutely - but that is a very different thing.
More interesting were the justifications given by the panel for not telling the truth. Chief among these (dwarfing the rest) was the culpability of the news media. Journalists were to blame, they said, because journalists constantly sought out tension, discord and disruption. PR executives had to protect their clients from them and, when necessary, fib / be economical with the truth / lie.
If this is the view across the industry it does not bode well for a constructive dialogue between PR and the media.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
It's very difficult to know quite what to make of the results of this motion. I suppose, on balance, no, PR practicioners do not necessarily have a duty to tell the truth, but do have a duty to serve the interests of their clients. Which rather presumes that the two are mutually exclusive. It's hardly a ringing endorsement of the industry, is it?
How often is the truth newsworthy?
Take the headline today 'fiasco after fiasco at the Home Office'. That is not untrue.
But it is also true that each day the department fulfils a large number of its functions effectively and without controversy.
But 'Home Office continues to fulfil 75% of functions effectively' is not news. Nor should it be.
You're right it's difficult to know what to make of the result particularly since one can object to the word 'duty' and, as you say, argue one can have both a duty to truth and to one's client. But from the debate itself it was clear the audience were consciously choosing the latter over the former (client over truth) and justifying it by blaming journalists ("vermin" in the words of Max Clifford).
And newscounter, wouldn't you say an aspiration to 'truth' is more applicable in PR than news (where I'd agree it can be ambiguous unless coupled with accuracy or fairness)?
So. "The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is committed to ethical practices. The level of public trust PRSA members seek, as we serve the public good, means we have taken on a special obligation to operate ethically."
Some people should consider turning in their membership or the society needs to do some purging.
Well put, Lou.
Perhaps PR practitioners need to devise strategies and tactics when it comes to facing the media's ill claims. We must remember telling the truth is to not tell a lie. This doesn't rule out "changing the subject."
We need to anticipate how the media will respond, and unfortunately, we have to prepare for the worst with all the deceit that's out there.
Is it true though that there's a corrosive cyncism between PR people and journalists? A little scepticism has to be healthy but not dislike bordering on loathing - as some appear to have
Post a Comment