“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” Ugh! That’s the current definition of PR according to Stuart Elliott’s November 20, 2011 article, “Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media” in The New York Times.
The first issue that arises for me in considering this definition is the implication that Public Relations is a collaborative effort. PR helps the organizations they represent and their stakeholders to ‘adapt’ to each other. That could be believable if PR was an institution that stood apart from the corporation, client, or group it represented and from the public(s) and mediated their mutual relationship from a differentiated position. That is simply not the case as PR firms and departments have a focused agenda on putting the best foot forward of the client they are paid to represent.
Secondly this definition is so vague that it has more loopholes than the current tax code does for the top 1% in this country. For a discipline whose primary tools are words the paucity of this definition should be embarrassing. Yet this definition allows for broad interpretation. Does PR look out for the interests of stakeholders? Of course! Just look at the definition. Does PR ever criticize the organization it represents? Sure it can based on this definition however any example escapes me at the moment. Of course there are those times, like when Firestone tires were throwing treads and blowing out causing SUV’s to roll over and over, where PR firms eventually had to ‘come clean’ and address reality after attempting to assist the public and Firestone to “adapt mutually to each other” i.e. accept Firestone’s denials of responsibility.
Thirdly the definition is certainly showing its age. It was written in a time before Web 1.0. In the world of Web 2.0 where communications flow in many different directions at one time this definition still assumes a top down mentality. However, it can be read as though it claims a collaborative process. The role of PR is to referee the relationships between the organization and stakeholders. This assumption points towards an unethical pose (which would be not telling the truth) where in reality the PR department/company has one focus – to support the organization’s image.
To improve upon this interpretation a new definition would need to be precise, clearly state what the function(s) of public relations is(are), reflect the current culture (Web 2.0), and, most of all, communicate the honesty of the profession. To construct a modern definition I would begin with a ‘word cloud’ already present in PRSA’s code of ethics. So here goes:
While clearly acknowledging any conflict of interests public relations strives to present honest and accurate information while being heedful of information flowing from organizations and stakeholders.
In my opinion when PR departments/businesses are blinded by conflict(s) of interest the result is usually an episode that damages the whole profession. Generalization and stereotyping come easy to human nature. All it takes is one BP or Firestone or, and we’re reaching way back here, one Ford Pinto exploding and burning followed by implausible explanations or excuses doled out by PR representatives to, in the public’s mind, associate the whole discipline with dishonesty and being no more than a tool in the hands of corporate America.
At least my definition indicates that, at the outset, PR lays out clearly who or what is being represented. The public is informed, therefore, that PR is representing a specific point of view and can expect that information will be influenced by that relationship. However, this does not mean that information will be inaccurate or untrue just to satisfy the client as the definition points toward a concerted effort to be “honest and accurate” in its releases.
Public relations, in the past few years, has waded into ethically shark infested waters when firms decided to represent people like Muammar Gaddaffi. The Monitor Group had Gaddaffi as a client from 2006 to 2008 but more than having him as a client they evidently tried to muddy the perspective of the relationship by claiming it was ‘academic’ in nature (you can read about it here). The article in The Guardian points out that using academics to carry out a PR campaign is ethically problematic especially when a person like Gaddaffi is footing the bill. The primary ethic that was violated was that money trumped the accurate and honest presentation of information.
This situation was pernicious in that The Monitor Group attempted to hide their PR campaign behind the authenticity of academia. The more reputable the academic the happier Gaddaffi was since he knew that would get him the most favorable press. How bad could this guy be if he is smart enough to write books or articles with some of the worlds greatest intellectuals? This also continued to provide cover for his regime to abuse the populace. Thus, even though The Monitor Group would deny this, they had an active role in perpetrating harm against innocent civilians. Finally, the PR business itself was again sullied by a firm taking on a client who was clearly homicidal on a grand scale for the sake of a fat payoff. In this case money triumphed over transparency, honesty, truth, and accurate information. This was a total fail in my book.
Public relations is a billion dollar business. When there are piles of money involved ethics often suffer. Money is not the root of all evil but the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10a). If a stream of capital is threatened will the PR person’s loyalty be to the information that may dam that stream or to the free flow of money? The best way to insure that representatives of the PR profession uphold the values of the discipline a system needs to be in place to insure ongoing education and training.
Licensure is the first step but a license alone is inadequate. Many professions, medical doctors, therapists, social workers, ministers, have to complete so many hours of continuing education to keep their licensure current or to renew their licenses. If public relations truly wants to be placed in the pantheon of professions then it does require discipline and continued instruction of their participants.
As far as the FTC or PRSA policing PR practitioners and practices it will prove fruitless unless there is a mechanism of enforcement when abuses are discovered. A wink and a nod or a slap on the wrist will do nothing to reform a profession that engage in unethical behavior. Once the Bush Administration shut down Arthur Anderson for the egregious behavior of a very small department (a tax division) within a very large corporation then other accounting firms and their corporate clients began to seriously refine the manner in which they reported their capitalization.
Public relations would best be served by a watchdog agency that has teeth. Whenever a firm steps out-of-line that agency needs to have regulatory power to respond in swift and meaningful ways. Otherwise the profession will be shackled by the generalizations and stereotyping of the general public most often expressed in the rolling of eyes every time a PR person takes the podium.
No comments:
Post a Comment