Comments on: Public Relations Is Not A Right

By: Michael Allison

Michael Allison — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:32:03 +0000

I wonder who the moral referee would be…

An Objectivist argues a man is an end to himself, not a means with an end to others. If it is within his rational self-interest to represent an oil company (as do some smart social media agencies we know of), then it is moral.

Good topic of discussion.

By: Jen Zingsheim

Jen Zingsheim — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:08:59 +0000

Just getting to this post, and I think it’s an important one. At the firm I used to work for, we spent a lot of time examining and vetting clients before we’d do the work–it was just understood that as a PR firm, one of the most important (if not *the* most important) things we brought to the table was our own reputation. I saw this in action too–separating from a client when it became clear the values differed.

That said, I think people allow their own personal biases to creep in and say “oh, I wouldn’t ever work for X.” I’d caution people on drawing conclusions before learning more about the company first. I can remember being very wary about one client our group represented. After learning more about the company and its plans, efforts in certain areas, etc., I was very impressed. Of course, this wasn’t an ethical issue, more policy, but it was an important learning experience for me not to judge a company based on what general perceptions are. It was a great and fulfilling project to work on.

Is PR representation a right? No. But it is important to remember that companies exist because there is a need for the product or service, that they do employ people, and that many times there are multiple stories to tell.

By: maureen Argon

maureen Argon — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:24:51 +0000

Not too long ago I was hired by a non-profit as the Director of Communications. My job included public relations among other things. Soon after I was hired, and going through the files to get up to speed, I discovered some very unethical connections and ensuing bad press (which I felt was quite justified). Part of my job would have been to do some damage control. None of this was fully disclosed to me before I took the job. I resigned before the end of my probationary period.
What I learned from that was to make clear my own personal ethics –drawing my own line in the sand. But more importantly, I learned about due diligence. It’s important to find things out for yourself and act accordingly. In this case, I simply could not be promoting that organization to people who were donated their hard earned money knowing what I knew about how it was being spent.

By: Shel Holtz

Shel Holtz — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:22:00 +0000

We could be debating different issues, Dave. I know the agency that took the octuplet mom on (and I recognize she’s just an example) did so for the opportunity, not out of a sense of obligation. Should an agency be forced to take the American Nazi Party on as a client just because nobody else will? Not at all. On that point, you’re correct — that’s why there’s no equivalent of a public defender’s office in PR!

By: Dave Fleet

Dave Fleet — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:31:50 +0000

Shel – I’m not trying to make a point about her – she’s just an example of someone who will raise a strong emotional reaction in a lot of people. Pick anyone you like – the question is should agencies take on those clients because they have a *right* to PR counsel, as opposed to taking them on because they believe in their offering and have a genuine enthusiasm for them?

I’m quite willing to have my mind changed on this one; I just want to make sure you disagree with the points I’m actually arguing

By: Shel Holtz

Shel Holtz — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:17:33 +0000

Dave, I think you’re missing the point with the octuplets mom. Does she have the right to PR counsel as an accused criminal does with legal counsel? No, of course not. But if she can afford PR counsel and an agency is willing to represent her, she should not be denied access to that counsel because miscreant members of the public flood the agency with death threats. If she has the wherewithal to get help telling her story, she (or anybody else) should be permitted to take advantage of that resource.

By: pbadstibner (PBadstibner)

pbadstibner (PBadstibner) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:15:12 +0000

Twitter Comment

[link to post] jumped befoe i could do anything great post by @davefleet, those not following @davefleet @dannybrown realy missing out

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: pbadstibner (PBadstibner)

pbadstibner (PBadstibner) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:13:13 +0000

Twitter Comment

[link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: PR Conversations » Why Public Relations should celebrate the G20 meeting

PR Conversations » Why Public Relations should celebrate the G20 meeting — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:38:25 +0000

[...] find it interesting to reflect on these matters after reading Dave Fleet’s post: “Public relations is not a right“. It is somewhat ironic that in countries where there is little freedom of expression, [...]

By: Heather Yaxley

Heather Yaxley — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:55:00 +0000

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that in countries where there is little freedom of expression, such as Zimbabwe, the only voices being publicly heard are those who would be deemed as unworthy of PR representation by most of the commentators here.

You claim that PR is a business function and (although I believe it is not exclusively the preserve of businesses to use or employ PR), writers such as Zeigler (cited in Sriramesh and Vercic, The Global PR Handbook, 2009) state that “corporatism hinges on a characteristic of the consensus-oriented democracy”.

So the simple fact that organisations and individuals are able to express different viewpoints (some of which might be considered by some people as unethical) is what enables PR to exist.

One person’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist and the same can be considered true in PR. Your persuasive message might be considered as propaganda by others.

Today in London, we have 20 global leaders seeking to discuss key issues and build relationships with each other – and by virtue of their public statements, to influence the wider society. We will undoubtedly hear their voices thanks to their professional public relations expertise and might.

Would it not be unethical to allow only the voices of those with power to be heard?

Because the UK is a democratic, pluralistic society, there will also be dozens of activist groups and thousands of individuals, demonstrating to protest around various issues over which these 20 individuals have more say than anyone of us.

They will use the techniques of PR to give a voice to their views – they don’t need professional PR representation to do this, fortunately.

Our modern society is based on the idea that multiple competing opinions are able to affect public policy and public behaviour through discussion, bargaining and compromise.

So surely it is important that public relations is able to stimulate discussion around issues; which means allowing the opinions of others to be heard, even if we don’t like what they are saying.

As an individual PR practitioner, I can decide whether or not I wish to convey a message as I have the freedom of choice. I appreciate it isn’t always that easy if you need a job to pay the bills – but again it is your decision over whether to compromise your personal ethics if needs must.

I believe that as professional PR practitioners we should support what Voltaire is attributed as saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”