Cohen: Flacks Follow-Up

After Blasting The PR Industry's Attack On Scott McClellan, Andrew Cohen Responds To Critics

(CBS)  Having blasted the public relations industry in an on-camera essay for CBS News’ "Sunday Morning" program, I am now the target of a public-relations effort to ridicule my effort, my points, my character and integrity. I expected nothing less. I mean, when you make fun of people whose job it is to burnish public images you’ve got to expect they are going to, well, burnish their own public images at the expense of your own. I am not taking it personally.

Of course, my essay generalized about the PR profession. That’s what 450-word essays do. I am sure there honest and accurate public relations people out there just as there are (somewhere, I suppose) honest journalists and lawyers. But the self-righteousness of the PR responses to my polemic masks a denial of the most basic truth about this silly kerfluffle: public relations people may believe they are honest and accurate and chock full of integrity in the work they do - but lay people do not necessarily share that belief. And isn’t appearance on a par with reality in the crazy world of PR spin?

The point of my essay was a simple one - that it was hypocritical to the point of hilarious for those in the PR field to point a finger at Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, and declare that he had violated the ethics rules that “govern” the industry. I am sure that everyone who makes a living as public relations professionals would like to distance themselves from McClellan’s shameful conduct. But the gulf simply isn’t far enough, not by a long shot, to sustain the argument. Point a finger at McClellan, sure. But point the finger at yourselves, too.

I did not generate the link between McClellan’s book and the rules of PR ethics. In a million years I would not have figured out that link. Instead, it was generated by a public relations type who late last week raised the question. Had the American Bar Association connected the dots first I probably would have written an essay on lawyers instead of flaks. And already there are scores of journalists who are wringing their hands at their own failures to ferret out McClellan’s lies. Give the reporters credit on that score-at least they are doing their own series of self-evaluations (mea culpas, really) to figure out what went wrong.

The best comment on the topic came from one of my friends, a lawyer. He wrote: “In an academic sense, your hyperbole is inaccurate and therefore, perhaps, unfair. There are certainly ethical PR folks out there. But, like lawyers and the Fourth Estate, there have been so many bad actors who for so long have abused the public’s trust, that the hyperbole pretty accurately represents the feelings of most in the public, and is sadly not that far from the truth. The PR industry needs to take some responsibility for this state of affairs (as do lawyers and the media) and work to restore the public’s faith.”

My friend is exactly right - on all counts. Anyone out there on the vanguard of the concerted effort to discredit me and my essay want to take issue with his main point? For years now, I have railed against dishonest and hypocritical and cynical lawyers and judges and politicians. Really, you can look it up. Anyone want to argue with a straight face that the PR industry is somehow immune from the same criticism? Do people in the PR world believe that it’s all beer and Skittles when they get up to a podium and that the public any longer automatically buys their spin? Some of the responses at the Sunday Morning site help me prove this is not so.

Sure, I live in a glass house and I threw a stone. I am sorry if it offended some of you. But consider it a wake-up call. For a profession that lives or dies on public perceptions you folks in public relations have as much work to do as the legal profession and the journalism profession (and the political profession) in changing the negative attitudes of your now-cynical audiences. And blaming me for calling attention to the problem - in a hyperbolic way, I freely admit - isn’t going to make things better.

Don’t be, like Claude Reins in "Casablanca," shocked - shocked! - to see yourselves painted with the same brush that over time has tarnished lawyers and politicians and advertising gurus. Instead, as a few of you suggested in your comments, use it as an opportunity to discuss among yourselves how a profession built on spin can survive with its credibility intact in a world where people are more sophisticated than ever in ferreting out such spin from the truth.

I’m sorry I compared your PR association to the Burglars’ Association of America. That wasn’t nice. But of course there is no Burglars’ Association of America. At least my animal analogies worked, though, right?

[jandprprof]

Just a month ago I had a conversation with my students who were just finishing their first course in public relations. These students were a mixture of business, mass communication, and political science majors. What I learned was personally heart-warming and globally unsettling. One student, a business major, told me he respected me because I spent the entire 15 weeks beating into him that PR was about mediated shared meaning founded on truth. He said he had no idea he had to tell the truth in PR before he started the class. He thought his PR experience was going to be akin to a creative writing course for the business world. The rest of the class seemed in agreement. I was glad I could help set the record straight for these students, but the real problem lies elsewhere. All of those leaders of industry-in-training, all of those future pols, have a misguided view of PR, and those are the ones who will one day be signing the public relations officer''s paycheck. Public relations is equally duty-bound to the audience as it is to the organization. And, yes, I believe my idealism would get me fired if I was not in an ivory tower. The root of PR''s PR problems lies with intent and influence of the client or the management, not the trained and ethical practitioner.

[prmatrix]

Unbelievable. Cohen first writes a ballsy commentary on the means and ends of public relations ethics %u2013 then follows his indictment with one of the most overused public relations tactics on the planet %u2013 the %u201Cyou got me all wrong%u201D symmetrical sidle.

You sure you never worked in PR?

[jn122736]

And GUESS WHO "almost always modifies" the news releases and/or statements "...to say or insinuate what is best for the intended beneficiary..."

LAWYERS!
Posted by FlackvsHack at 11:04 AM : Jun 04, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FlackvsHack, the problem here is that telling only part of the truth, for effect, while leaving out the rest, is still a lie, as you have proven yet again with this response.

Lawyers may well be the one/ones %u201C%u201Dmodifying the releases, but professional PR writers helped in producing them without publicly contesting them thereby making them, in effect, equally guilty.

[flackvshack]

And GUESS WHO "almost always modifies" the news releases and/or statements "...to say or insinuate what is best for the intended beneficiary..."

LAWYERS!

[jn122736]

Have I ever been asked to write or say something that wasn''''t true in my 20 years? Yes. And do you know what my response was? I said "NO."

Even though I''''ve counseled management to do the right thing time and time again, there have been instances when my bosses still went against my ethical voice. It is not always the PR person''''s fault for what is stated in press releases or in the media statements and interviews.
Eilene Wollslager, PhD(c), APR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Therein lies the justification for Mr. Cohen%u2019s very accurate and appropriate article.

Press releases by business and/or politicians are almost NEVER written by just one individual and are almost always %u201C%u201Dmodified%u201D%u201D by someone in charge to say or insinuate what is best for the intended beneficiary and twisting or omitting facts (lying) are the norm.
ANY participant in producing said releases are equally guilty unless and until they PUBLICLY challenge the official wording.

What these %u201C%u201Dspin doctors%u201D%u201D (PR people), including the responses to Mr cohen%u2019s article/s, take advantage of is the fact that the truth can be told in so many different ways that they do not really need lie.

[flaktshirt]

To Leahdog2150:

"Your poorly written and poorly written commentary ..."

You''re not really helping your case here.

[sparks224]

I''m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
To discover the Bush administration lying to the American public!

[leahdog2150]

"I am not taking it personally." For the record, we hope that you do take these comments personally. Your poorly written and poorly written commentary missed the point it was trying to make because you spent too much time trying to be cute. A more specific and well written commentary would have been a better fit for Sunday Morning which features some of the best writing in television today. You diminished the excellent work of your colleagues on what was otherwise an outstanding newscast.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "Please provide "imperical" (it''s actually spelled "empirical," by the way) evidence of PR people being "trained" to lie."

Posted by RobinMayhall

Thank you for correcting my spelling error.

As far as my evidence goes, I would like to mark this thread as exhibit "A".

I rest my case.

[robinmayhall]

TO: "FeelFree4U"

Um ... are you just sitting online waiting to reply to each comment in this thread?

If so, you might spend some of that waiting time by doing some research.

You wrote:

Re: "PR people are trained to be slickly untruthful or half-truthful. I''''m not certain if this was stated out of ignorance or malevolence,"

Neither. It''''s called "imperical evidence".

As you have challenged others here to do: state your evidence. Please provide "imperical" (it''s actually spelled "empirical," by the way) evidence of PR people being "trained" to lie.

[jon2012-2009]

The chorus of protests I see here from PR professionals makes it obvious they are applying the tactics they have honed to make a living. The fact is their industry is only self-policed. You can shout to the heavens about adhering to a code of ethics but without any inspection and enforcement system, it is a hollow claim. We have codes for bridges and tall buildings too but they are worthless without an inspection system to certify the structures are in compliance.

PR professionals have a mercenary interest to serve their client, not the truth, not the public. Whereas reporters are also unlicensed, they do not operate with a clear conflict of interest since they can be presumed to serve the interest of the public''s need to know and their version of a story can be challenged and set straight by their peers.

[octoberjazz]

I fear that even the PR industry - which according to Cohen specializes in making turkeys appear to be eagles -- could do as much for him.

[flackvshack]

Wow, Mr Cohen, aren''t you cute? Yeah , ya live in a glass house and ya threw a stone and ya really don''t care about who you offend -- your "apology" was so far from the truth about what you really think but, hey it''s the American Way! I defend your right to spin yourself as all-knowing and truthful and a real journalist just out to give the public accurate information about the public relations profession. Wow, what a "Scoop"! I guess your status as "journalist" lets you off the responsibility hook for what you put in print. I guess you are not one of the scores of "journalists" doing some serious self-evaluations of your work? No need, right? You told us the "truth" about ourselves and we''re just supposed to hang our heads and believe that what your "opinion" about our profession is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God?

Here''s some truth to ponder: Now that you''ve pissed off every PR professional around the world, try getting some help with the next real hard "news" story you need to put together outside of your own world of -- dare I offend -- ignorant generalized self-serving opinionated "essays." I wouldn''t TRUST my company''s reputation and ACCURATE information (which I have NEVER NEEDED to LIE ABOUT, SPIN or BURNISH ) in your hands as a "journalist" -- EVER.

My guess (and my hope) is that no one else will either.

[avatar2631]

While not wanting to belabor conversation about the essay Sunday, I would be remiss in not pointing out that everyone seems to be missing a basic premise with respect to the issue. Answer the following question:

What professions fall under the classification of Public Relations?

A. Public Information Officer
B. Public Affairs Officer
C. Director of Communications
D. Crisis Communications Officer
E. All of the above
F. None of the above

Answer: F, none of the above.

PR professionals, members of the media, and the general public tend to classify each position as one in the same - interchangeable. Speaking of truth, such a view would be the farthest from the truth. Each is a unique discipline.

The President%u2019s Director of Communications should not be viewed as a PR specialist. He is, in fact, the communicator of the President''s message, right or wrong, true or false, skewed or otherwise.

How could anyone assume the director of communications for a politician would be bound by any standard to tell the truth?

It''s a matter of specialization, really. Lawyers, doctors, accountants and reporters specialize in subject matters. Just as well, communicators specialize in certain areas or types of communication. Most of those areas rely on honesty to accomplish their duties. Sadly, a political spokesperson is neither burdened nor hampered by that standard.

[nownthen-2009]

sure stirred up a hornets nest eh. to paraphrase mr. Shakespere Me thinks they protest too much. As a pretty much average person the perception that Cohen presents seems very accurate to me(thus most?). I have been reading comments on many articles and never have I seen so many Professionals jump in to defend themselves over a OPINION. A little defensive there are we?
PR= patently ridiculous

[drmikesmith]

Mr. Cohen:

I won''t disparage your character or credentials--that would be unethical. I won''t call all lawyers liars--that would be inaccurate. I wish you had adhered to those same standards in your original commentary. What Scott McClellan did was bad for the public relations field on many levels. If he knew the truth behind the lies he propagated, then he was unethical. If he didn''t know the truth, then he was out of the "managerial" loop at the White House. Either way, he does not represent either the ideals or the reality of the public relations profession as it is practiced my most professionals. Your commentary only exacerbates inaccurate stereotypes of the profession. I could not, in good conscience, have been a PR educator for 20 years if your characterization was even half right.

Michael Smith
La Salle University, Philadelphia
Public Relations Student Society of America faculty advisor
Vice-chair, National Communication Association PR Division

[patty7664]

I was a news producer and executive producer at various television stations for ten years. I began my career in public relations about five years ago. I have experienced both sides of the communications industry. I can honestly say that I have NEVER lied in my public relations career. I have NEVER been asked to lie, or worse yet, told to lie.

I respect both journalists and public relations professionals as communicators. We need to work together. It''s sad that someone like you doesn''t recognize that.

[stfpr]

Two words Cohen - YELLOW JOURNALISM.

[newsjunkie31]

I am not a PR professional, but in the communications field and like to stay on top of all news. For those of you who are commenting and getting fired up over this commentary, please keep in mind the following: Andrew Cohen is NOT a journalist. He is not required to do his research, he is not required to be fair and unbiased. Andrew Cohen is no different than Bill O''Reilly, or quite simply, Dr. Phil. He simply has a big mouth and got lucky that CBS hired him (probably for ratings sake - look it made you tune in) and not for the sake of journalism. Shame on you CBS. So as you read his opinions, please keep all of this in mind. I hold CBS and the editors responsible for pawning off such uneducated opinion as news. I for one will be moving CBS to the bottom of my list and will continue to watch, read and listen to the fair, well-researched, unbiased reporting that so many journalists with integrity can offer.

[fcb155]

More proof why Bush, Cheney, Rice and McCain should be removed from the power they hold.
I support: The Impeach Bush Movement!
We need a change in Washington. NOW!