Cohen: Flacks Follow-Up

(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.