Many, many, many experienced journalists are heading from newsrooms into the world of public relations. It will be interesting to see what that world does to them and -- I say with hope in my heart and not dope in my veins -- what they do to that world. Will they be like those people who have near-death experiences in newsrooms and finally see a redemptive light, or, as more than one former journalist has described it to me, are they headed for "the dark side"?
These questions seem even more interesting in light of the current debate about Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary.
When Gary Weiss wondered whether McClellan should be sanctioned for violating the "fundamental principles of public relations ethics," I wondered which principles Weiss was referring to. Such is my ingrained and unfair cynicism about PR, that I assumed Weiss was chiding McClellan for selling out the president. But, no, after reading his link to
a formal Public Relations Society of America code of ethics, I realized Weiss was indicting the former press secretary for enabling the dishonesty of the administration to which he had once declared his loyalty.
There's the key word: loyalty. And let me add another: conflicting. Conflicting loyalties. Sorting them out is often at the heart of responsible decision-making.
The PR code of ethics is as high-minded and detailed as any I've seen for the journalism world, but its idealism cannot mask the deep conflicts inherent in the profession. For example:
- We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent.
- We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.
- We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest.
But what happens when the interests of a client are in conflict with the interest of the public?
The formula that journalists describe goes like this: journalism and public relations are incompatible because of a different vision of loyalty. The primary loyalty for the journalist is to the public interest; the primary loyalty for the PR practitioner is to the corporate interest.
There is a whole lot wrong with that formula. It is essentially unfair because the journalists who promulgate it take an ideal view of journalism practice and hold it up against a jaundiced view of public relations. Let's take a reporter who is developing a story in the public interest about, say, corruption in city government or discriminatory hiring by a corporation. Now imagine that an editor -- or perhaps a publisher -- refuses, for whatever reason, to let the story see the light of day. What, then, is the duty of the journalist? My answer would be to secretly pitch the story to a competitor, or find some other back door toward publication. The truth must come out, even at the cost of your job.
But how often does this happen in real life?
Most reporters I know would rather French kiss Bill O'Reilly than give a story to a competitor. In other words, loyalty to the news organization often conflicts with both the broader public interest and one's career aspirations.
Then there's this from the PR code of ethics: "A member shall: Safeguard the confidences and privacy rights of present, former, and prospective clients and employees [and] protect privileged, confidential, or insider information gained from a client or organization."
OK, I get it now: Scott McClellan is dishonest for aiding and abetting the administration's disinformation campaign that led us into war; and/or Scott McClellan is a rat for turning on those folks who depended upon him for confidentiality and discretion.
I think the best practice for PR folks is to help clients "get ahead of a story." To me that requires the revelation of bad news about the client, taking a short-term hit in favor of long-term credibility and reliability. Which is why I still take a couple of Tylenol pills whenever I get a headache. Young readers may not remember the terrible revelations that there was poison discovered in parcels of the medicine, or that the company did everything in its power to inform and reassure the public.
What we need, in both journalism and public relations, are more courageous whistleblowers. But whistleblowers beware: Express disloyalty in favor of the public interest and an organized PR campaign will respond with phrases such as "He's not the Scott McClellan we all knew, which is why these revelations are so puzzling," or "If he had these misgivings, why didn't he raise them back then?" or, my favorite, "He is obviously a disgruntled employee." Which leads me to this final question: "Has there ever been a gruntled employee?"
