The Ethical Optimist

Throwing Down the PR Gauntlet?

Oh boy. Much as I like to think our profession is starting to raise the ethical bar, I was a bit concerned when I saw the media advisory PRSA put out under the heading “Communications Pros Issue Formal Ethics Challenge to Campaigns.”

In case you missed it, here’s a lift from the alert:

Public Relations Society of America Requests Formal Commitment to Accurate, Truthful and Respectful Discourse,

Offers Context and Commentary by Communications Ethics Expert

PRSA announced today that it has challenged the McCain and Obama campaigns to agree to uphold the highest standards of ethical practice in every facet of their campaign communications. The Society formally requested that campaign communications directors Robert Gibbs (Obama for America) and Jill Hazelbaker (John McCain 2008) sign a pledge obligating them to abide by the PRSA Code of Ethics in their campaign communications. Specific guidelines relevant to campaign communications policies under the PRSA Code include: being honest and accurate in all communications, acting promptly to correct erroneous communications, investigating the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented, and avoiding deceptive practices.

Okay, while I appreciate the effort, my realistic side is saying, “You’re kidding, right?” You really expect these guys to pay attention to this and sign a statement? Do journalists really think the PRSA has any teeth here?  Does anyone really think they’ll take this seriously?

Come on, PRSA’s new ethics guidelines are just that, guidelines and case scenarios. Our former list of do’s and don’ts has been revised. While I think the case study approach is a more practical way to teach ethics, referring to the revised code in the manner of guidelines someone can look up and follow is somewhat misleading.

Moreover, why are we asking someone to sign off on following ethical rules? Why should these guys sign anything? Are they even members of PRSA? Do others in our business sign off in this manner? Even if they did, who’s going to hold them accountable? Policing our profession is a sticky subject. We have numerous firms that are violating ethical rules all the time, yet they are rarely censured by the PRSA or our own trade rags.

The alert goes on to say:

PRSA leadership has taken public positions on the use of front groups, paid political spokesmen and other communications ethics issues, including those raised by the memoir of former presidential press secretary Scott McClellan, anonymous Internet postings following the juicycampus.com revelations, and court-ordered disclosure of journalists’ sources in the Valerie Plame affair. PRSA leadership also has provided training at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in connection with its communications efforts following last year’s California wildfires; delivered congressional testimony against proposed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations that would have inhibited journalists’ freedom to air information from video news releases; and spearheaded a private sector summit on public diplomacy at the U.S. State Department, among other activities.

 

I applaud this and see it as a step in the right direction, but frankly, I rarely see anyone from PRSA getting any national airplay on these issues. Unfortunately, the producers who book the interviews and the reporters who cover the issues don’t always look favorably on our profession. More than that, however, while the alert is well written, it’s clearly been edited to be very PC. Let’s face it, media bookers look for style AND substance. If PRSA is going to have a voice, it’s got to be a strong voice, somewhat controversial and colorful if anyone is going to listen to it and give it time.

Frankly, while this effort is well meaning, I just don’t think it will do the job.