Public Relations has always had a negative image in regards to the public, so isn’t it ironic that an industry that handles the reputations of companies and people does not have a good reputation itself?
Davis Young, Fellow, PRSA, president and CEO of Edward Howard & Co, Cleveland states in an article by Susan Fry Bovet. that “much of its negative visibility relates to perceptions about our ethical standards”.
Many people view PR as lying and manipulative, some see PR professionals as manipulators of the public mind, rather than conveyors of truth, making people believe what they want them to believe. But is this the case, as surely the ‘public’ have a mind of their own and can believe what they want, not what we tell them to believe.
It’s hard to distinguish sometimes whether or not practitioners are lying or whether they are simply telling the truth at a slow rate, letting a little piece of information out each time over a period of time. I believe that this is the case sometimes but how are we to know whether this is happening or they are just simply holding back information that the public deserve to know?
Does telling the truth depend on a practitioner’s values and personal ethics?
Although PR is renowned for being an industry that lies and manipulates, you can argue the fact that it depends on each individual practitioner as to whether they chose to work ethically or not.
When working for a client that is unethical, it can be a hard situation to be in as your loyalty is meant to lie with them but it also depends whether they want to compromise their values and sometimes they may not think they have a choice.
Although, the practitioner does have a choice, they can argue against the lies, go along with them as that is what they are paid for, or they can quit.
Obviously there are drawbacks to each option. Arguing can possibly shorten a career, going along with it can jeopardise the practitioner if the lie is exposed (as it would be clear they lied, considering they are the communicator) and quitting maintains the practitioner’s dignity and values but consequently they lose out by not being paid.
I think that it all boils down to money. When it comes to the decision between being paid and lying and not being paid, many people will choose being paid – although again I think it all depends on the practitioner’s values and personal ethics but ultimately their loyalty should lie with their clients.
In my next post I will be discussing the duty of a PR professional and where their loyalty should lie – with their client or with society?
Does PR have a duty to tell the truth? 
Very reasonable argument and I agree with the irony of the industry’s reputation, however would you still believe a practitioner’s loyalty should lie with their client. if they knew they were holding back crucial information from the public in order to sustain this loyalty?
I do agree with you on that part, if the information is clearly very important and something the public should know then I think that they should help persuade their client to release it or advise them greatly not to lie or hide it. This depends on the client and whether or not they are always unethical or just sometimes. If a company operates completely unethically majority of the time then there is nvery little that the practitioner can do to try and convince them otherwise whereas other clients they may. It’s a hard position that the practitioner is put in and in my next blog I will be looking at the duty of the practitioner and where their loyalty should lie.
Very interesting article. Those working in PR, along with journalists, are instantly labelled as being manipulative and untrustworthy due to the nature of the professions.
Clearly, many people working in PR have no scruples about promoting something (a) they don’t believe in (b) covering up possible negative stories or (c) pushing something they know to be potentially harmful.
However, if you are a moral person and take issue with working in an environment where this is standard practice, then don’t apply for jobs in these organisations. There are plenty of charities, not for profit groups or local authorities who need good PR people.
There will be times though when the PR practitioner is faced with a dilemma – promote something they are vehemently against or lose their job and livelihood. Ultimately it depends on how strong your career ambitions are against how deep-seated your morals are.
Finally, let’s not forget that PR is an enormously wide field with huge amounts of good work being done. I think the key thing is to try and turn around the attitude that PR is manipulative and lying.
I completely agree with you here, but how can we even begin to change the attitude towards PR? Is it even possible after all the years and bad press that it has received as an industry?
PR is there to put forward a particular point. No statement should be a lie, that would be poor and un professional.
PR is bias. It is paid for by a client.
The agenda and the real world are combined to make what is.
I know of an organisation who wants to be known as aggressive and confrontational.
In fact needs to be.
Trade Unions.
So the image needs to be projected that suits the body. I,e Reliable banks. Effective lawyers. Caring doctors.
I agree Jen PR needs to PR itself lol!! I agree with Dave, no statement should lie however, I think that in PR we need to select our truths, and if we can’t tell the truth as the truth may be harmful to our client or infact to the public, then we need to say why we cannot tell the truth! If you can’t tell the truth – explain why!
I agree with David Taylor, I think when applying for a job you need to evaluate your morals and ethics with the companies so that you can find a company that you will be suited to work for and therefore to satisfying and progressive work!
Great post Jen 🙂
Check out my blog at http://enthusiasticpr.wordpress.com/ 🙂
You’re absolutely right. It’s often difficult when in a position of trust, especially where money is involved!
Practitioners often get stuck between a rock and a hard place; having said that, one could argue- it’s what they’re paid for?
Otherwise- where would the responsibility for taking the brunt of the public’s address lie? The CEO? The Accountants? The “average Joe” Customer Service Rep?
In truth, it would be all of these- and would be complete chaos; with each department and individual trying to promote, manage and maintain the business’ brand and consumer focus; which is impossible unless lead or guided by one single individual.
Although on the surface, the PR industry seems to be in need of PR it’s self, and some individuals may feel that companies, governments and organisations would be a whole lot more honest without practitioners to interfere with the facts and figures- the truth is; without them, we would be well and truly stuffed.
Almost every single brand, industry and business model would fail as a result of improper public relations management.
At the end of the day- being stuck between a rock and a hard place is what practitioners are for. They move organisations out of an otherwise sticky situation, and into a much more pleasant and level (sometimes more competitive) playing field.
I agree with Dave, no statement should be a lie, although it is hard sometimes depending on the company. This however is linked with David Taylor’s point, there are many companies and charities where the practitioner would be doing honest and trustworthy work, again the choice of what company depends on the practitioner and therefore when applying for the job, each practitioner should evaluate the values of that company to decide whether or not it is right for them.
Dave makes a good point, barristers do not lie on behalf of their client although this can seen as different as they are under oath and in a court of law and therefore can hardly lie, whereas practitioners can lie and can possibly get away with it.
Alex is right in my opinion, that is what practitioners are there for. They have to do what is right by the company and if they disagree with it then clearly they are in the wrong company.