“Sometimes, you just have to stand up there and lie. Make the audience or the reporter believe that everything is ok. How many times have you heard a CEO stand up and say “No, I’m not leaving the company” and then – days later – he’s gone. Reporters understand that you “had” to do it and they won’t hold it against you in your next job when you deal with them again.” This statement given on Gawker website helps to identify that sometimes there are instances in which lying or withholding the truth is necessary in order to save damage to the reputation of the company or individual.
PR practitioners may strive to tell the truth, advising clients against a certain move if it may cause damage in the future or even advising their clients to tell the truth and provide facts, however when it comes to incidents involving clients in their personal life, such as adultery, drunken episodes or drugs, practitioner strive to hide this information if it will not influence the performance of the company.
Max Clifford stated that sometimes the “price of telling that truth would be terribly destructive to lots of people.” One time Clifford stopped newspapers exposing a footballer for being gay, because it would have ruined his career, an example where lying or withholding the truth was highly beneficial for the client because although sexuality has nothing to do with football, if you are a good footballer you are a good footballer, this is not the case in society and therefore by keeping this story from the public, it saved his client’s career. This in itself is a topic I struggle to grasp, that personal lives and choices can destroy a career but this will have to be saved for another blog another time!
Although there are circumstances in which it would be better to lie, it is dependent on the client and what they would be lying about.
In the Tylenol case study, by admitting that their products had been tampered with and organising a mass recall of all products , the company won praise for its quick and appropriate action. Despite the fact they had no control over what happened, by reacting quickly and admitting what had happened, they were able to maintain customer loyalty and trust.
In comparison, other companies may have tried to cover up the incident or taken longer to react which would have damaged the trust of the customers. This is an example where being honest with the public worked effectively and within five months, the company had recovered 70% of its market share for the drug – and the fact this went on to improve over time showed that the company had succeeded in preserving the long term value of the brand.
This can also be seen in Perrier’s incident when benzene traces were found in 13 of their bottles. Instead of just leaving it as it was a small amount in comparison to their sales, they recalled millions of bottles and launched a PR campaign to help minimize the damage. This succeeded and customers were grateful for their honestly and ‘safety comes first’ approach. Although it did damage their sales for longer than Tylenol, taking 5 years to return to original sales, they were respected and trusted by the customers.
An example of PR going wrong by withholding the truth is BP and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although originally stating they will fix the problem, they then continued on to question why they were getting all the blame, and trying to minimize the amount of damage that was done, “I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest.”
By understating the impact and extent of the disaster it meant it appeared that they were trying to hide the extent to the public. By doing this and seeming to have lied, the public were angrier with them for not fully accepting responsibility.
They tried to down play the disaster, with CEO Tony Hayward stating “the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”
This almost appears to the public that what happened is bad but not a disaster and therefore causing uproar and loss in trust. If BP had taken full responsibility for the disaster and showed the public they were doing everything they could to minimise damage and stop the leak then the outcome may have been different. My final post will be concluding this debate with my views and opinions.
Does PR have a duty to tell the truth? 
I think you are talking about integrity.
The Sunday Sport and a high court judge may value truth in different ways. The cost to the client is the bottom line.
But to have the respect & integrity of a high court judge may be more valuable than the respect & integrity offered Rupert Maxwell.
True different people value truth in different ways. Respect and integrity are key within a practitioner and it is themselves that decide whether to maintain theirs or do anything to gain some money. Whether it is the practitioner or the client they work for.
However, when it involves information that the millions should know, there should only be one valued truth. Although again, this goes back to whether they tell the whole truth straight away or slowly over a period of time. Something practitioners/clients can claim they were doing.
So many factors are involved in every aspect of PR, practitioners and the clients its hard to discuss everything, there is always going to be something else.
It has been argued whether telling the truth slowly – as Mike McCurry put it – is the same as telling the truth. I thought I agreed with this but after researching into the ethics of PR I don’t agree so much anymore.
It is important that PRs construct messages that get across exactly what the client wants them to say without harming or lying to the public. The channels that we communicate through are already so clogged up with untruths, what makes it okay for practitioners to add to this?
When the information is important and within the public interest truthful is the only way forward