Whose Turn is it for the Moral Compass?
Spin. Smoke and mirrors. Propaganda. Fake news. My chosen industry, public relations, is dogged by derogatory terms. To most people, PR is used to twist the truth. The mainstream media usually only mention ‘PR’ alongside words such as ‘fiasco’ or ‘crisis’.
And, I guess, this isn’t surprising. Our industry is typically happiest when it’s behind (
well
behind) the news. Media relations (just one of the many instruments in the modern PR toolkit) is a perfect channel for us to help our clients “…build mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” Source:
And with five PR people for every journalist, it’s not surprising, then, that we play a role in many news stories. But, as a counter to the fake news, propaganda and spin accusations, if these stories are well written, accurate, based on valid sources, and present a story in context, then if a PR person was involved, what’s the harm?
I’m happy (well, maybe not) that you asked. Lately, it seems, some cracks have started to form. PR is getting its own ‘ink’ – coverage that’s causing the industry to gaze deep upon its collective navel.
In January, from the highest profile PR pulpit in the USA, came then White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s infamous Trump inauguration crowd number exaggeration. Instead of attempting to roll back the claim, counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway defended Spicer’s use of ‘alternative facts’.
A high-profile scandal saw UK-based agency Bell Pottinger
from the PRCA, a trade association, accused of running a secret campaign designed to create racial tensions in South Africa.
And today, social media channels like Facebook and Twitter are being charged with being conduits for fake news, manipulated by foreign actors to create division and influence thinking, with stories spread by well-meaning people who can’t tell the difference between propaganda and news (or, to be honest, don’t care).
All of this has caused the various PR associations and some high-profile players to again consider the role of ethics in PR. They’re reflecting on our collective responsibility in this easy-to-manipulate environment. The rules have shifted. The available channels of influence have exploded. And the question must be asked: do we need to change?
Richard Edelman, CEO of the world’s biggest PR agency, called for an industry-wide code of ethics. He proposed a “
”
– designed to drive ethical behaviors and fact-based communication.
I agree with Edelman that our industry has struggled to keep pace with changes in content, channels and the communications echo chambers that social media has enabled. And while I think the principles are valid, I wonder, even with adoption by the industry and agencies, supported by training programs, we’ll see the change he’s looking for.
I worry that it’s hard to take the moral high ground as a supplier unless we have the explicit backing, support and remit from the clients that pay our bills.
Thinking then about remits, I must have received hundreds of RFPs (Requests for Proposal) from large and small companies representing many industries over the years. While they consistently wanted an agency that would become “…a long-term partner, not just ‘arms-and-legs’…” and one that “…could provide senior counsel”, they seldom, if ever, asked for an external moral compass. The closest I can recall are clauses on confidentiality, ownership of information and privileged information, frequently buried deep in contracts.
I worry that unless the clients start to empower agencies to act as moral compasses or ethical guardians, it will be a brave agency that takes this necessary burden upon itself. And a braver client, that allows their agency to operate as such without a very explicit remit.
The good news is, there are precedents for this type of change. I recall that post Sarbanes-Oxley, agencies were required to improve their practices as part of an extended supply chain. Companies had to ensure they had appropriate controls in place, and these were dictated by strong contracts and procurement audits.
More recently, there’s increasing pressure from clients for diversity in their agency rosters. Some of the more recent higher profile agency reviews have specifically called for increases in the number of women and people of color in agency leadership roles.
I wonder what it will take for businesses to require not just ethical practices but ethical accountability and ownership from their agencies? Perhaps it will be an extension of one of the most critical roles agencies hold - exposing a company to external perspectives and getting value from outside thinking.
I love the idea of extending the agency role to fake news and ethical behavior monitor. I just feel that even with a united front from agencies and their industry bodies, we’ll not get our hands on the moral compass unless it’s handed to us directly by the client’s CEO.