Is Honesty Best Policy?

Is honesty the best policy? This is a question many organisations and PR professionals will have thoroughly researched and considered.

In this case I am going to look at ‘Homophobia’ in football from a PR perspective…

“Sol, Sol, wherever you may be; you’re on the verge of lunacy; we don’t care if you’re hanging from a tree; Cos you’re a Judas c*** with HIV” (Stonewall 2009) .

This was a chant from football fans directed at Sol Campbell during the Tottenham Hotspur v Portsmouth game on the 28th September 2008.

English football is struggling to break its grip on the traditional heterosexual ideologies. The mounting pressure from supporters and campaign groups along with the co-incision of sociological acceptance and equality legislations are proving to be making slow progress in eradicating homophobia in football.

To this date there has not been one single player in the top four divisions of English football that has openly admitted to being gay.

With homophobic chants such as the one directed at Campbell, can you really blame them?

Max Clifford a well known PR consultant, has stated that in the past five years he has represented two high-profile premier league players who have openly admitted to being homosexual  but has advised them both not to come-out to the public. Clifford further stated that to come-out would effectively end their career as football is steeped in homophobia.

In this case I believe Max is only protecting his clients in the short term. What happens if the media hears rumour of homosexual activity with one of the players? Do you think the media will respect his right to privacy? If you’re answer to this is yes, then in my opinion you are very naive. My advice would be to act first and prevent the media from putting its own spin on the story.

My strategy as opposed to Clifford’s…

First, I would advise the player to approach the team’s management and discuss the issue.

Second, approach the F.A, thus receiving backing directly from the sports national governing body.

Third, arrange meetings with sponsors so as not to jeopardize the marketing strategy currently in place.

Fourth, arrange private interviews with selected media so as to come out on the players own terms.

Fifth and finally, I would approach heterosexual team mates (national & club) to publicly support the player regardless of sexual orientation, thus setting the example to follow.


I feel this approach prevents a potential crises and media backlash. Also, this way everything can be strategically planned and monitored.

With the right representation and a carefully planned PR campaign in place, the task of altering perceptions and cultural beliefs can start to build from a solid foundation, built on truth and honesty for a worthy cause. That in my opinion is what PR is all about!

I am not saying Max Clifford is wrong on the advice he is giving. He understands the culture of football in the UK and is protecting his client as he sees best. He has also followed the five pillars of PR ethics whilst doing it but I also believe mine do too (well to an extent).

Clifford’s

Veracity- He told his client the truth as he saw it.

Non-malfeasance- there was no harm caused in the advice given.

Beneficence- his advice was, in his opinion, in the client’s best interest.

Confidentiality – Clifford has never revealed the identity of the players in which he represents.

Fairness- His advice was fair and soundly justified from his perspective.

Mine

Veracity- I would explain to the client there may be a negative backlash from supporters in the form of anti-gay abuse (like the Sol Campbell case). However, I feel it is best in the long run, plus honesty prevents the risk of the story coming out on the media’s terms.

Non-malfeasance- there is risk of short term damage in the form of sponsorship and endorsement deals but also opens up potential sponsorship to appeal to a new market.

Beneficence- A top gay footballer has the potential to benefit football and society as a whole. Anti-gay campaigns would have a figurehead and aspiring footballers hiding who they really are would have a role model to look up to. Not to mention the breaking down of homonegativity in football.

Confidentiality- no information would be revealed without the client’s knowledge or permission.

Fairness- my advice is fair, and in my opinion, justified.

So both pieces of advice are ethically ok from a PR perspective and yet both are completely opposite.

Clifford’s advice was to be dishonest in order to protect the players reputation and career, where as my advice would have been to be honest and calculate the risks so as to lay the foundations for sociological change for the benefit of the sport and to aid in the eradication of prejudice.

Basically my argument is honesty is not always as straight forward as it seems, there are many variables to be taken into account. A person’s point of view and values can be manipulated to see the truth that they are exposed to, yet it may not be the whole truth, or it could just be one side of the truth. There are usually multiple directions in which to go, my advice would be to research them all thoroughly and act accordingly on the aspects which provide the most benefits.

I personally agree with ‘Spiritual savant Nandinii Sen'.

 “One has to be true to oneself and true to the path one has chosen in life. I’d tell the truth, but more importantly I would live the truth. True honesty is that which translates in your life with your action. So if I say I’m on a diet, or I say that I’m doing charity, it should not merely be lip service. I should actually live out what I’m talking about.”

Which advice, if any, do you agree with and why? Your contribution will be very much appreciated.

Astroturfing: PR or Propaganda? How does this impact PR Professionals?

The term ‘Astroturfing’ is rumoured to have first been used by former US senator Lloyd Bentsen in 1985 when he received letters from insurance companies promoting their views. However in the 26 years since the phrase was first coined the opportunity for organizations and governments to run an ‘astroturfing’ program has significantly increased due to the proliferation of social media and PR practitioners.

Astroturfing is generally used by organisations and governments operating programmes in which are not particularly in the public interest. The organisations attempt to manipulate the views of the general population by either being ethical with the truth or basically lying.

Astroturfing? What do you think?

“I am a 30 years lady ,beautiful and mature . Now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , my friends told me a nice place ..SeèkingAffluént.C()M... it's the most effective site in the world to connect with, date and marry successful, beautiful people.. It's worthy a try. You do not have to be rich or famous.
We need players like Chad in the NFL, he's fun to watch and is a colorful personality....Nobody wants to watch a bunch of dudes playing a kids game and being all serious about it...that's boring....we need players like Chad to make the game interesting...I think it's great for the league!!!!!53435043301”

This was a comment posted on an after match report of the Liverpool FC vs. Manchester City FC. This is clearly in my opinion a comment aimed at young to middle aged men to promote online dating. This is one of the more basic forms of Astroturfing.

Does Astroturfing cause any harm?

According to recent articles by the ‘BBC’ and the ‘Guardian’, due to the increased activity of organisations and governments using ‘astroturfing’ techniques, the credibility of information on the web is rapidly deteriorating.

In a related report by ‘Daily Kos’ the technology and techniques involved in ‘astroturfing’ activity has also significantly increased in recent years. Such as ‘Persona management software’, this software multiplies the efforts of each ‘astroturfer’ giving the illusion that the support for a particular movement is significantly higher than the actual figure.

Astroturfing is actually illegal and can result in an unlimited fine and a two year prison sentence. “The practice is also contrary to the UK Code of non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code). Astroturfing breaches the CAP Code as the marketing is not fair, legal, decent, honest and truthful—the key principles of the self-regulatory CAP Code” (TECHEUROPE).


PR?

Can this practice really be considered ‘PR’? Not to mention that astroturfing is unlawful, ‘PR’ practitioners in the UK operate by a ‘code of conduct’.

A Current working definition of PR…

“Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest”.  (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008. cited from Paul Seaman)

Do YOU believe astroturfing is PR? If so I disagree. Astroturfing, although relates to some activities in which PR professionals are also related, Astroturfing in my opinion clearly comes under the banner of ‘Propaganda’.

Propaganda?

In ‘Mein Kampf’ Adolf Hitler articulates his view of propaganda “its task is not to make an objective study of truth… its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly” (Cited from Coombs and Holladay 2007).

A current working definition of Propaganda…

"Propaganda consists of the planned use of any form of public or mass-produced communication designed to affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific purpose, whether military, economic, or political."

Now replace the word ‘Propaganda’ with ‘Astroturfing’, in my opinion, it fits.

Astroturfing for all intensive purposes must be considered a form of Propaganda, whether its white, grey or black. It all depends on how the organisation uses it.

The Problem…

Due to the anonymity of the ‘web’, finding evidence of an organisations involvement in an astroturfing programme is highly unlikely. This makes it extremely difficult to prevent.

Astroturfing is a particular problem for PR practitioners. For example; organisations that are involved in Astroturfing programmes are, as stated before, compromising the credibility of information on the web. So for the organisations that are not involved are forced to work harder to build and maintain relationships with its publics.

A good example to substantiate this is the scandal in corporate America in 2001. Large Corporations in America in the dot-com era of the 1990’s became more focused on shareholder prices than in profits this was in some cases involved unethical and illegal business practices. In this case the trust between organisations and its publics eroded and resulted in a surge of anti-corporate sentiment throughout the country. The lack of transparency and the ethical use of truth ultimately compromised the trust.

The current ‘Occupy’ movement, mentioned on my first blog (‘Unbiased Media Coverage? I think not...), also provides a good example of an organisation (the Banks) losing the trust of the thousands, possibly millions of people.

Basically my point is; how does a PR practitioner deal with Astroturfing? Is the non-involvement of organisations enough? If not, how do we, gain, retain or even restore a relationship of trust with the public? Should the Anonymity aspect of the internet be stopped or would this compromise the integrity of free speech? Do you even believe the integrity of an organisation and the internet is even at risk? These are the questions I pose; I look forward to your comments.

Unbiased Media Coverage? I think not...

Do not believe everything that the media tells you. The media is not an altruistic group of organisations there to provide us a service out of the kindness of their hearts. They exist to sell newspapers, they are a business, and like all businesses exist to make a profit.

The media has been known to cross ethical lines in the past, with the aim to increase sales or to influence on behalf of vested interests. Just take the 'phone hacking scandal' at News of the World for an example.

Media coverage of the current ‘Occupy Wall Street’ or general worldwide ‘Occupy’ protests provides another good example of this behaviour.

The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest is an anti-capitalist movement that claims to represent the 99% of us that isn’t part of the rich and powerful, they aim to achieve;
· Freedom from austerity.
· Bridge the gap in the increasing inequality (The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer).
· Tackle unemployment
· Combat corporate greed
· Prevent tax injustices

Though their goals are honourable and there protest peaceful. The issues has been attacked or defended in variety of different ways by a variety of different news mediums. A couple of examples will now be looked at to see how the different vendors have covered this.

Right-Wing Television Media (Mainly American)

Fox news claim ‘Occupy Wall Street’ has cost the top ten banks in America over £185bn in deposits. They claim that the OWS protests influence has caused over 700,000 of the general population to deposit their money in local credit unions on mainstream. Fox news are indirectly condemning this movement by saying that by depositing your money in local credit unions instead of the top banks is screwing over the American workers, whilst Asian and Latin American workers benefit.

This is a great example of a large media based corporation devaluing a potentially good cause for the sake of profit, biased beliefs or even possible corruption.

I personally think that trying to devalue a cause such as this by playing the so called ‘race card’ and trying to provoke some sort of nationalism within the general population, is a radical act of desperation inspired by fear, or possibly even relaying a message from a silent 3rd party investor with something to lose.


Left-Wing Television Media (Mainly American)

MSNBC allegiance appears to side with the protesters. Recent reports appear to demonise the government by showing images and video footage of apparent, excessive force used by the New York police department.

The images show an elderly woman (mid 80’s) after falling victim to this excessive force.

The video footage shows a row of protesters sitting peacefully whilst a police officer walks down their ranks spraying them in the face with pepper spray.

My question would be is how truthful are these reports? MSNBC, like Fox News, are both being ‘ethical with the truth’, as they say.

Was there more footage to the Video than MSNBC have shown us? Was there more to the story?

For more evidence of the way in which the media coverage of this issue, based on their individual vested interest, put its own spin on it.  I suggest looking at the ‘New York Post’ (Right-Wing print media) or ‘The Guardian’ (Left-Wing print media). Or Paul Krugman's views on Occupy Wall street (a real left wing commentator) and Bill O'Reilly's views on Occupy Wall Street (a right wing commentator). This should enhance the view on opinion and how different types of media view a single event.

Moving on…

I do however concede that although the ethical stance of the media is definitely a so called grey area. We as a society do not help ourselves. Our apparent desire for the latest scandal along with the rise of social media such as Facebook, Twitter etc… the speed in which the latest rumour/scandal can be spread is greatly increased, the side effect of this has (in my opinion) caused traditional media to push the boundaries in order to keep the attention focused on them.

Social Medias influence has exploded this year with the Arab spring via Twitter and Facebook. This has saw media companies hire people to actually go out into the internet and push their agenda, in forums, blogs, comment sites such as BBC and other media sites that offer comment. The internet has become just as much as a forum to influence opinion on affairs than the television radio and print media.  

Conclusion...

Are the media really satisfying our needs and desires for news with these manufactured, half truth stories or are they just compromising the integrity of their organization for the sake of sales and promotion of their own beliefs and political views.

Is social media providing a new platform in which organisations can manipulate our views to coincide with their own beliefs based on its current agenda? Could you be a victim of ‘astroturfing’? Is it ethical to promote/ devalue organisations actions based on personal feelings and political views? Do these organisations even care? Who is writing the story? Is this even true? These are the questions YOU should be thinking of every time you read a story or even feedback/ comments on social media sites. Remember there are always two sides to an argument and an organisation is always going to try to convince you that their views are the correct views.


Opinion...

Personally, I would rather read a story that argues the opinions, for and against. Whilst the author remains in an unbiased position and keeps their organisations views and opinions out of it. This in turn would allow me to decide for myself which set of values best match my own. However, the media due to advertising revenue, ownership, political pressure etc may not even be in position today to deliver the truth, even if they wanted to.