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.