REDIFINING PUBLIC RELATIONS & GIVING IT A FACELIFT

When reading Stuart Elliott’s New York Times article from last November, the first issue that immediately comes to mind in regards to the current definition of public relations is that it is too vague, too simplistic.  As I’ve learned over the last several months in the MACOMM program, the industry of public relations, its practices and ethics (and sometimes lack thereof) are anything but simple and black and white. 

Having a definition that says “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” simply doesn’t work for a number of reasons.   For starters, I do not feel that public relations is simply a matter of aiding and abetting in the mutual adaptation of publics and organizations.  There should be at the very least a mention of public relations promoting the message and/or mission of an organization.  I also feel that public relations attempts to help organizations, but (as we have learned) it does not always succeed, and sometimes quite the opposite occurs.

Accordingly, I think that a fresher, more appropriate and modern definition of public relations would read something like this: “Public relations attempts to aid an organization and its publics by providing support and communicating the message of an organization in a manner and fashion that is both appropriate and in keeping with the PRSA’s (Public Relations Society of America) Code of Ethics”.  

Some would argue that this definition is perhaps a little wordy, but I do feel it is important to at the very least make mention of the PRSA Code of Ethics.  Perhaps having the code of ethics referenced in the definition would help hold those within the industry to a higher standard. Would it cause some discomfort for those within the industry not used to adhering to the code of ethics? It very well might; but it's an important step.

Of the ethical violations made by PR professionals referenced in Gerard Corbett’s article, the one that I think was right to raise many eyebrows was the one involving ConAgra Foods, and having unsuspecting food bloggers served frozen meals disguised as freshly prepared ones at New York eateries.  And while it’s true that hidden camera commercials were a staple of the 1980s, one would like to think that things have changed and that companies should not have to continue to resort to these practices.  

This is especially troubling considering the current craze and obsession many have with healthy eating, and maintaining a diet filled with organic and "real" food.  It’s no secret that most frozen food items are anything but healthy and natural.  

This situation couldn’t help but bring to mind a hilarious and rather fitting sketch from Saturday Night Live back in the 1990s featuring the late, great Chris Farley...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/696639/

And while Farley's reaction is far more volatile than those of the bloggers when they found out they had been "duped", this should at least give some indication of their level of frustration and anger.

Having both the PRSA and the FTC monitoring the practices of public relations agencies and professionals is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.  In an era of social networking and social media, blogging and microblogging, it’s become almost too easy for various PR issues and major gaffes to occur.  And while some insiders might consider this monitoring of practices as micromanaging, or an Orwellian “Big Brother” tactic, it seems to be the only logical solution for a business that is these days often guilty of various unethical practices.  

 

Perhaps the PRSA and/or the FTC would consider setting up a task force of sorts consisting of well-seasoned and respected PR professionals and insiders (if they have not already done so), who would continue to explore and promote more ethical practices within the industry.  It would be essential to have a standard set so that others in the industry (whether they be brand new to the business, or veterans) may abide by and (hopefully) adhere to. 

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Reading the case study on British supermodel Naomi Campbell and her suit against London’s Daily Mirror got me thinking about one particular afternoon I spent last summer.  And with snow coming down outside as I type this, memories of warmer weather are a welcomed diversion this afternoon.

I mentioned in a previous blog entry that I work in education and how I sometimes have to wear a few different hats.  One such hat is that of an academic adviser for newly enrolled part-time students.  What exactly does that mean? Well, it means that I am their initial point of contact, and help them in choosing their first courses at the university as well as their major. 

On that lovely afternoon last August, I was in a room on campus with only a few windows, listening to an important presentation on FERPA (the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act).  And while I would have rather been outside enjoying the weather than listening to these high-priced lawyers ramble on and on, it did prove to be an informative and enlightening afternoon.

FERPA is a code of conduct of sorts for those who work in higher education.  It involves the handling of sensitive and often time’s private information regarding students.  This information can involve anything from grades and transcripts, to safety issues a student may have on campus.  FERPA is designed to protect the rights and the privacy of the students.  Grades, transcripts and any other materials that are addressed to the student are to be shared with only the student, and no one else.  This becomes a tricky situation in that parents (many of whom are spending top dollar on their son or daughter’s education) often times feel that they have the “right” to access any of this information, or to even call an instructor or advisor to discuss their child’s academic performance. 

  

Refer to this link to read the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act Regulations:

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ferparegs.pdf

Privacy is a major issue these days, and in regards to Naomi Campbell’s situation, paparazzi meddling in the personal lives’ of celebrities is nothing new (just think of Princess Diana’s violent death, or even the onslaught of websites like TMZ and Perez Hilton).  And while I don’t necessarily condone Campbell’s erratic behavior or her prima donna demeanor, kudos to her for trying taking the necessary steps to deal with a personal crisis and subsequently striking back at the press.  I’m confident that drug rehabilitation centers abide by their own code of ethics to protect their patients privacy (especially famous ones), but the bigger issue comes when the celebrity sets foot off the property and are accosted by photographers.

Within the confines of an educational institution, FERPA protects college student’s privacy by giving them exclusive rights to their transcripts and records and other confidential information.  Sadly, many parents bully their children into signing over their FERPA rights before the first semester of their freshman year even begins.  From that point on, parents are privy to any and all information regarding their child on campus. 

In that I deal primarily with part-time adult students, I (fortunately) have very little interaction with meddlesome parents.   That said, there have been a handful of tricky situations in which I have found myself.  There was one meddlesome mother that immediately comes to mind.   Her child had attended other educational institutions previously, and had not fared well at all.  So now the child was trying their luck with us, and mother was calling the shots from the get-go.  I’d receive regular phonecalls from the mother checking on the child’s progress, and I’d even receive emails from the child’s email account which were sent from the mother (talk about a tremendous violation of privacy). 

This was well before the FERPA training I had attended, but like the Sisela Bok model, I decided to consult my conscience and quickly realized that something just wasn’t right.  I informed the meddlesome mother that I could not provide her with any information regarding her child’s progress (or lack thereof) at our university, and that my only correspondence on these matters heretofore would be with the student.

An individual’s right to privacy- whether it is a celebrity in the throes of a personal crisis or a fledgling college student trying to pass an English composition course- is something that is non-negotiable in my opinion.  And as much as I would have rather of been outside on that balmy, dry and cloudless August afternoon, the FERPA training ultimately made me well-equipped to deal with meddlesome parents (in the unlikely event I come across any others).

"DEEP THROAT" TAKES DOWN NIXON: A LEAK THAT WOULD FOREVER CHANGE AMERICAN POLITICS

As significant as Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Paper's leaks were, they were soon eclipsed by a scandal of epic proportions known as Watergate.   Both scandals were indirect results of President Richard Nixon’s notorious paranoia.  But a closer look at the Watergate scandal makes one wonder if it all was blown out of proportion, and if it was  ultimately  the result of a vendetta by a disgruntled G-Man.

I’ve always been fascinated by the Watergate break-in and its cover-up, as it is truly the mother of all American political scandals.  Virtually any political scandal that would follow in the next four decades would have the suffix "–gate" attached to it thanks to the events of June, 1972. 

For years, the identity of “Deep Throat” (the Washington insider who blew the whistle on the break-in and set in motion a chain of events that would prove to be Nixon’s undoing) remained a mystery.  Like something out of a spy novel or James Bond film, “Deep Throat” would set-up clandestine meetings all throughout the Metro D.C. area and feed highly classified information to young Washington Post reporters, Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein. 

The list of names of who “Deep Throat” could be was about as long as the list of people who may have conspired to kill Kennedy.    Everyone from Dr. Henry Kissinger (Nixon’s Secretary of State) to ABC World News Tonight anchor, Diane Sawyer (who was then a young White House aide) were thought at one point in time to be the source of the leaks.

In 2005, “Deep Throat” was finally revealed as Mark Felt, a former FBI agent who (at the time of his unveiling) was in his nineties, frail and close to death.  So why did Mark Felt ultimately betray his president and expose government secrets that lead the United States down a very ugly road?

According to Woodward, “Felt believed he was protecting the bureau by finding a way, clandestine as it was, to push some of the information from the FBI interviews and files out to the public, to help build public and political pressure to make Nixon and his people answerable. He had nothing but contempt for the Nixon White House and their efforts to manipulate the bureau for political reasons” (http://themoderatevoice.com/2993/how-mark-felt-became-deep-throat-and-bob-woodward-made-history/).  So Mark Felt exposed these secrets and helped cause a national nightmare to protect the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the wrath of Richard Nixon?  I’m not so sure.  It’s also been said that Felt was dealing with some sour grapes because he was passed over for the FBI Director position (formerly occupied by J. Edgard Hoover) and was Hell-bent on spiting Nixon.  

There are many who view Mark Felt as a hero for what he did, by exposing the lies and corruption inside the oval office.  I disagree wholeheartedly with this.  It’s true that President Nixon acted in an incredibly paranoid and foolish manner and violated the trust of the American people (as other American Presidents have); but consider the fall-out of “Deep Throat’s” actions.  The “long national nightmare” that President Gerald Ford would later refer to Watergate as was a black-eye for America and American politics.  Much like the Monica Lewinsky scandal that plagued Bill Clinton’s presidency in the late 1990s, Watergate became a scandal of soap opera proportions, a media circus whodunit filled with finger-pointing and he said/she said allegations. 

President Nixon actually escaped the Watergate scandal relatively unscathed.  He was pardoned by President Ford, and spent the rest of his life out of politics, penning books in sunny California.  His political reputation, however, was ruined.  And while he was a controversial president, what many consider to be the positive aspects of his presidency (his rapport with Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev and his détente with China) would soon be forgotten thanks to Watergate. 

The real victims of the scandal were the American people who quickly lost faith in the American political system.  And for what? All because Mark Felt was disillusioned over having been passed over for a promotion?  While it would have been challenging for Felt (or anyone in his position) to keep this information to himself, he could have easily avoided escalating things the way he did.   

In the end, there was little or no fallout for Mark Felt.  When he finally did reveal himself as “Deep Throat” (in a 2005 article for Vanity Fair), he was frail and shaky.  Three years later, he died at the age of 95.  One can’t help but wonder how different American politics would be if Felt had taken the secrets and things he knew about the Watergate scandal and the Nixon Administration with him to the grave.

TO BLOG OR NOT TO BLOG (AND WHAT TO BLOG ABOUT): THAT IS THE ETHICAL QUESTION

I didn’t have to search particularly long and hard for the inspiration to write this blog entry.  In the field for which I currently work, I have been challenged firsthand with ethical dilemmas and situations.  And while matters and and duties regarding communications and media are not by any means my primary responsibilities on the job, they do  often times become a part of what I do.

One of the many secondary tasks of my job is to keep our office up-to-date on social media trends and to dabble in blogging and Tweeting (I say “dabble” for the simple fact that I don’t get to update it quite as much as I’d like to or should).   And while the blog itself is now updated far less often than the Twitter page, I still keep it going for the simple fact of saying that we have a blog.

I found myself in a predicament a little over a year ago while blogging.  Thanks to my recruiting endeavors, I had been in correspondence with a prospective student who was serving overseas.  Considering that I deal primarily in recruiting students from Fairfield County, to receive a phonecall in my office from the Middle East one morning was quite exciting.

The student was eager to start their college studies upon finishing their final tour of duty (which was wrapping-up in a few weeks’ time), and had always had a particular interest in our institution and the programs that we offer.  Even better was the fact that the current GI Bill would be contributing generously to their studies.

I looked at this as an exciting moment of sorts, having the opportunity to correspond and communicate with somebody overseas, and help them get a leg up on their college studies.  I also saw this as a potential opportunity for “good PR”.  Suddenly I was inspired. 

I quickly typed what I considered to be a great blog post about my correspondence with a solider, the country where they were calling from, where in Connecticut they were excited to return to in a few short weeks, and what they planned on studying when they came to college.  I then did what I was always do when finishing up a draft of a piece of writing: I walked away from it for a couple of hours. 

Over the course of the next two hours or so, I had an unsettling feeling that continued to grow.  Could I be doing something wrong by going into such specifics about this solider? Of course I wasn’t mentioning their name, but could the mere mention of the country where they were stationed and the town in Connecticut where they were eager to return be some sort of ethical violation? Worse (and this me at my most paranoid), could it be some sort of violation of National Security?   Of course, on a good day this particular blog would have maybe five or six views, but one can never be entirely certain of who is reading their blog. 

I think of Sisela Bok’s model and the required first step to “consult your conscience” and ask yourself how you feel about the particular action.  In consulting my conscience, I knew that something wasn’t right, and that something kept me from clicking “publish” on the blogging software.  I quickly gutted the draft, and made the focus of that particular blog entry the overarching theme of veterans returning to the United States and using the GI Bill to fund their college studies.  I did include a brief anecdotal paragraph or two about how I had been in correspondence with one soldier overseas, but I kept it very vague. 

Blogging and microblogging make it dangerously easy for just about anyone to write anything and have it published for everyone to see on the internet.  Having taught writing to people of all ages for several years, I have always stressed the importance of considering who it is you are writing for, and I learned that I should practice what I preach.  I think it will be crucial to discuss in CM503 the necessity of consulting ones conscience and taking an objective look at ones work before clicking the “publish” button and putting it out there for the general public to see.