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...
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment