THE LIMITS OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

The story was not an uncommon one:

On November 1, 1978, newspapers throughout America were saturated with a remarkable medical news story ”the discovery of what was reported to be a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug to treat arthritis, a painful chronic ailment that plagues more than 25 million Americans. ^{[ 2]}

This public relations story began with a news release that was issued by the PR office of the drug firm in question, inventors of the ˜new drug. The news release read in part: ˜Relief of the pain and disabling joint symptoms of five major arthritic diseases is now possible with a single anti-inflammatory drug that has been found to be even better tolerated than aspirin. ^{[ 3]} Later in the release, the senior vice-president for science technology referred to the drug as ˜a major advance that would bring benefit to a ˜much broader range of patients .

News stories that subsequently covered this ˜major advance were unwelcome by a medical community that saw the coverage as highly exaggerated and found themselves , with no prior notice about this drug, explaining to desperate patients that this was not the magic bullet that they had been awaiting. It even sparked correspondence in the New England Journal of Medicine where one physician wrote, ˜ we believe the company has a responsibility not to allow this type of deception. ^{[ 4]}

Was he right? Was this a deception? What are the limits of an organization's responsibility? And what are the implications for the ongoing trust in the relationship between the company and one of its most important publics (in this case physicians)?

The most important cold fact in the situation is that the news release was factually accurate. There was no lie; the information was the truth. But this still does not answer the question of whether or not a deception took place. Whereas it is common practice in the pharmaceutical industry to herald the release of a new drug with considerable fanfare, including media releases and conferences, it has been less usual ” especially at the time of this story ”for them to announce the release of new formulations of drugs that aren't substantially different from competitors ' products. Arthritis sufferers, a vulnerable public if ever there was one, interpreted the fanfare in a predictable manner ”they flocked to their doctors in search of this magic bullet only to be greeted by doctors who failed to see it that way.

Media critic Morris Wolfe has been quoted frequently for his observation, ˜It's easier and less costly to change the way people think about reality than it is to change reality. Joel Bleifuss, writing about the public relations industry in the Utne Reader , suggests, ˜Manipulating the public's perception of reality takes special skills. ^{[ 5]} Of course, he contends that the people who possess those special manipulative skills are PR practitioners .

This is one of those situations where telling the truth isn't enough and the application of the term manipulative may be warranted. It would be easy for the organization to blame the media for their interpretation of the news release. In fact, this is always the easy way out. But the easy way out is rarely an example of doing the right thing even when no one is looking.

Clearly, there are times in every PR practitioner's career when the media do, in fact, get it wrong. Unfortunately, even when the message isn't within your control, the result is a public whose trust in you and your organization begins to deteriorate. To begin to see how you can deal with this particular ethical underpinning, it's important to consider the parties to whom you, as a public relations practitioner, owe duties .

^{[ 2]} Heussner, R and Salmon, M (1988) Warning: The media may be harmful to your health , Andrews & McMeel, Kansas City, p 62

^{[ 3]} Quoted in Heussner and Salmon, p 62

^{[ 4]} Wasner, C and Kotzin, B (1979) ˜Sulindac public relations deplored, New England Journal of Medicine , 300 , p 373

^{[ 5]} Bleifuss, J (1994) Flack attack, Utne Reader , January-February, p72