A TARNISHED HISTORY

There's a Yiddish proverb that goes like this: ˜A half-truth is a whole lie. Whereas much of the history of public relations might not be peppered with in-your-face lies, one could make the case that half-truths are rampant. There is little doubt that the public's image of public relations is less than spotless. Indeed, the media tend to lead the public to believe that there is something just a little, or sometimes a lot, dishonest about public relations. Half-truths or whole lies, is the public justified in this opinion?

American author and creator of the Ziggy cartoons Tom Wilson is reputed to have said, ˜Honesty is the best image. and that comment, perhaps more than any other, speaks to the need for integrity and veracity in public communication. It seems that there is a practical side to the notion of ethics in public communication. We are in the business of image-building for employers and clients while at the same time building an image for our own field. Historically, honesty has not always been a part of that image.

Whenever anyone points out to us, the modern public relations practitioners , that P T Barnum represented much of what is dishonest in the history of this field, we're quick to point out that he was a ˜publicist who lived in a different era. No one could truly call him a member of the public relations ˜profession (more about that term later). Every professional discipline has evolved. But even throughout the 20th century when modern public relations practice was born, we continued to find ample fodder for the image that public relations is perhaps less than honest. Modern public relations in the developed world today can arguably trace its roots to the United States of the early 20th century and people such as Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee. In his book PR! A Social History of Spin , social historian and media critic Stuart Ewen describes Bernays as ˜a farsighted architect of modern propaganda techniques who, dramatically, from the early 1920s onward, helped to consolidate a fateful marriage between theories of mass psychology and schemes of corporate and political persuasion. ^{[ 2]}

A nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays was convinced that a ˜public relations counsellor (a term he is reputed to have coined) should use social science approaches to manipulate the masses into thinking the way they ought to think, and the way they ought to think is the way the social elite thinks. In 1928, Bernays wrote in his book Propaganda , ˜The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism constitution invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ^{[ 3]} While you may not appreciate Bernays' remarks about manipulation and all that this connotes, his reference to the power of public relations cannot be ignored.

In the 1930s, public relations pioneer Carl Byoir is reputed to have invented the bogus grassroots campaign by setting up dummy organizations, such as the National Consumers' Tax Organization to lobby against special taxes on chain stores, a tactic which was carried out at the behest of his client, grocery giant A & P. ^{[ 4]} Retrospectively, this kind of approach seems clearly dishonest to most PR practitioners. Yet a quick perusal of the PR Watch Web site ^{[ 5]} provides a running list of current front groups whose backers and funders are not always transparent ”clearly Byoir's legacy. The organization PR Watch describes itself as one that helps the public ˜recognize manipulative and misleading PR practices. Their two main staff members are John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, co-authors of two recent books mentioned above that take aim at dishonest and manipulative public relations tactics.

The power of public relations to shape opinions is one of the most compelling reasons to consider our duties to society and to take care not to abuse that power by the dishonest use of manipulation. But if you think that this kind of manipulative ploy is relegated to the historical roots of modern PR, then think again.

Consider, within recent memory, Hill and Knowlton's campaign to stimulate American public support for the first war against Iraq, for which the Kuwait government reputedly paid them US $10 million for the job. ^{[ 6]} A major part of their strategy involved the creation and distribution of a video news release featuring a young Kuwaiti woman's testimony before a congressional committee. The woman related a startling story of unspeakable Iraqi army atrocities, perhaps the most graphic of which was the story of babies being dumped from incubators in Kuwait hospitals . Identified only as Nayirah, the girl and her testimony was riveting and destined to achieve public support. Later, enterprising journalists who had not thought to ask about her identity earlier discovered that Nayirah was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, coached for her performance by her public relations handler and without any first-hand knowledge that any such atrocities had ever taken place. But, by the time this was discovered the damage was already done: opinions had been formed based on her testimony and action had been taken.

Wouldn't it be better if we just forgot about this stuff and went on with our jobs? After all, most public relations practitioners are involved in a wide variety of well-conceived, honest and ethical approaches to achieving mutual support and respect between their clients and their publics. Although this may be true, we all have to stand accountable for what the public sees as the sins of our profession. Indeed, public and media misunderstanding of our motives and objectives can impede our ability to do our work honestly and ethically.

As social trends of the past quarter-century have resulted in the need for more strategic communication between organizations and their publics, there has been a concomitant increasing focus on the ethical behaviour of those organizations. As the interface between the organization and its publics, and arguably the keeper of the organizational reputation, the public relations function has an even more important role as the social conscience of the organization. Someone has to provide guidance on organizational action for the purposes of considering the greater good. Public relations is particularly well situated to accomplish this. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be tracking trends and issues in our economic, political and social environments so that we can propose ways that our clients and organizations can prevent problems and capitalize on emerging opportunities. While carrying out this environmental scanning role we have a distinct opportunity to uncover potential ethical transgressions and to recommend ways to avoid impropriety as well as the appearance of misbehaviour.

It seems clear that the public may be at least partly justified in their negative perception of PR. We can only change that image when every PR practitioner accepts personal and professional responsibility for his or her own actions, and values integrity above all.

^{[ 2]} Ewen, S (1996) PR! A Social History of Spin , Basic Books, New York, p 3

^{[ 3]} Bernays, E (1928) Propaganda , Kennikat Press, New York

^{[ 4]} Bleifuss, J (1994) Flack attack, Utne Reader , January-February, pp 72-73, 76-77

^{[ 5]} PR Watch [accessed 19 September 2003] Introduction. http://www.prwatch.org

^{[ 6]} Grabbe, J O [accessed 19 September 2003] How to create a war. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/hkwar.htm