I looked back on my original question;
“Honest and responsible regard for the public interest is not the same as telling the truth.” Discuss in the context of the profession of Public Relations
This quote has been playing on my mind; there are arguments for and against it, for instance honesty and truthfulness are so closely linked, it can be said that they are the sae thing. However, as I stated before in my opinion this is not true, to me honesty is more an opinion and the truth is more of a fact.
So my point is that they are not the same, you can be honest responsible in regard to public interest, but that also means you can leave things out, you can be honest to an extent but leave some of the vital information, whereas in my opinion with the truth you tell all the facts.
I know that when I break into the public relations world I shall be more honest than truthful, as some facts the media do not need to know, especially if it is not in the public best interest to know.
I got to thinking about the responsible part of the quote, I think this is relating back to the ethical pillars, and as I have stated in my previous blogs there is no way that you can apply all of this all the time without having them conflict. Surely the responsible thing to do is way up all your options and see which way will benefit the public the most, I know I sound like a bit of a utilitarian here, but to me that just makes sense.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Everyone has a price
So basically the public are hard to please. They want to read interesting stories with all the sordid details. It has become more of an obsession than a matter of need to know.
I was thinking about the quote “all publicity is good publicity” and even though someone does not have credentials they still have public relations representatives. Is this in public interest? Some people may argue that it is as we still need to know about these people and organisations. However, I don’t think I could put my personal opinions behind me and work for someone or and organisation that I didn’t agree with. I applaud the people that do, but it something that I cannot even dream about trying.
I looked into the people with bad press, and It made me think about celebrities who have done bad things but still maintain good public relation representation. Such as; Amy Winehouse, Peaches Geldoff, Paris Hilton Colin Farell just to name a few.
I looked more deeply into the more recent scandal with Kerry Katona; she started off in Atomic Kitten, and then married Brian Macfadden for Westlife had two children and split with in 2004. She is definitely one who would keep any Public Relations representative busy, with allegations of drug use, which caused her to lose her job as the face of Iceland, to spending all her fortune. She became the queen of the jungle, which is every celebrity public relations representatives dream woman to ending up married to Mark Croft (who she now blames for her demise) I was thinking about her children and if I would be able to work with a woman who has taken drugs.
Would your reputation be affected after working with someone who had a bad image? Would the public still respect you? What’s your opinion in this?
It also got me thinking would you class working for someone/ an organisation who promotes a bad image in public interest or just personal gain? My opinion: it’s definitely personal gain, but is that such a bad thing, trying to better a person’s reputation whilst earning some money. I don’t think so, as long as it does not conflict with your personal code of ethics. For example: I’m against wearing real fur, so I personally would not be able to work for an organisation which promotes it, however I could work for someone who wears it because everyone is entitled to wear what they want.
Are there any subjects that you would call taboo for a public relations representatives to go near?
My opinion is that ethical decision making should not just be for the big occasions it should be total approach for the to the whole business of communication as I want to build and maintain relationships in the public relations world where I don’t have to feel that my morals will be to highly impacted.
It got me thinking that everybody has a price, and although I hate to sound contradictory but if I was offered enough money, I think I could do it.
I was thinking about the quote “all publicity is good publicity” and even though someone does not have credentials they still have public relations representatives. Is this in public interest? Some people may argue that it is as we still need to know about these people and organisations. However, I don’t think I could put my personal opinions behind me and work for someone or and organisation that I didn’t agree with. I applaud the people that do, but it something that I cannot even dream about trying.
I looked into the people with bad press, and It made me think about celebrities who have done bad things but still maintain good public relation representation. Such as; Amy Winehouse, Peaches Geldoff, Paris Hilton Colin Farell just to name a few.
I looked more deeply into the more recent scandal with Kerry Katona; she started off in Atomic Kitten, and then married Brian Macfadden for Westlife had two children and split with in 2004. She is definitely one who would keep any Public Relations representative busy, with allegations of drug use, which caused her to lose her job as the face of Iceland, to spending all her fortune. She became the queen of the jungle, which is every celebrity public relations representatives dream woman to ending up married to Mark Croft (who she now blames for her demise) I was thinking about her children and if I would be able to work with a woman who has taken drugs.
Would your reputation be affected after working with someone who had a bad image? Would the public still respect you? What’s your opinion in this?
It also got me thinking would you class working for someone/ an organisation who promotes a bad image in public interest or just personal gain? My opinion: it’s definitely personal gain, but is that such a bad thing, trying to better a person’s reputation whilst earning some money. I don’t think so, as long as it does not conflict with your personal code of ethics. For example: I’m against wearing real fur, so I personally would not be able to work for an organisation which promotes it, however I could work for someone who wears it because everyone is entitled to wear what they want.
Are there any subjects that you would call taboo for a public relations representatives to go near?
My opinion is that ethical decision making should not just be for the big occasions it should be total approach for the to the whole business of communication as I want to build and maintain relationships in the public relations world where I don’t have to feel that my morals will be to highly impacted.
It got me thinking that everybody has a price, and although I hate to sound contradictory but if I was offered enough money, I think I could do it.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
conflicting pillars ... confusing times
Relating back to my previous two blogs I have recently been thinking more about the topic of truth and how it relates to honest and responsible public interest, is this the same thing?
So I delved a little deeper into the truth and it got me thinking about how gullible I really am. I tend to believe whatever I’m told and very rarely suspect people of lying to me. I found an article which stated
“… both public relations and advertising professionals have been called to account for falsehoods they furthered on behalf of their clients”
This quote got me thinking about would I be more loyal to? My client or the public? They are both very important to anyone involved in public relations as it is all about the reputation.
So public relations does rely on the truth and telling the truth is a responsible regard for public interest, although public relations practitioners often stick rigidly to the definition which does not include vagueness, ambiguity and puffery.
I found in Argument: Language and Its influence seven rhetorical questions that public relations practitioners can use to determine the morality of the act of persuasion and the content. These guidelines did focus on the best interest of the audience, which in my opinion is for the best.
I found myself looking back to the ethical pillars of PR which are: veracity (Adhering to the truth), non-malfeasance (the duty to do no harm), beneficence (aim to do good), confidentiality (to keep private) and fairness. How, when I become a public relations practitioner am I supposed to keep under all these guidelines they definitely clash, especially harm and adhering to the truth, how confusing.
I personally believe that I want to avoid harming anyone, but how am can I really harm anyone by telling the truth really?
If you can think of any times when by being told the truth has caused you harm I would love to hear your stories
So, as well as coping with harm I shall also have to consider the other elements, I think as long as you do your best to keep to these pillars it’s ok, as long as you way up if it will be in the best interest.
If I was to find out some information about someone in the public eye, information I believe the public need to know, do I tell the world or keep quiet to stop invasion of privacy?
I was reading into celebrity PR and thinking about how many times when a magazine says a quote coming from a “source” that it’s from their Public Relations manager? Is that invasion of privacy or just doing their jobs?
I was thinking about past stories in which the outcome has ended badly for a public relations practitioner, sometimes it may be easier to keep quiet. Is this in the best interest of the public?
I then got thinking about one of my past seminars in which we were given a scenario, there has been a result switch up and all the patients have to come and get retested. Your boss has said in no way go to the press or you shall lose your job. However, one of the nurses knows a journalist very well. What do you do?
I said there and then I would go the press and tell the whole story and explain how we are dealing with it, as this would show that we have met the problem and dealt with it, thus good crisis management. I personally believe that if I didn’t go to the press as the Public Relations manager someone else would and give a statement, making the situation worse.
So I delved a little deeper into the truth and it got me thinking about how gullible I really am. I tend to believe whatever I’m told and very rarely suspect people of lying to me. I found an article which stated
“… both public relations and advertising professionals have been called to account for falsehoods they furthered on behalf of their clients”
This quote got me thinking about would I be more loyal to? My client or the public? They are both very important to anyone involved in public relations as it is all about the reputation.
So public relations does rely on the truth and telling the truth is a responsible regard for public interest, although public relations practitioners often stick rigidly to the definition which does not include vagueness, ambiguity and puffery.
I found in Argument: Language and Its influence seven rhetorical questions that public relations practitioners can use to determine the morality of the act of persuasion and the content. These guidelines did focus on the best interest of the audience, which in my opinion is for the best.
I found myself looking back to the ethical pillars of PR which are: veracity (Adhering to the truth), non-malfeasance (the duty to do no harm), beneficence (aim to do good), confidentiality (to keep private) and fairness. How, when I become a public relations practitioner am I supposed to keep under all these guidelines they definitely clash, especially harm and adhering to the truth, how confusing.
I personally believe that I want to avoid harming anyone, but how am can I really harm anyone by telling the truth really?
If you can think of any times when by being told the truth has caused you harm I would love to hear your stories
So, as well as coping with harm I shall also have to consider the other elements, I think as long as you do your best to keep to these pillars it’s ok, as long as you way up if it will be in the best interest.
If I was to find out some information about someone in the public eye, information I believe the public need to know, do I tell the world or keep quiet to stop invasion of privacy?
I was reading into celebrity PR and thinking about how many times when a magazine says a quote coming from a “source” that it’s from their Public Relations manager? Is that invasion of privacy or just doing their jobs?
I was thinking about past stories in which the outcome has ended badly for a public relations practitioner, sometimes it may be easier to keep quiet. Is this in the best interest of the public?
I then got thinking about one of my past seminars in which we were given a scenario, there has been a result switch up and all the patients have to come and get retested. Your boss has said in no way go to the press or you shall lose your job. However, one of the nurses knows a journalist very well. What do you do?
I said there and then I would go the press and tell the whole story and explain how we are dealing with it, as this would show that we have met the problem and dealt with it, thus good crisis management. I personally believe that if I didn’t go to the press as the Public Relations manager someone else would and give a statement, making the situation worse.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Public, I have your best interest at heart.
Public Relations has got to have gained its bad reputation from somewhere, there must be some bad PR practitioners but that’s not me, I don’t want to be a “queen of spin”
Reading through “Mastering Public Relations” by Anthony Davis he stated that
“Spin is ubiquitous and synonymous with deceit, trickery or, at best, exaggeration, wishful thinking or fanciful interpretation”
Who wants to be connected with that? There are many different spin techniques such as; selectively presenting facts and quotes that support your position, non-denial denial, phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, euphemisms to disguise or promote one’s agenda and “burying bad news” announcing one popular thing at the same time as several things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular item.
So then how can public interest be related with public relations practitioners as they are such “spin doctors”, well there are such stories and events which are in public interest which PR practitioners have a helping hand in. Spin is often related to propaganda, it is used to persuade people or to turn their interest into what you are selling. Spin is most often thought of when it comes to press releases so anyone who is involved may be classed as a “spin doctor”
Pubic interest is defined as:
“Welfare of the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group, or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion, and protection by the government and its agencies Despite the vagueness of the term, public interest is claimed generally by governments in matters of state secrecy and confidentiality it is approximated by comparing expected gains and potential costs or losses associated with a design, policy, program, or project.”
(Definition from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-interest.html )
This shows that there is a definite distinction between public interest and interesting to the public. Most people myself included are more drawn to interesting to the public story For Example; the Wayne Rooney scandal. However if we, the public, found out we have not been given all the details in a story which can be classed as in “public interest” then the media is in serious trouble.
So while I was thinking about this I investigated stories which the public wasn’t told the whole story and I found that in Yorkshire there was a kidnapping story where the police did not publish that the uncle knew information and then had to reprint when they discovered that the Uncle was actually involved in the kidnap. This caused the public to feel outraged as they were misinformed and vital information was withheld, especially from the residents in the local area.
This got me thinking, how much information is too much information? If you tell the public something that may cause them harm and therefore go against the ethical pillar or to risk the outraged public when they don’t get what they want. There is a very fine line to which the media must work, to let the public know what’s going on without harming anyone.
I believe that often with these kinds of situations, harm may be caused in the short run and as long as it is not horrific for the reader/viewer then it is more important to get the full story across rather than someone else leaking the story and infuriating the public.
Madonna’s video for the song “Justify my love” because it contained sadomasochism which caused some viewers distress and harm and was therefore banned, people felt that this video made them feel physically sick; this I believe is too far. However, the single managed to get to number one for two consecutive weeks. Therefore when it comes to gaining attention whether it be for a celebrity or an advertisement, often the controversy makes the public more interested and it gains the celebrity or product/organisation more publicity.
As the saying goes all publicity’s good publicity. Which I shall definitely keep in the back of my mind.
Reading through “Mastering Public Relations” by Anthony Davis he stated that
“Spin is ubiquitous and synonymous with deceit, trickery or, at best, exaggeration, wishful thinking or fanciful interpretation”
Who wants to be connected with that? There are many different spin techniques such as; selectively presenting facts and quotes that support your position, non-denial denial, phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, euphemisms to disguise or promote one’s agenda and “burying bad news” announcing one popular thing at the same time as several things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular item.
So then how can public interest be related with public relations practitioners as they are such “spin doctors”, well there are such stories and events which are in public interest which PR practitioners have a helping hand in. Spin is often related to propaganda, it is used to persuade people or to turn their interest into what you are selling. Spin is most often thought of when it comes to press releases so anyone who is involved may be classed as a “spin doctor”
Pubic interest is defined as:
“Welfare of the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group, or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion, and protection by the government and its agencies Despite the vagueness of the term, public interest is claimed generally by governments in matters of state secrecy and confidentiality it is approximated by comparing expected gains and potential costs or losses associated with a design, policy, program, or project.”
(Definition from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-interest.html )
This shows that there is a definite distinction between public interest and interesting to the public. Most people myself included are more drawn to interesting to the public story For Example; the Wayne Rooney scandal. However if we, the public, found out we have not been given all the details in a story which can be classed as in “public interest” then the media is in serious trouble.
So while I was thinking about this I investigated stories which the public wasn’t told the whole story and I found that in Yorkshire there was a kidnapping story where the police did not publish that the uncle knew information and then had to reprint when they discovered that the Uncle was actually involved in the kidnap. This caused the public to feel outraged as they were misinformed and vital information was withheld, especially from the residents in the local area.
This got me thinking, how much information is too much information? If you tell the public something that may cause them harm and therefore go against the ethical pillar or to risk the outraged public when they don’t get what they want. There is a very fine line to which the media must work, to let the public know what’s going on without harming anyone.
I believe that often with these kinds of situations, harm may be caused in the short run and as long as it is not horrific for the reader/viewer then it is more important to get the full story across rather than someone else leaking the story and infuriating the public.
Madonna’s video for the song “Justify my love” because it contained sadomasochism which caused some viewers distress and harm and was therefore banned, people felt that this video made them feel physically sick; this I believe is too far. However, the single managed to get to number one for two consecutive weeks. Therefore when it comes to gaining attention whether it be for a celebrity or an advertisement, often the controversy makes the public more interested and it gains the celebrity or product/organisation more publicity.
As the saying goes all publicity’s good publicity. Which I shall definitely keep in the back of my mind.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
This is the first of many blogs in which I shall be voicing my opinion on how truth is one of the most confusing and misinterpreted words in the dictionary. I am a Public Relations student at the University of Lincoln and for an assignment I was faced with the question
“Honest and responsible regard for the public interest is not the same as telling the truth.” Discuss in the context of the profession of Public Relations
This got me thinking, how do you tell the truth as well as keep in line with all the other ethical pillars; veracity, non-malfeasance, beneficence, confidentiality and fairness. Webster’s Dictionary defines trust as:
“A confident reliance on the integrity, veracity or justice of another confidence; faith”
This intrigued me and I began to think about the relationship between truth and trust, if we do not trust someone then automatically we are sceptical when they tell us something, so in order to gain that trust it is important to make the listener want to trust in you, this is often done by being likable, if you are a confident, friendly character what you say is likely to be believed. Is it in the public’s interest to be someone who you can trust? Of course, If you are in front of a crowd trying to inform them and they do not trust you there is no point even trying whereas if you are being received in a positive way they are likely to pay more attention and believe what you are saying (even if you are leaving some details out)
Truth is something that is come across in everyday life and as an ordinary person the truth is not as pressurised as if you are in the public eye, if you tell a little white lie as an ordinary public citizen, as many of us have done when a friend asks “does my bum look big in this?” it is not seen as a big deal, whereas if you, as a public relations practitioner, tell a little white lie and then it gets found out there is public uproar. Although there is the argument that what the media says goes out to millions as Humphrey Bogart would say in respect to the media:
“Worth a hill of beans”
Truth is always in public interest, although it is not a necessity. When you think of truth it can often be brutal and I believe that it is a judgement call if your instance as a personal example I found one of my friends boyfriends in an extremely compromising position with another girl … no details needed, I then had the awful decision of whether to tell her or not as I knew it would break her heart. If I did not tell her then this awful man would get away with it, the decision was then to be brutally honest and hurt her or let him get away with it? In the end I gave him the option to tell her himself or I would. So I can completely sympathise when people struggle to tell the complete truth all the time.
I went on to look at the CIPR definition of Public Relations http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy-resources/careers-pr/whatispr and when I read through I realised there was no mention of truth; it seems that their definition is focusing more on your reputation and the way that you treat your client. So as a budding PR practitioner by definition I have no duty to tell the truth as long as I’m doing a brilliant job with a fantastic reputation, but in my opinion in order to get this reputation you have to come across as a trustworthy and truthful person. That’s my plan anyway.
“Honest and responsible regard for the public interest is not the same as telling the truth.” Discuss in the context of the profession of Public Relations
This got me thinking, how do you tell the truth as well as keep in line with all the other ethical pillars; veracity, non-malfeasance, beneficence, confidentiality and fairness. Webster’s Dictionary defines trust as:
“A confident reliance on the integrity, veracity or justice of another confidence; faith”
This intrigued me and I began to think about the relationship between truth and trust, if we do not trust someone then automatically we are sceptical when they tell us something, so in order to gain that trust it is important to make the listener want to trust in you, this is often done by being likable, if you are a confident, friendly character what you say is likely to be believed. Is it in the public’s interest to be someone who you can trust? Of course, If you are in front of a crowd trying to inform them and they do not trust you there is no point even trying whereas if you are being received in a positive way they are likely to pay more attention and believe what you are saying (even if you are leaving some details out)
Truth is something that is come across in everyday life and as an ordinary person the truth is not as pressurised as if you are in the public eye, if you tell a little white lie as an ordinary public citizen, as many of us have done when a friend asks “does my bum look big in this?” it is not seen as a big deal, whereas if you, as a public relations practitioner, tell a little white lie and then it gets found out there is public uproar. Although there is the argument that what the media says goes out to millions as Humphrey Bogart would say in respect to the media:
“Worth a hill of beans”
Truth is always in public interest, although it is not a necessity. When you think of truth it can often be brutal and I believe that it is a judgement call if your instance as a personal example I found one of my friends boyfriends in an extremely compromising position with another girl … no details needed, I then had the awful decision of whether to tell her or not as I knew it would break her heart. If I did not tell her then this awful man would get away with it, the decision was then to be brutally honest and hurt her or let him get away with it? In the end I gave him the option to tell her himself or I would. So I can completely sympathise when people struggle to tell the complete truth all the time.
I went on to look at the CIPR definition of Public Relations http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy-resources/careers-pr/whatispr and when I read through I realised there was no mention of truth; it seems that their definition is focusing more on your reputation and the way that you treat your client. So as a budding PR practitioner by definition I have no duty to tell the truth as long as I’m doing a brilliant job with a fantastic reputation, but in my opinion in order to get this reputation you have to come across as a trustworthy and truthful person. That’s my plan anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)