The Truth According to Rosie...Honestly!

When it comes to public relations is honest and responsible regard the same as telling the truth? I doubt this is an area of discussion that can produce a conclusive and concrete answer; but then again I’ve never known the truth to be definitive both in theory and practice.

There’s no denying that we have become a race of gossips and observers; yet does this really extend beyond the trivial genre of celebrity culture? Society’s fascination with a scandal and uncovering the supposed truth has the potential to lead us down a dangerous path – if every fragment of the news is sensationalised, this would inevitably detract from the weighting behind the material and eventually people would suffer form over exposure and become disinterested.

That’s not to say that this can be prevented by merely censoring or withholding information. A balance must be found between the two; this is where the role of a PR practitioner comes into play. If our aim within a communication strategy is to help establish and manage relationships that are beneficial to all parties involved, deciding what is of interest to the public as opposed to just plain interesting is crucial. Dealing with a situation like this one reinforces the idea that information should be managed as opposed to censored.

It seems obvious that a clear shift must be made away from trying to control information that reaches the public domain and move towards the idea that the information and the associated consequences can be managed. With this ideal though comes a warning. Truth and the associated transparency especially within the world of commerce does not equate to accountability. It is not enough to simply lay your cards on the table and presume that this will suffice.

"Put simply the dilemma should not arise at the point of whether to tell the
truth, but at the point of when the action that determines the truth occurs."

As the boundaries and corporate situating of PR is changing so must the attitude towards how the truth is handled. Speaking to a community manager for a national newspaper I learnt an interesting approach to deal with uncomfortable truths

“It’s not about withholding the truth; instead you are simply holding it.”

OK so I said that with the new era of PR there should be a clean departure from the old world of spin. Yet if I’ve learnt anything from my time at university it’s that PR isn’t perfect and rebranding it under the umbrella of communications won’t change what is often required of PR practitioners. And not even a hundred pairs of rose tinted glasses could hide that from me.

In the PR industry Rosie Corriette is a brand – albeit a very small and hopefully emerging brand – but one still the same! Therefore me and my truth is key to establishing my reputation defining my personal ethics. If I know something is wrong then I hope it will be simple enough not to do it. But what happens when you convince yourself what you’re doing is ethical, or even that the end justifies the means?

PR is about communication and more specifically relationships. If in our personal lives we are encouraged to strive for both trust and respect as fundamentals, then it can be no bad thing to aim for this in our careers as well.

Truth and regard for public interest should not be viewed as the albatross of PR. Instead it should be seen as a tool of engagement. The role of PR is not to change the truth but to use it to your advantage.

FIFA, the Prime Minister and a BBC documentary

So what is the difference between of interest to the public and in the public interest? It’s a topic which can spark the good old debate between public relations and journalism.

Sport and politics are two areas of conversation that are bound to provoke response, so imagine my delight when I found an example of what happens when the two are combined. Now before you start to lecture me on the finer points of politics within sport, yes I know however it’s not often that the prime minister gets involved in a corruption scandal within football.

I am referring to England not being successful in the bid to host the 2018 World Cup. However it isn’t the fact that England lost out to Russia that caught my attention. On the BBC News at Six on Friday 26th November 2010 Fiona Bruce reported on the apparent frustration of David Cameron on the BBC’s decision to air Panorama on the following Monday. The show was centred on the alleged corruption within FIFA in particular when it comes to deciding the hosting nation for a World Cup. With the decision being announced by FIFA only a few days later on the Thursday, it was thought by many in the football industry and those involved with the World Cup bid that it was nothing short of disastrous for England’s campaign. Up until this point the feature still is strongly anchored within the sporting section.

A clip from an interview David Cameron which was recorded for Soccer AM, focused the attention of the media and social commentators. Was it necessary for the prime minister to give comment on the situation? Or perhaps a classic example of knee jerk damage limitation which government are ever so keen to do:

“We have a free country with a free media – obviously those of us who are
passionate about this bid and about us winning. It is frustrating that panorama
are doing this programme a few days before, of course it is but it’s a free
country and we have to just roll with that. I think FIFA will understand that.”

There is significance in David Cameron voicing his opinion on this as it signals the timing of the investigation could be somewhat problematic for England’s bid. However he is clear in also defending the rights of a free press. There was great pressure on the BBC not to air the panorama investigation until after FIFA’s decision; however the BBC upheld the scheduled slot for the programme and responded by saying that Panorama has always been known for investigative journalism and that the findings were in the public interest.

This all sounded pretty common place, however one point that got me thinking was: Just who decides what is and isn’t of interest to the public? If this example is anything to go by then the decision ultimately lies with the journalist who chooses whether to run the story or not. Surely some responsibility should sit with the public relations function of said organisation.

The fact that FIFA seemed to offer no response to the scheduling of Panorama suggests perhaps that this is not as important to them as it is to the England 2018 bid; albeit understandable seeing as they were set to be affected by the consequences if any from the documentary. Andy Anson, the chief executive of the England 2018 bid reacted strongly to the BBC’s plans "To do it the week before the vote - I don't think it's patriotic." He also said that whilst the BBC argues that the panorama documentary will be in the public interest, the opportunity for England to host the World Cup in 2018 is in the public interest too. Whilst it’s good to see the chief executive passionate about the bid, it’s not appropriate for Anson to place a higher level of importance on the winning the World Cup bid as opposed to uncovering corruption. That’s not to say that the World Cup wouldn’t be of interest to the public, especially when it’s considered how much could be generated through marketing, brand sponsorship and not to mention the event itself.

So what do you think? Should Panorama’s investigation into FIFA been broadcast just days before the successful bid was announced? Is the BBC as Anson put it ‘unpatriotic’ for airing the programme? The truth may not always be convenient but that doesn’t mean it can be changed, lying or withholding information simply compounds the problem. This case in point is a perfect example of how the honest and responsible regard for the public interest is far too subjective to be placed higher than the fundamental ethics of truth.

The pillars of truth – but whose truth?

As I look for my first graduate role with the PR industry I thought it would be important to refer myself back to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations; after all I am a student member and utilise the resources offered to me as part of my membership. I found this:

“Reputation has a direct and major impact on the corporate well-being of every organisation, be it multinational, a charity, a Government Department or a small business…That is why the professionalism of those people who guard and mould reputation – public relations practitioners is so important.”

It’s clear that regardless of what sector or on what scale you work within the communications industry reputation is key but how does that fit in with ‘Honest and responsible regard for the public interest’ ? It could be taken by those with morals less scrupulous that as long as your reputation is not affected then whatever it takes to get the job done… surely this can’t be right?

Jane Crofts my dissertation tutor at the University of Lincoln introduced The Pillars of PR Ethics. There are five pillars: Veracity, non-malfeasance, beneficence, confidentiality and fairness. How will this guide me in abiding by CIPR’s code of conduct?

Veracity
Telling the truth is bread and butter of keeping regard for the public interest in an honest manner or is it? The challenge comes when you have to decide what is classed at the truth. Just because it is my truth doesn’t make it your truth. Honesty is something that is often regarded as easy as long as you tell the truth nobody will get hurt. You don’t need a degree in public relations to realise that this isn’t the case. Tensions and differing areas and level of interest mean that by telling the whole truth all the time people will get hurt. Veracity is not a desirable trait for a crowd pleaser.

Non-malfeasance
This refers to doing no harm; of course not many people would intentionally inflict harm on a particular public, yet this can be hard to enforce across the board when communicating information that will affect numerous stakeholders and not all in a positive way. However I think it may be important to maintain an approach that remembers that whilst there may not be much control over the content of the message – what you say, there is a great deal to be learnt by how people say things. This is especially true for instances within internal communications where employees may not necessarily have a direct affect on a company’s corporate strategy but they can still be involved in the communication of the strategic development.

Beneficence
‘Doing good’ even with my naïve experience of the industry is something that I imagine all graduates strive for, but whose good is best? Is it a case of the greater good of the people? It seems that with all potential moral dilemmas it is case of striving for the equilibrium between the good of the microenvironment and the macro environment of the wider community.

Confidentiality
Maintaining confidentiality is fundamental especially when it comes to client relations. At what point does it become appropriate to break confidentiality? Unlike medicine and education there are no black and whites as to when and how to break confidentiality, it falls to the individual to judge whether the information they possess breaks codes of conduct that bind that particular industry of indeed law.

Fairness
Being fair and socially responsible is something I hope I already am – as a PR practitioner it is important to establish exactly what context socially responsible is to be applied. For which society am I responsible for? Am I only to be concerned with the society in which I operate? It goes much further than simply your horizons; fairness must extend into society as a whole.

Ethics within PR are not simply there to add moral structure to the practice. They are intrinsic to the integrity of an individual’s character. Incorporating all these principles into everyday practice is something that will require application and at some points dedication. I think for me it will rest on what my personal boundaries are. I recognise that it will be a balancing act of telling the truth with doing no harm, doing good whilst respecting privacy and being fair and socially responsible. As long as personal ethics and values remain constant within my conscience I am confident that I will be able to channel these into my offererings to the world of PR… Come back to me I ten years to see how I get on!

My Truth

My relationship with the truth is one that until now I hadn’t given much thought. Yet it appears consistently throughout my life.

As a child I was taught to always tell the truth and like most children had a refreshingly honest take on life. However as my teenage years loomed it seemed that the truth was irrelevant especially when it came to telling my mother where I was (there’s only so many science booster classes a girl can invent!). Then came the introduction of alcohol to the mix and with it brought the bluntness that only appears after a cider and black or six.

And now in my final year of university it seems that the truth is not only paramount to my dissertation – to be accused of plagiarism is the modern day equivalent of witchcraft – but also in the context of public relations and how it is viewed within the strategic planning of an organisation.

Regardless at which level you look at truth, one thing is for sure... nobody likes a liar.

A taste of things to come

Over the next week I will be publishing a series of blogs with one common theme, truth and in particular, how this sits within PR? I will be taking the opportunity to focus on a specific topic that is of current interest not just to PR professionals but to the wider community:

"Honest and responsible regard for the public interest is not
the same as telling the truth"

I'd be really interested in hearing people's experience of truth and the associated ethics and morals that come into play with PR.

So, what's your truth?

And the winner is?... CHARITY

In case you were worried, I survived the 10th Annual Asics British 10k last Sunday. Not only did I survive the 6.6 mile course but I completed it in a respectable 1 hour 17 minutes and 58 seconds, knocking over six minuted off my previous time at the Lincoln 10k.

I'm not going to lie there were many times throughout the 77 minutes that I wanted to give up but something kept me going and that was the promise I had made at the beginning of my year of running. It's not just completing the races for the purpose of sponsorship that is important but the knowledge that I'm standing up to help fight for something that affects us all - death.

Morbid as it may sound it is truly the one thing that we cannot escape and Bassetlaw Hospice like so many other hospices strive to provide peace and dignity at the end of our lives and help to form a support network for the family and friends left behind.

So as I crossed the finish line, hot sweaty and seriously dehydrated I jumped for joy as I thought of the motivation that spurred me on... This is for you Grand-ma xx

The new Sahara is Lambeth Hill...

I've just sneaked a peek at the weather forcast for Sunday and for the first time ever I'm distruaght at the thought that it could exceed 31 celcius on Sunday! Now normally I would be over the moon, however this Sunday is no ordinary Sunday.



In two days time I will be running the 10th Annual Asics British 10k in London http://www.thebritish10klondon.co.uk/ and with the MET office predicting record temperatures, so not only will I be battling with the prospect of waging war on just over six and a half miles, but also surviving the scorching sun!



But hey when I stop to think of the reason behind me not only running the 10k on Sunday but my year of running, the sweltering heat seems like the least I can endure if it helps Bassetlaw Hospice.



So whilst you're sunning yourself this weekend sipping on something suitably delicious, please take five minutes to visit www.justgiving.com/rosiecorriette and help me to reach my target of £1000.



Have a great weekend and I promise to try and upload a hilarious photo of me cooking on the streets of London!!



R xx