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.