Tag: spin

Bad Instruction on Crisis Communications

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

A faculty colleague of mine shared an email she received  from one of our students who was taking a sports marketing class in a different department. The good news is that our student immediately recognized with horror the bad instruction this professor was giving on crisis communication situations in the sporting industry, as evidenced by a screen shot of a class lecture slide she shared:

Yes, this professor is actually teaching student to lie and avoid responsibility and accountability. 
We can only hope–and we do suspect–that whomever is teaching this class is an adjunct completely ignorant of proper  crisis communications theory and practice. I would bet this professor has never in their own past taken a bonafide public relations course or mingled with public relations professionals at a Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) meeting.
Such instruction saddens me for several reasons. In the first place, it is wrong ethically. Secondly, it is wrong strategically, as many studies show honesty in crises maintains and increases positive reputation. Third this “professor” (I put the word in quotes because I’m tempted to call this ignorant sleazeball some terms that the FCC still does not allow to be broadcast) perpetuates the myth that public relations is about intentional deception, lies and spin. The fact that the word spin is actually used as an advocated  option sickens me: I insist with my students that “spin” is a four-letter  word that should never be spoken or practiced.
Here we have a root of the ongoing problem of the perception of the public relations industry. What this rent-a-prof is proposing is not even close to the educated, ethical and strategic practice that people who know what they are  talking about would teach. In other words, it is NOT public relations. But if the public witnesses denial, silence or “spin” they will call it PR even if done by a person whose job title and education background has nothing to do with public relations.
Again, the only good news to come out of this is evidence that one of our PR students learned well, so well that she identified the obviously ignorant instruction and shared her horror  with us. The next step is for all PR pros, even current students and recent grads, to speak truth to power and say NO!–PR is not about spin!

TIME Review of ‘Deadly Spin’ is … Spin

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

As a PR professor and practitioner, books about PR always jump out at me. But after reading a recent TIME Magazine “The Skimmer” review (subscription required) of Wendell Potter’s “Deadly Spin,” I nearly jumped out of my chair.

Wendell Potter used to work in public relations for insurance giant Cigna. His book is a whistleblower’s account of how companies in that industry tout misleading studies, form front groups and engage in other misdeeds to deny coverage to premium-paying customers.
All of which sounds like the examples of improper practice in the PRSA Code of Ethics.

Which is why I find TIME’s review so troubling for its pedestrian writing and lazy, gleeful perpetuation of bad stereotypes about the public relations professions. It leads with “Great P.R. flacks are as talented with misdirection as they are with the truth.” At the end, after Potter points out that his conscience led him to testify to Congress about insurers favoring profits over patients, the review writes “there’s not a p.r. person alive who can put a positive spin on that.”
Again with the “spin.” If the columnist, who is mercifully not given a byline for this formulaic drivel, favors truth over misdirection, he/she might have tried some actual reporting. The review then might have pointed out that the principles Potter obtained better late than never are in fact taught in most all public relations courses, based on my meeting with other educators and reviewing preferred curriculum for PR courses. More importantly, my own research shows that if an organization has a PR officer with a degree in the field and the respect of top management, ethical practice is more likely to prevail. The misdeeds of corporations are often labeled “PR” even if management ignored the counsel of a PR person, or if no one on staff had an actual degree in the field.
Rather than lean on the synecdoche of using “PR” as a blanket reference for all dishonest communication, the reviewer could have provided a great service to readers by pointing out that the PR community has praised Potter and his book more than anyone else. Potter was a keynote speaker at the PRSA annual conference last year in San Diego, which I attended with 10 students. He was also featured in an article in PRSA Tactics, the organization’s monthly newspaper.
In short, rather than seeking occasion to misdirect readers that PR by definition is deceptive, the reviewer could have explained that the majority of the PR industry advocates ethical practice characterized by dialogic communication and mutual benefit. Instead, the reviewer chose to spin.