Living in a pot of water warming to a boil

SAN DIEGO, Calif — I’m attending the PRSA International Conference (#prsa2009). We had the Assembly Saturday and today, several business meetings.

The high point, for me, was the presentation to the Sections Council about plans to start a Real Estate and Construction section, a place for folks practicing public relations for clients — internal or external — involved in homebuilding, real estate, commercial building or other related industries to discuss PR issues.  More about that when I get confirmation that we can forge ahead with it.

The opening program was Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post, author and TV personality. and healthcare advocate Wendell Potter, APR. Some time ago, I wrote about Potter (http://tinyurl.com/yh5jvya), so it was interesting to hear him speak today. And what he said affirms what I said last September.

As I tweeted during the talk, Potter’s tale is truly a cautionary one, especially for those of us who are in-house PR counsel. We have to buy into our client to do our job. We have to believe in what our company does and what we are doing to support our client’s business strategy. We can’t do our job unless we do.

Potter talked about doing an ethical self-check to be sure that your moral compass is working right. He gave certain warning signs, like being worried about information getting out and asking if you would be willing tell your mother what you’re doing. He suggested that he didn’t see the warning signs.  It should make every practitioner step back and re-examine what they’re doing and how they’re doing to check for warning signs.

Ethical breaches are a proverbial slippery slope that starts imperceptably. Potter alluded to the old story about a frog in a pot of water that’s being heated to a boil. The frog doesn’t notice til it’s too late, unlike what would happen if you dropped the frog into the boiling water. Kinda makes you look for signs that the water’s heating up.

It starts with being asked to put a “spin” on a story. Then maybe it’s changing numbers…you know…just a little. Where does it stop? At what point does it become worth threatening to quit?

These are tough questions. I guess there are times when a little spin, or an adjustment of numbers is harmless…providing you realize you’re on that slope. The problem, of course, is when they ask you to do it again, you’re going to have a harder time saying, “No.”

Potter talked about being the conscience of an organization. It’s a line I’ve used before, and I know many others have as well. But you can’t “spin” or adjust facts one minute, and be the conscience of the organization the next. Potter’s experience urges each of us to be very aware of the ethical implications of every decision we make, especially we’re playing with shades of the truth…or doing something you want to tell you mother.

 

Tugging on the Reins

I love the Web as much as the next guy. But too many times, I’ve had to answer questions about statements from the Web that had no semblence to reality. Or I’ve had “facts” cited that were picked up from the Internet and used without any questioning. I’ve always felt that the day would come when this incredible tool for sharing, archiving and finding information would become even better by pushing some sort of responsibility on it.

The public is used to the news media. If you see something in the New York Times, the Star Ledger or even the Mount Olive Chronicle, odds are that someone has at least attempted to do some fact checking. Advertising managers also know that there are repercussions for allowing ad claims to get too out of hand. And on both sides of that divide, credibility is a primary concern to those in traditional media.

Two recent legal developments seem force Internet writers to be a bit more responsible for their actions. In August, a New York judge told a model that she could find out the information about a blogger who had anonymously called her a skank. (http://tinyurl.com/m35ek3) That will allow her take legal action against that person if she so desires.

And, more recently, the FTC clarified its rules on telling the truth in advertising. It declared that those endorsing a product or service had to disclose their relationship, if any, with the maker of the product or the provider of the service. They specifically used the example of  bloggers who endorse products, and said they must disclose their connection with that product, whether that be compensation or some other relationship. (http://tinyurl.com/yb2xrx7)

I, for one, think these are good ideas. Yes, I know: The marketplace of ideas should be able to counterbalance whatever hurtful or erroneous information is out there. I have no doubt that it eventually would, but all too often, people seeing that bad information and using it to make decisions or judgements won’t have those balancing ideas at the same time, and will wind up making bad decisions.

And I’ve also read the argument that the New York decision could mean open season on bloggers who are critical. Some common sense has to be used here. Don’t we have the same issues in print media? If someone has the time, money and inclination, can’t they sue a newspaper or TV station for some mild criticism?

I can tell you from experience that the threat of a libel suit makes some editors and reporters think twice about criticizing someone. It should. But I don’t think it has a “chilling effect” on traditional media, nor do I think it will have a severely dampening effect on blogs. Honest criticism is a healthy part of our First Amendment rights and critical to our democracy. If it makes a blogger think twice before they call someone a “skank” or publish false and malicious information, good. It should.

And if the FTC ruling makes a blogger a little more transparent about how he or she got the product or service they’re talking about, well, that’s fine with me as well. Bloggers, like their traditional media counterparts, will have to decide whether accepting a free product or service, or not acknowledging fees for their work, is worth the ding in their crediblity.

Nothing but good comes from combining the incredibile resources of the Web with more traditional editing and vetting techniques. Seems to me it can only make the Internet stronger for research and information sharing. And forcing writers to take responsibility for what they write and being transparent about who they write for is, again, the right way for things to be.

Until we can count on the “marketplace of ideas,” we’ll continue to need to tug on the reins of the Web and allow additional reasonable regulation of the Internet.

Welcome to In-House PR

Thanks for taking a look at In-House PR. As usual, I’m a day late and a dollar short doing what others have been doing for awhile. And that’s pretty much why I’m joining the fray.

Each day, I glance at a lot of blogs from PR people and from real estate people. I enjoy commenting on the issus they bring up, but they don’t always talk about things I want to talk about.  And they rarely talk about that intersection where public relations, real estate and homebuilding come together. I’m talking about much more than sales here.

As a PR guy for a builder, I support the marketing department. But I also work with the lawyers, the folks who buy land, the builders and cope with the rediculous government rules and regulations that have added so much money to the cost of a house that the American Dream is just that…a dream.  We do so much good stuff nobody ever hears about. And there are so many issues that people don’t understand!

So with this snip of a figurative ribbon (we used to do lots of ribbon cuttings!), I declare the conversation open!