As readers of this blog know, I like to help educate about the PR profession and defend it when necessary. The field of work is often misunderstood and mistrusted (as some have said "PR needs better PR").
My radar goes up when I see absent-minded slights on the profession. So I thought I'd chime in about a WSJ story that ran yesterday.
The good news is that PR gets front page treatment, in the article "Bernanke's PR Push Rewrites fed Script." The bad news: in the mix the practice is once again cast in a somewhat of a sinister and cynical light.
I have to admit I can be reactive, reading the article quickly I first thought that it was more about self-promotion and less about what anyone who works in the field likely would agree has anything to do with the profession.
The reporter writes:
Ben Bernanke became the Federal Reserve chairman intent on making the central bank less personality driven than it was under Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker. But as he confronts an economic crisis… Mr. Bernanke is waging a public-relations offensive that casts him in the starring role.
I do try to be fair and took the time to read through the entire article again more carefully. The first sign of trouble was right there in the lede, where the reporter seemed to equate PR with hogging the limelight and also implies that there is some kind of organized public relations campaign behind Bernanke's actions. To many, and the way it is often portrayed, "waging a PR offensive" sounds subversive and conspiratorial.
The article goes on to list Bernanke's efforts to get out in public, educate and generate a sense of optimism. It relates a recent "101" session Bernanke gave at a college "with television cameras" rolling, his CBS 60 minutes gig and a February appearance at the National Press Club in Washington. The reporter pointed out that bank officials are discussing "whether to hold regular news conferences."
Clearly, Bernanke is taking his efforts to the media and in some cases directly to the public. Perhaps he feels he has some explaining to do. As the article points out:
…the Fed is coming under often blistering attack from Congress and its responses to the crisis have been met with confusion by the public
The article does in my opinion do a very effective job of analyzing of Bernanke's communications style, explaining how this differs from predecessors, calling out gaffes and exploring the ins and outs of his various communications moves. It points out the careful line a fed chairman must walk, and the great responsibility to communicate without unduly influencing markets.
Clearly the job comes with a high profile and Bernanke does (I feel) have an obligation to (albeit carefully) get out there, educate and be somewhat of a cheerleader. Greenspan may well have had more of a low key, cryptic style but these are different times.
It might seem like a quibble, but my issue is with the article's implication that there is some kind of organized PR campaign and that this should be viewed as big news and something deserving of a gimlet eye.
