I have occasionally blogged about the Bush administration’s questionable policies and Machiavellian PR maneuvering.
So when the first reports came out about Scott McClellan’s book (see White House Insider Writes Scathing Critique of Bush Admin. on CBC), I have to admit I did enjoy it a bit, hearing that McClellan has validated things which were already pretty established anyway.
According to the article:
In a scathing new book, a Washington insider calls President George W.
Bush to task for selling the war in Iraq with a “political propaganda
campaign…
“I still like and admire President Bush but he and his advisers
confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candour and
honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public
support during a time of war,” McClellan writes.
But in thinking things through a bit further, I have realized that this is nothing to gloat about, or thank McClellan for, and that it spells some interesting questions for PR.
All the President’s Flacks
Scott McClellan always seemed a little lead-footed to me. He generally was a Piñata during press briefings. He does have his good points, he was less unctuous than Ari Fleischer who preceded him in the role, and less glib with the media than Tony Snow, who followed Scott. McClellan always sported a kind of dopey sincerity which made him almost endearing, if not entirely believable.
Perhaps it is this sincerity which makes him want to spill his guts now, or perhaps he just wants to sell books. If he was so opposed to the Bush administration’s questionable policies and communications tactics, why not quit or speak out then? It really is an untenable position, and reeks of opportunism.
It also poses the larger question about PR’s obligations to clients and employers. Don’t we have an ethical obligation to keep discussions we have as trusted advisers close to the vest? It seems there should be a kind of attorney or shrink privilege (our work does sometimes feel more like psychotherapy). After all, we are the ultimate insiders.
Some might disagree with the lawyer analogy – lawyers are obligated to defend their clients even if they detest them or believe in their heart of hearts that the client is guilty. Sure, all of us in the PR agency world have had to deal with clients we disliked or believed had ill-conceived products or business plans. I would like to think there are lines we would not cross – misleading when it comes to war should be one such line.
And to compound this by first enabling it, and then – belatedly – publicly airing your concerns creates a new low.
How ’bout the opposite?
@ PR agent has an obligation to cause client to “out” all unethical activity (per some industry standard), regardless of which flack you use.
That way we could actually, um, value the role (as a society) rather than be creeped out and taxed by it.
As it stands, the role has negative value to the typical citizen (unlike lawyers!).
Your idea put another way –
Our tax dollars pay for someone to keep secrets from us, and we’ll make that official so we can never have info that is rightfully ours? … Yay!
I think your proposal is a good one although you obviously have a very cynical and misguided view of the PR profession.
Was your remark about lawyers meant to be ironic?
Most “typical citizens” have (or will) at some point in their lives attend school, work for a business or take a job with government or military organization that benefits from improved communications.
Sure there are bad apples just like in any profession – my post was not meant to encourage cover ups, it was more about the professional ethics that any trusted adviser should adhere to.