I’m often the first to jump out and defend public relations tactics–such as video news releases and other common practices. But this headline in today’s USA Today led to some serious eyebrow raising:
White House paid commentator to promote law
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams “to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts,” and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.
Now, I’m not going to rush to immediate judgment here, especially because this was a client of my former employer. I KNOW the people who ran these accounts and handled these clients; they are among some of the most ethical and professional PR folks out there.
I believe there simply has to be more here that Mr. Toppo hasn’t explained or uncovered, or that his slant and quest to uncover “dirt” is muddying a legitimate deal. (I find particularly offensive in this piece Mr. Toppo’s insistence on placing the phrase video news release in quotation marks. This is, after all, a common PR practice and not limited to government organizations. They are no different from news releases; it is the editor of the station’s responsibility to use the material in the way that best serves the public.)
But I do have to wonder if maybe, as PR folks, we’re blurring the lines too much. Are there spokespeople we should avoid? Relationships that do more harm than good? When is spin unacceptable? Favors? Networking? Coalition-building?
I think as practitioners, we often assume that more spin is better, since we typically believe and understand that good editors will detect our agendas. When our “talking points” break through this filter, we celebrate a victory. We claim it isn’t our job to seek balance, it’s our job to promote. But do we overstep boundaries in our quest to get our message through the clutter?
The WaPo also has a story in the A section this morning about another “fake news” report (i.e., video news release). This time, it’s the Drug Control Office that issued the offending video.
This time, the Post acknowledges that stations receiving the package “knew the materials were produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.” But did the office cross a line? Does the fact that the actor claims he is “reporting” at the end of the segment make the piece propaganda? If he simply signed off with his name, would that be any different?
I don’t know the answers. But I know these are issues that my industry will struggle with for the next few years.
