Add new comment

Sheldon, thanks for your thoughtful read of my McClellan piece. I want to differ mainly with your characterization of my declaration of <strong>loyalty</strong> as the primary ethical standard for PR people. <strong>Truth </strong>is the primary ethical standard for PR people, as it should be for anyone who communicates with the public on public policy matters. It would be one thing for McClellan to confess that he lied while serving the Bush Administration. If he's a whistle-blower, the issue of his loyalty wouldn't come into play. But McClellan throughout portrays himself not as a liar, but as a victim of overwhelming forces -- powerful officials, the permanent campaign culture, whatever. What this signals to me is he wants the personal benefit of serving as a critic of a failed, unpopular administration without taking the personal responsibility for his own contribution to it. It makes me suspicious that all he's really doing is changing sides in the middle of a game only because his side is losing. I guess that conclusion puts me somewhat at odds with another part of your essay, the idea of a gray area between truth and falsity, this supposed area of "spin" or "bullshit." A careful PR person asks, or should ask, way too many questions for there to be any doubt in his or her mind about what they are saying and its truthfulness before they craft a statement for the media. Anyone I worked for as a PR person got far tougher questions from me than they ever got from a reporter (sadly). "Spin" refers to the artful selection of words so that the listeners or readers are left with the impression the speaker desires them to have. For "spin" to work, every word has to be true. That's why the practitioners of this craft must learn as much information as they can (unlike McClellan, who portrays himself as utterly credulous and basically uninformed). They rehearse every possible tough question and should develop answers that are 100 percent provably true, even if shaped to sustain the desired overall message. However, on every "sample Q and A" there will be questions that assume the spin has failed and that the speaker has to confront the ugly realities he or she might prefer to avoid. In my experience, the speaker is never advised to lie, and in fact is advised never to lie. Any PR pro would insist that losing one's credibility is far worse consequence than a bad news story. If a client had ever asked me to lie or to help them lie, I would have resigned the account or job immediately. Not just because I'm such an ethical guy, but also because lying is deadly for business. A PR person relies on others, especially the news media, to get the story out. If those others stop believing him or her, that PR person is useless. Scott McClellan never resigned. He says he never lied. With the exception of the Plame matter, he says he was never lied <em>to</em>. So, it's hard to grasp what he's really saying other than he wishes he hadn't embarrassed himself working for such a lousy and unpopular administration. That's mere disloyalty, for no higher cause than making himself look good (and earning some money). No, it's not anywhere near as bad as lying, but it isn't particularly honorable. As for the stuff about my own situation: I can't comment because it's still in the legal process. However, just for the sake of clarity, the ethics of my representation of clients I had at Fleishman-Hillard (and every other firm I worked for) was never an issue. The trial concerned allegations about billing. I had nothing to do with the Dowie article to which you linked. I am pursuing an appeal because I am not guilty of fraud, meaning I never defrauded any client. There is no "spin" in my defense position. The jury obviously came to a different conclusion, but that's why we have an appeal process. Thanks again for calling attention to my blog post and for your serious-minded analysis of it.