(This week, PR News editors Phil Hall and Courtney Barnes lament the increasingly nasty state of Washington-style PR.)
COURTNEY: My loyalty will always
lie with my hometown of Washington, D.C., but it has to be said: Our nation's capital is the source of some of the worst PR around. To add to the laundry list of political
miscreants, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV) recently apologized to 33 Republican senators for accusing them of being unethical in a news release. This illuminates the
often-stormy convergence of politics and PR, as both have reputations tainted by spin. The Washington Post called the apology "an awkward about-face," reflecting poorly on
both Reid and his communications team. It's not news that managing the government's publicity and reputation is a monumental task, but what should PR execs in public affairs be
doing to make progress?
PHIL: Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, claimed the senator did not see the 27-page news release that went out in his name. I don't know what's worse: Reid not being
familiar with press materials released in his name, or the fact the press release ran 27 pages. Clearly, the Nevada senator needs to get his internal PR house in order.
COURTNEY: The complete combustion of this PR juggernaut offers a number of lessons to other senior practitioners. First, everyone knows that press releases, speeches
and/or public comments are usually written not by the speaker (be it the CEO, senator, president, etc.), but by his or her communications staff. That said, it is absolutely
essential that the message being delivered in someone's name is seen by the so-called author before its release. Then, when it comes to staffing, make sure your spokesperson is
someone that will stand behind you, not claim ignorance. Even though Manley said Reid never saw the document before its dissemination, Reid never acknowledged the statement in
his letter of apology, making both men's comments seem disjointed and uncoordinated.
PHIL: And without knocking or cheering the focus of that epic release, I would also question its excessive negativity. Public affairs communications, especially from
Washington, has literally pushed the general population away from its government because of hostile language and below-the-belt kicks at the opposition. I wish today's federal
environment could have leadership along the lines of legendary Senators like Hubert Humphrey, Frank Church, Barry Goldwater and Jacob Javits, who were able to get their message
across without demeaning those who were in disagreement. Really, what sends a better message: 27 pages of name-calling or a single page of positive straight talk?
COURTNEY: I think we both know the answer to that question, and so do PR practitioners who do their job well. Now it's just a matter of taking the initiative and not
resorting to playground tactics of mud slinging. In Washington, that can be a tough thing to ask for, but setting a precedence of straight talking and transparency will
inevitably push the PR profession in the right direction.
PHIL: It wouldn't be a bad thing for the political system, either.
(Comments? Questions? Share your opinions with the editors: [email protected] and [email protected].)