Berkeley Blog: PR Does Not Mean Prevarication

I was horrified to hear Scott McClellan, in a recent interview on NPR, talk about his complicity with the Bush Administration in spewing lies about the reasons for the U.S. invasion into Iraq and also the denial of Libby's involvement in uncovering the CIA identity of Valerie Pflame. McClellan's written a book about the administration's many cover-ups of the truth while overtly refusing to admit he lied along with the rest of them.

McClellan's a spinmeister on the order of Hitler's Goering, and it was scary to hear how he rationalized his former behavior as a result of being caught up in the continuing campaign required for winning the presidential race. What's scary is how immoral, unethical and self-serving this guy is and what a bad rep he gives ethical PR professionals.

I recently spoke before the PRSA national convention held in Portland, Oregon, about the responsibility of the PR professional. For me, I'm responsible to the truth and reason -- not to my client, if they are doing something illegal, unethical, or in some cases, just plain stupid. When speaking to communications folks, I always bring up the client I had whom I discovered -- just by chance -- was misrepresenting to me, his publicist, basic facts about his company. Because I thought the lies were just the tip of the iceberg, I resigned from the account.

Reading about the Broadcom CEO -- who put Ecstasy into his unsuspecting clients' drinks and also backdated stock options -- I wonder about his PR person and what that person was doing. In my book, a PR person who covers up the truth about their client is as bad as the client.

Comments

Sylvia:

This was my take on it too (scribbled here: http://memestreamblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/mcclellan-candid-unprecedented/), right after the pre-release book announcement was first made in November. I think my photoshoped cartoon bubble dove-tails nicely with your Goering comparison.

At what point do these guys do the right thing and resign? McClellan's case gives us the sad, clear answer: only when they have been personally compromised beyond mere ethical considerations (to which, in any case, these guys seem as immune as their heinous masters). For McClellan, this meant spouting lies until Cheney and Libby's deceit resulted in McClellan's direct public emasculation.

Cheers,

MBJ

Posted by: MBJ | June 06, 2008 at 06:57 PM

Not to be too brutal, but: You were horrified, at this late date, to hear McClellan's story? I mean, did you think at the time that he was giving you the straight story? On the other hand, maybe it's good that there's still something to be horrified about.

Second, that Goering comparison is off. Goering was the commander of the German Air Force. Yes, he was a piece of work, but you're thinking of Goebbels, the propaganda chief.

The difference between the mouthpieces like McClellan and the actual policymakers and deciders is the level of hell they ought to reside at after they've breathed their last -- this is one of the few times I wish the old-school Dante-esque version of hell actually existed.

Posted by: Dan | June 08, 2008 at 08:27 PM