Ethical PR Professionals Promote Positive Reputations, Not Stage Public Muggings
Public relations is intended to build and maintain positive reputations for individuals and organizations. It’s not meant to smear reputations.
Actress Blake Lively’s legal complaint against Justin Baldoni, the director and co-star of It Ends With Us, reveals an ugly dimension of PR that is used to deflect charges of sexual harassment by assaulting Lively’s reputation.
Without taking sides in an ongoing legal dispute, it’s fair game to criticize “PR” with the sole intent of creating negative reputations. A brand marketing firm hired by Lively to analyze the impact of the PR smear campaign mounted against her concluded, “She has likely been the object of a targeted, multichannel online attack.”
Melissa Nathan, the publicist hired by Baldoni to dump on Lively, answered his email inquiry about her willingness to engage by saying, “You know we can bury anyone.” While that’s obviously true, it’s equally obvious it’s not really PR. It’s more like a public mugging.
More Than Pluffy Press Releases
PR doesn’t totally consist of fluffy press releases. Crisis communications professionals deal with tough subjects and pugnacious personalities every day. PR professionals represent good guy and not-so-good-guy clients, much like attorneys. And like attorneys, PR professionals subscribe to a code of ethics.
The Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics includes these principles: advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty and fairness. Most PR professionals view public smear campaigns as unethical and a destructive practice that can damage the target as well as the credibility of the archer.
Smear campaigns can ignite a backlash and result in legal action. Stephanie Jones, a former Baldoni publicist who was forced out after expressing concerns about Lively’s sexual harassment complaints, has filed her own lawsuit against her former boss alleging retaliation and breach of contract.
Some may dismiss all this as “just Hollywood”. Unfortunately, smear campaigns are rife in other venues such as business, politics and familial relations. They can involve name-calling, false narratives and embarrassing videos. Their common quality, if it can be called that, is attacking the reputation of somebody or some organization. The attack doesn’t have to be true. It can be inflated or invented to provoke outrage that undermines faith in a person or organization. The goal of a smear campaign is to embarrass, harass and cancel.
Smear campaigns aren’t new. They were trafficked as far back as the start of the United States. What has changed over time are the mechanics of unleashing smear campaigns. Now they thrive on digital platforms and 24-7 news channels.They benefit from eyes-closed editing or the absence of any impartial editing.
Smear tactics are designed to gain momentum and a crude form of credibility through frequent repetition. If someone sees a claim on multiple online platforms, they may assume it’s true and “like” it or reshare it..
There are laws addressing defamation (false statements intended to harm a reputation) and libel (defamation in written or pictorial form). But it takes money and specialized legal talent to pursue defamation and libel lawsuits. The rewards for plaintiffs filing defamation and libel cases can be substantial, as Donald Trump discovered in the defamation case brought against him by E. Jean Carroll. They also can result in squat and disillusion.
A common purpose of smear campaigns is to distract from the misdeeds of the smearer. “In addition to an effort to undermine someone’s character or work, smear campaigns are also tools to divert attention,” says Liberties in the European Union. “A smear campaign is launched by someone – like a government or public figure or powerful corporation – to distract public attention from whatever they are doing or trying to keep quiet.”
Psychologists tie smear campaigns to narcissists who seek to tarnish other people’s reputations to protect their own. They refer to smear campaigns as a form of “emotional abuse”. Psychologists generally advise not engaging with smear campaign perpetrators because it can inadvertently validate their claims and enact an even greater emotional toll on the target.
The bottom line is PR practitioners should simply say “No thanks” when asked to participate in a smear campaign. Public relations has enough detractors without giving more ammunition to its doubters.
Individuals and organizations have a right to defend themselves and their actions. They are on firmer ground with a legal and PR defense based on facts instead of smears. Disputes of sensitive matters can be settled in court – and the court of public opinion – without resorting to underhanded and undisciplined smear tactics.
Smearing a woman seeking redress for sexual harassment in a movie is not a worthy undertaking for credible, responsible PR professionals. In fact, it’s unprofessional and sickening. It damages an industry already struggling to preserve its own reputation.
PR integrity involves what you will do for a client – and what you won’t do. Smearing someone, like lying, should be, as it always has been, a no-no.
