Most of what I think of as PR “techniques” I learned from some a “media” course back in school. That course was designed to teach the students how not to get taken, and I still find it very hard to watch television of any sort because I keep catching those techniques in use. FOX News is particularly offensive in this regard, with their regular “news” broadcast triggering my alarms every few seconds at times. I don’t even have to listen – the TV where I work out is silent, and I still can’t avoid the obvious distortions using the same techniques from my class of some twenty-plus years ago..

From my perspective as a target of salesmen, “relationship management” has become a sales term of art for “keeping the customer buying” so that while I believe that I understand what you meant about real relationships, even that term has been appropriated.

Anyway – “Public Relations” and “Advertising” seem to have become inextricably intertwined in the public mind. At the same time, any time I have seen public relations practiced, it has been in the sort of disaster control that Ms. Maddow implies. When you do your job properly, you are invisible, eh?

Dave, that is not PR. Despite your beliefs (and I realize many people hold them), PR is not about obfuscation: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous and erroneous information. That’s what Maddow did.

And Dave, most of the comments you see here are from educators. We are the ones trying very hard to (a) prepare our students to say “NO” when asked do something regarded as bad practice and (b) help people like you understand that PR is not a universal term. The differing forms of practice are so broad that to use the term would be just as wrong as saying engineer in a generalized way. Then, I’d be lumping those that drive trains with those that build bridges … or even the colloquialism of engineer that means “One who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance.”

That contrivance is often seen to be one of expediancy …. something simple that skirts the rules, just to get the job done. That, of course Dave, is an effort that usually lead to the bridge falling down.

PR – when done right – is all about building solid “real” (true) relationships.

There is such a thing as context. Maddow’s rant illustrated no grasp of such context.

Your comments about, “And their CEO kept his job while being Clinton’s chief strategist? That doesn’t look good. Even Rove had to quit. Their CEO worse than Rove?” implies that Rove and Penn were similar (if not equal) in their standing while working on both campaigns/administrations (Clinton & Bush).

They were not. Rove was a political operative for George Bush. That is how he came to fame and made his living. Not so, for Penn. You really are relating two completely different circumstances/situations for each of them (Rove & Penn). Again, context. Let’s keep it in context.

Rove was solely a political animal. Burson-Marsteller’s practice has a very wide scope & depth:

Public Affairs
Corporate and Financial Communications
Advertising
Healthcare
Technology
Brand Marketing
Media Relations
Digital Media
Issues & Crisis Group
Research
Grassroots Outreach
Industry Specialties

Penn is responsible for all those practices, as CEO. Also, what Maddow did not report … B-M is actually a subsidiary of WPP Group.

Let’s get down to the real reason for Maddow’s rant. It wasn’t about B-M or AIG … it was one political commentator’s (Maddow) opinion of one political consultant (Penn) and it was all wrapped up in their own personal differences arising from the Clinton/Obama campaign. Well, that’s my opinion, at least.

Maddow wasn’t sincere in her rant re: the financial crisis, so much as she realized she had her own soapbox and wanted to use it against someone she did not like, Mark Penn.

If your client list includes some serious scum of the earth, you don’t look good.

And their CEO kept his job while being Clinton’s chief strategist? That doesn’t look good. Even Rove had to quit. Their CEO worse than Rove?

Really? Really?

Yes, I know some firms (and practitioners/consultants) will take anything, even if they can’t produce for the client.

Perhaps one of the best ways to look at this is from Andrew Cohen’s response, after being slapped down for his CBC Sunday Morning rant.

This might as easily have been addressed to Maddow, “In an academic sense, your hyperbole is inaccurate and therefore, perhaps, unfair. There are certainly ethical PR folks out there. But, like lawyers and the Fourth Estate, there have been so many bad actors who for so long have abused the public’s trust, that the hyperbole pretty accurately represents the feelings of most in the public, and is sadly not that far from the truth. The PR industry needs to take some responsibility for this state of affairs (as do lawyers and the media) and work to restore the public’s faith.” (Source)

You know, most often when I write about such a kerfuffle, the response I get is something akin to, “Robert, why do you rant so? This happens all the time. Those few bad apples … that’s the problem. Do you really think you can reduce the ignorance that abounds regarding ‘what’ PR really is and what it does?”

My response is, at least I can try. We should speak out when these incidents happen. If not for ourselves, at least think of the students that are about to embark on their careers. They are trying to come in and clean up the messes we have allowed to occur (without significant outrage) for years. As a whole, we don’t do too well as stewards of best practice profession-wide. And, we don’t respond to those that, with great glee, ’spin’ and then pretend to be journalists, lawyers or what have you.

Maddow’s rant is just another in a long line. I allow it to set me off on rants on two particular pet peeves of mine. One is about the widespread misunderstanding of what PR actually encompasses. The other is how what we grew up believing to be ‘news’ has become advocacy/commentary by previously trusted news sources.

Ultimately, I believe her entire rant was a setup for her to be able to zing Mark Penn, a person I think she doesn’t particularly like. This is yet another misuse and abuse of a protected pulpit.

MSNBC and CNBC have, of late, become more interested in saving their collective butts by turning away from news. MSNBC has become the “anti-Fox” and CNBC is just trying to do a misdirection on the real story, they (once again) missed the real story – the impending financial crisis.

Just me venting over here, Mihaela. ;o)