Being inclusive about PR ethics

Posted on September 15, 2011 at 8:11 am UK

One of the great things about the Ethics Awareness Month initiative from the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is that it helps focus clear attention on a core issue in the profession that, in many people’s minds, needs that attention.

It doesn’t matter a bit that the PRSA’s initiative happens to be organized by the professional body that represents practitioners in the USA. To give full credit to them (as well as recognize some good common sense at work), it’s very open – anyone with a point of view and some good ideas on ethics can contribute no matter where they are and whether they’re a member of the PRSA (or any other body) or not.

One feature of the initiative is the weekly tweet chat anyone can participate in around the hashtag #prethics. I took part in the first one on September 6 organized jointly by PRSA and the CIPR in the UK. It was a great discussion.

I wrote about it and the copy of my post that was syndicated in the CIPR’s The Conversation blog attracted some discussion in the comments.

Discussion on this topic is terrific, just what we need to have wherever it takes place. I hope the exchanges of views to my post contribute to some measurable course of action on this topic.

Yet it seems to me that there’s a risk of slipping into a cul-de-sac over territorial rights, being side-tracked by a debate about which professional body should lead the charge on the ethics debate.

That’s the least relevant matter, in my view. I don’t care who leads any charge as long as this important issue is on the agenda and that a clear course of action emerges. Heck, I’m not a PRSA member nor a CIPR one yet I find the debate wholly relevant to my practice as a communicator and I engage in discussion with peers who are members of these associations as well as others like CPRS in Canada. PR is just one part of my professional communication activity, one reason why the IABC is my professional association of choice for more than 20 years.

What I’d like to see is our lightbulb moment on ethics in the profession – where anyone, anywhere, is part of the discussion – not a discussion about how many PR organizations does it take to change the lightbulb.

If you have an opinion, why not chime in? Here, there or anywhere you feel like. Just connect your comments to the #prethics hashtag.

Related post:

So what will you do for ethics in PR? at The CIPR Conversation

A tipping point sets a milestone for mainstream media evolution

Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm UK

I’ve been reading through the News of The World today. It’s the first time I’ve ever bought this newspaper – and the last time, too, as this was its last edition.

The closure that concludes 168 years of newspaper publishing is a sorry end to a popular tabloid that consistently served up the type of fare that captured the attention of 7.5 million Britons every Sunday.

At its peak in recent years, it claimed to enjoy the world’s biggest readership for an English-language newspaper, a view supported by circulation and readership figures for 2010.

The demise of the News of The World (NoTW) came about as a consequence of the phone hacking scandal which has dominated the news in the UK, in the mainstream and the social spaces, every day for the past few weeks and looks set to continue dominating in the coming weeks as events continue developing.

It’s a story with a compelling cast of characters that include the paper’s ultimate owner, News Corporation; the head of that company, Rupert Murdoch, and his ambitions to acquire a golden media prize in the form of pay-TV satellite broadcaster BSkyB; the CEO of the operating company that owns NoTW, Rebekah Brooks (and one-time editor of the paper); the 200 or so so employees who lose their jobs; some officers in the Metropolitan Police who, it’s alleged, enjoyed loadsa money bunged their way by NoTW journalists; the government and Prime Ministers past and present and their cosiness with News Corp and its executives; and the tipping point that led to the paper’s closure – the private citizens whose voicemail accounts were illegally hacked into, their messages listened to and, in some cases, allegedly deleted.

It’s precisely the kind of story that the News of The World would relish in publishing.

But that’s not to be. You can get a sense of the paper, as I did from leafing through it, with a slideshow of photos that I took today.

(If you don’t see the slideshow embedded here, view it at Flickr.)

So while stories swirl about what it all means and what’s next, opinions and commentary abound and conspiracy theories magnify, I look at my print copy of the News of The World and wonder what can fill the vacuum it leaves.

Maybe something that’s not the obvious, eg, another printed newspaper. Maybe not only another printed newspaper.

My own feeling is that the demise of the NoTW is one further milestone on the evolutionary road to a media landscape that will truly be a hybrid, with content produced by professional journalists combined symbiotically with that of so-called citizen journalists. That means people like me and possibly you – we’re not journalists but we report, we write commentary and opinion, and we’re published, mostly online.

Frameworks are already here. Now things move faster. You can see it coming.

(My podcasting partner Shel Holtz and I discuss at some length our views about this still-developing story in the latest episode of our weekly business podcast which we recorded today. Do take a listen when it’s published tomorrow, July 11, and share your thoughts.)

Related posts:

On the death of a mainstream medium

Posted on July 7, 2011 at 6:06 pm UK

It’s an astonishing end to a newspaper that published its first edition in 1843 and grew to become the biggest-circulation English-language weekly newspaper in the world, with a readership averaging close to 7.5 million in 2010.

That newspaper is the News of The World (NoTW). After 168 years of publishing, this Sunday, July 10, is the day when the last edition will be printed and then the paper will be closed.

Part of Rupert Murdoch‘s News International since 1969 (which owns, among other media, Times Group and The Sun in the UK and Dow Jones and Fox News Channel in the USA), the NoTW has been embroiled in a huge and unsavoury scandal that began with the illegal access of the telephone records and voicemails of members of the royal family and celebrities and, in recent years, ordinary people (what everyone is calling “phone hacking”); and, relatedly, bribing officers of the Metropolitan Police. All of this goes back to the early part of this century.

If you just Google the phrase “phone hacking scandal news of the world“, you’ll find an enormous amount of reporting along with commentary and opinion of every political hue, much of it over the past week in particular united in its clear sense of disgust and outrage. One good detailed account of the unfolding scandal is “News of the World phone hacking affair” on Wikipedia.

In recent days, the scandal has grown epicly as revelations seemed to come daily of yet more outrageous allegations. British blue-chip companies who spend millions advertising in NoTW suddenly began backing away and pulling their ads. Questions were being asked in Parliament and people were becoming ever more vocal in their demands that heads must roll at News International.

With Rupert Murdoch publicly backing the News International leadership led by its CEO Rebekah Brooks (who was editor of NoTW during part of the scandal-hit period), you had to wonder what would happen next. The scandal was continuing to grow – it had clearly become a full-blown crisis affecting the reputation of other News International titles in the UK in the minds of advertisers (if not the readers) and the entire Murdoch empire, with additional speculation that the scandal would likely impact Murdoch’s plans to acquire the entirety of BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster.

And so, the bombshell news came. Here is the text of the internal announcement (published all over the public media) made to NoTW employees by James Murdoch today:

I have important things to say about the News of the World and the steps we are taking to address the very serious problems that have occurred.

It is only right that you as colleagues at News International are first to hear what I have to say and that you hear it directly from me. So thank you very much for coming here and listening.

You do not need to be told that The News of the World is 168 years old. That it is read by more people than any other English language newspaper. That it has enjoyed support from Britain’s largest advertisers. And that it has a proud history of fighting crime, exposing wrong-doing and regularly setting the news agenda for the nation.

When I tell people why I am proud to be part of News Corporation, I say that our commitment to journalism and a free press is one of the things that sets us apart. Your work is a credit to this.

The good things the News of the World does, however, have been sullied by behaviour that was wrong. Indeed, if recent allegations are true, it was inhuman and has no place in our Company.

The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed when it came to itself.

In 2006, the police focused their investigations on two men. Both went to jail. But the News of the World and News International failed to get to the bottom of repeated wrongdoing that occurred without conscience or legitimate purpose.

Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued.

As a result, the News of the World and News International wrongly maintained that these issues were confined to one reporter. We now have voluntarily given evidence to the police that I believe will prove that this was untrue and those who acted wrongly will have to face the consequences.

This was not the only fault.

The paper made statements to Parliament without being in the full possession of the facts. This was wrong. The Company paid out-of-court settlements approved by me. I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so. This was wrong and is a matter of serious regret.

Currently, there are two major and ongoing police investigations. We are cooperating fully and actively with both. You know that it was News International who voluntarily brought evidence that led to opening Operation Weeting and Operation Elveden. This full cooperation will continue until the Police’s work is done.

We have also admitted liability in civil cases. Already, we have settled a number of prominent cases and set up a Compensation Scheme, with cases to be adjudicated by former High Court judge Sir Charles Gray. Apologising and making amends is the right thing to do.

Inside the Company, we set up a Management and Standards Committee that is working on these issues and that has hired Olswang to examine past failings and recommend systems and practices that over time should become standards for the industry. We have committed to publishing Olswang’s terms of reference and eventual recommendations in a way that is open and transparent.

We have welcomed broad public inquiries into press standards and police practices and will cooperate with them fully.

So, just as I acknowledge we have made mistakes, I hope you and everyone inside and outside the Company will acknowledge that we are doing our utmost to fix them, atone for them, and make sure they never happen again.

Having consulted senior colleagues, I have decided that we must take further decisive action with respect to the paper.

This Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World. Colin Myler will edit the final edition of the paper.

In addition, I have decided that all of the News of the World’s revenue this weekend will go to good causes.

While we may never be able to make up for distress that has been caused, the right thing to do is for every penny of the circulation revenue we receive this weekend to go to organisations – many of whom are long-term friends and partners – that improve life in Britain and are devoted to treating others with dignity.

We will run no commercial advertisements this weekend. Any advertising space in this last edition will be donated to causes and charities that wish to expose their good works to our millions of readers.

These are strong measures. They are made humbly and out of respect. I am convinced they are the right thing to do.

Many of you, if not the vast majority of you, are either new to the Company or have had no connection to the News of the World during the years when egregious behaviour occurred.

I can understand how unfair these decisions may feel. Particularly, for colleagues who will leave the Company. Of course, we will communicate next steps in detail and begin appropriate consultations.

You may see these changes as a price loyal staff at the News of the World are paying for the transgressions of others. So please hear me when I say that your good work is a credit to journalism. I do not want the legitimacy of what you do to be compromised by acts of others. I want all journalism at News International to be beyond reproach. I insist that this organisation lives up to the standard of behaviour we expect of others. And, finally, I want you all to know that it is critical that the integrity of every journalist who has played fairly is restored.

Thank you for listening.

While the announcement late afternoon today of the closure of the NoTW comes as quite a shock, it’s actually a good and just decision. I believe it demonstrates quite clearly that the owners of the NoTW are listening to what people are saying and taking serious note of highly critical and exceptionally angry public opinion and sentiment, and acting in a decisive manner that directly addresses and responds to those concerns.

I’m not suggesting for a minute that this means things have come to a nice conclusion. On the contrary, police investigations continue and no doubt criminal charges will eventually be brought as and when individuals are identified who, it will be alleged, committed criminal acts. I would image civil lawsuits will be in there somewhere as well.

Cynics might say that this closure is a stunt to enable News International to continue NoTW under a different guise, maybe “The Sunday Sun” (keep an eye on the website www.sundaysun.co.uk, apparently registered just a couple of days ago). I hope not.

What effect will this have on other mainstream media especially print, in the eyes and minds of the great British public, aka newspaper readers, not to mention advertisers? Will we look on this as a milestone that dealt a severe blow to traditional printed newspapers and trust in journalism, and the opening of a new chapter – an increase in online content and readership – maybe accelerated by the arrival of a new disruptor such as The Huffington Post UK which started publishing yesterday (and let me disclose: I am a blogger for the HuffPost UK).

What a mess and an ignominious end to a newspaper with quite a history. Whatever you think of the paper itself, it was part of the fabric of the history of British journalism and newspaper publishing, done to death by bad people.

PCC seeks to regulate press Twitter feeds

Posted on May 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm UK

The Guardian’s report on plans by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the UK’s mainstream print-media regulator, to include tweets made by journalists in its regulatory remit shouldn’t be a surprise to any observer of the contemporary and rapidly-evolving media landscape.

As the Guardian reports, the PCC thinks some tweets by journalists would be considered as part of a newspaper’s editorial content and, therefore, subject to existing regulation covering such content. It wants media companies to differentiate a reporter’s "official" tweets and those that are personal comments, and develop policies to help everyone understand what the rules are when using social channels like Twitter

It’s a good idea if it helps to make clear what is editorial and reporting and what is personal opinion. The best example I know of a media organization setting out such policies is the BBC with its comprehensive and continuously-evolving Editorial Guidelines website, which includes specific guidance for journalists (and others, such as editors and programme producers) on usage of Twitter.

For example, in the section on Social Networking, Microblogs and other Third Party Websites: BBC Use:

[...] You may wish to consider forwarding or "retweeting" a selection of a person’s microblog entries/posts or "tweets". This is very unlikely to be a problem when you are "retweeting" a colleague’s BBC "tweet" or a BBC headline. But in some cases, you will need to consider the risk that "retweeting" of third party content by the BBC may appear to be an endorsement of the original author’s point of view.

It may not be enough to write on your BBC microblog’s biography page that "retweeting" does not signify endorsement, particularly if the views expressed are about politics or a matter of controversial public policy. Instead you should consider adding your own comment to the "tweet" you have selected, making it clear why you are forwarding it and where you are speaking in your own voice and where you are quoting someone else’s.

The BBC also has a specific policy on personal use of social networking and other third party websites including blogs, microblogs and personal web-space. As the Guardian notes in its report, journalists like the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones already maintain multiple accounts in an effort to preserve professional and personal distinctions.

Whatever type of organization you are, media or otherwise, developing clear policies and guidelines about employee use of social tools like Twitter, then communicating them to your employees and helping them understand the rules of the game, make good business sense.

And a good place to get inspired for your organization is to take a look at the BBC’s example.

(The Guardian’s report below is published with their permission via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.)

This article titled “PCC seeks to regulate press Twitter feeds” was written by Dan Sabbagh, for guardian.co.uk on Friday 6th May 2011 14.14 Europe/London

Reporter and newspaper Twitter feeds are expected to brought under the regulation of the Press Complaints Commission later this year, the first time the body has sought to consolidate social media messages under its remit.

The PCC believes that some postings on Twitter are, in effect part of a “newspaper’s editorial product”, writings that its code of practice would otherwise cover if the same text appeared in print or on a newspaper website.

A change in the code would circumvent a loophole that – in theory – means that there is no form of redress via the PCC if somebody wanted to complain about an alleged inaccuracy in a statement that was tweeted. Last year the PCC found it was unable to rule in a complaint made against tweets published by the Brighton Argus.

Its plan, though, is to distinguish between journalists’ public and private tweets. Any Twitter feed that has the name of the newspaper and is clearly an official feed – such as @telegraphnews or @thesun_bizarre – will almost certainly be regulated.

However, that principle could be further extended to cover a reporter’s “official” work account, whilst leaving personal accounts that discuss conversations over breakfast and weekend exploits as outside its ambit. Some journalists – such as the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones – already maintain multiple accounts in an effort to preserve professional and personal distinctions.

The PCC wants each newspaper to develop a “Twitter policy”, to tell its reporters which accounts are considered part of its editorial product and which are not. But with many newspapers, including the Guardian, republishing tweets on their site, many journalist musings are likely to be drawn in.

An online working group of the PCC has already recommended that the body undertake a “remit extension”, the formal mechanism by which the self-regulatory body takes on a new area of responsibility, after consulting with the newspaper industry as to how Twitter regulation can be implemented. That consultation is due to finish in the summer and the new rules are likely to be in place by the end of the year.

Publication on Twitter is already subject to libel laws and court orders – the internet, of course, does not exist in a legal vacuum. Last week, for example, journalists at the Guardian were reminded that tweets that hinted at the identity of individuals covered by injunctions would be a breach of the injunction itself.

In February the PCC ruled that information posted on Twitter should be considered public and publishable by newspapers after it cleared the Daily Mail and Independent on Sunday of breaching privacy guidelines.

Both newspapers had reported on tweets posted by Sarah Baskerville, a Department for Transport employee, in November last year. Baskerville, who had around 700 Twitter followers at the time, described a course leader as “mental” and posted links to tweets attacking government “spin” and Whitehall waste.

Baskerville complained to the press regulator, arguing that she could have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy and that the reporting was misleading. The Daily Mail and Independent on Sunday argued that the messages were public and could be read by anyone.

The PCC decided in favour of the newspapers, in what is the regulator’s first ruling on the republication of information posted on Twitter.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

The role of media in the WikiLeaks revelations

Posted on November 29, 2010 at 6:44 am UK

Among the many news events vying for our attention in today’s media – mainstream and social – arguably the revelations from WikiLeaks about confidential communications between US embassies around the world and Washington will capture a majority of that attention in many countries.

You can read all about it – just Google for wikileaks cables: that will get you thousands of results.

Another aspect of it presents an intriguing question – what is the role of the mainstream media (especially but not exclusively) in protecting government information and responsible publishing? I can’t comment on what the answer might be from three of the media organizations who have received material for publishing – New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais – but the fifth, The Guardian in the UK, has presented its own commentary on this subject.

The Guardian says it is for governments not journalists to guard public secrets, and there is no national jeopardy in WikiLeaks’ revelations:

[...] Is it justified? Should a newspaper disclose virtually all a nation’s secret diplomatic communication, illegally downloaded by one of its citizens? The reporting in the Guardian of the first of a selection of 250,000 US state department cables marks a recasting of modern diplomacy. Clearly, there is no longer such a thing as a safe electronic archive, whatever computing’s snake-oil salesmen claim. No organisation can treat digitised communication as confidential. An electronic secret is a contradiction in terms.

Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be “world policeman” â€“ an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables â€“ that interest is global. Nonetheless, the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces. [...]

Well argued and I largely agree although I have some discomfort with the word “anything” in the phrase “Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest.” Anything? Doubtful.

What’s your take on the role of the mainstream media in all of this ? Responsibility? Read the Guardian’s full report for more on their justifications.

Meanwhile sit back and await more revelations via WikiLeaks in the coming days. And see how governments – especially the US – handle this huge crisis in relationships.

[Update] The Guardian has published thisÂ video in which they explain theÂ significanceÂ of the leaked information and its consequences.