Armstrong Strong Arms

washingtonpost.com 
Firms Fear Backlash From Williams Case
Public Relations Industry Takes Offensive To Protect Lucrative Federal Contracts

By Christopher Lee and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 18, 2005; Page A15

PR firms have nothing to fear but fear itself. Or so they hope.  The Armstrong Williams “case” is more than a potential headache for the public relations industry. It’s a can of worms that won’t go away.  Although it’s quite possible that everything you know is wrong.

Public relations firms that are paid millions of dollars a year by the federal government to promote programs and policies are worried the money might dry up because of the Armstrong Williams flap at the Department of Education.

Worried?  Panic is a better word for what’s surging through the PR industry.  Government contracts are the anchor of a notoriously fickle business.  PR and ad agencies get fired almost as often as radio hosts and athletic coaches – but government contracts are a shelter in the storm. 

A deluge of government business in recent years has helped make Washington a growing market for public relations firms. To protect that market, PR executives are voicing their objections to that kind of deal, in which the commentator was paid to tout Bush administration education policy in television and radio appearances.

“In recent years,” in past years and in future years, as noted above.  How many PR agencies does it take to fill out a RFP?   Every last one of them.

Judith T. Phair, chief executive of the Public Relations Society of America, said in a statement that her organization "strongly objects to any paid endorsement that is presented as objective news coverage and is not fully disclosed. Such practices are clearly contrary to the PRSA Member Code of Ethics."

There’s many a slip ‘twixt the jaw and the law.  What constitutes a “paid endorsement” to most people might be Standard Operating Procedure to a PR person. Prepare yourself to be shocked:  news outlets frequently pursue stories that began with a news release paid for by a professional interest.  Sometimes, even, footage from a “video news release” is aired under the guise of home-grown coverage.  Or a soundbite you hear on the radio from a politician might have been “placed” with a news service.

I wonder if  Judith is related to Liz?

Louis Capozzi, chief executive of Manning Selvage & Lee, said federal contracts "are an important part of our firm's business and an important part of most large public relations firm's businesses. There are a lot of multimillion-dollar contracts out there."

A "lot" of contracts?  There is a lot of blue in the sky and also a big yellow ball. Here we see a classic example of formula journalism – get an “expert” to restate what the reporter is writing, to lend credibility and authenticity.  I’m not saying this is wrong, but maybe a little lazy.

PR shops have federal contracts to promote some of the government's most familiar programs. Manning Selvage & Lee, a New York-based unit of Publicis Group, for instance, is paid for a nationwide program that encourages preteens to become physically active and to help recruit soldiers for the U.S. Army and Army Reserve.

I’m assuming this graf was included to acknowledge that MS&L has a vested interest in this story.  Government contracts are like, um, opinions. Everyone has them.

PR executives do not want to see those government dollars disappear. And they should not, they argue, because two industry ethics codes forbid paying journalists to advocate a point of view on news programs. They say such infractions are rare.

Ethics codes?  We don’t need no stinking ethics codes. While it’s true that every PR agency would discourage a client from trying to get a commercial endorsement from, say, Peter Jennings, that is not what the Armstrong Williams case is about. Paying a news reporter to take a position is wrong.  Buying ad time on a pundit's show and then expecting a little bit more for your investment is considered a gray area.

That is the sort of deal that the Education Department, through a contract with Ketchum Inc., had with Williams, a conservative black commentator who is a frequent guest on CNN and has his own syndicated radio show.

Right – he’s a commentator.  By definition, he has strongly held views.  But this doesn’t let him off the hook.

Williams was paid $240,000 to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law and did not disclose the contract when talking about the law during cable television appearances or writing about it in his newspaper column. He has acknowledged "bad judgment" but has declined to return the money.

Pardon my “bad judgment” Mrs. Lincoln, said Booth.  Pardon mine too, said Martha.  And me to-Oh, thanks, Gerry.

"The idea of paying a journalist to make a statement for a client is misleading at best, if not downright deceptive," said Stanley Collender, general manager of Financial Dynamics in the District. "I wouldn't do it."

Somebody google this guy.  He’s had a bunch of different jobs in and out of government and is almost as quotable as the King.  Notice his expert application of the “Hail Me” pass in which the source’s lofty and quotable pronouncement just happens to cover themselves in glory. “I wouldn’t do it” he says.  But insert the word “for” between “paying” and “ a journalist” and see if he denies that one.  If a news release, press conference or three martini lunch brings about a story, is that deception? 

"Our business is much more ethical than that," Capozzi said. "I'd hate to see our profession tarred by this brush."

Good quote – “our” “ethical” business shouldn’t be “tarred.”  On one side, the warm, friendly PR profession, on the other, vicious liars.

Already, however, the industry is caught in the sort of political firestorm that one of its member firms might typically help a client in crisis deal with.

Cute.  That was just a moment of levity, I guess.  Or irony.

The Williams controversy was magnified by earlier revelations that the Education Department had paid Ketchum to rate journalists on how positively or negatively they reported on No Child Left Behind and to produce a video news release on the law that was used by some TV stations as if it were real news.

OK, now we’re rolling.  Here is the part I’d underline on the blackboard. 

It’s almost impossible to measure the effect of public relations.  You can “count clips,” conduct endless focus groups or rate coverage by journalist or media outlet, but none of that can truly measure shifts in attitudes, habits or consciousness.  The big picture is still dependent on intuition, instinct and luck.

As for video news releases (VNRs) consider this.  Unless you live in New York or Los Angeles, the odds are that when a  Hollywood star appears on the local news in an “interview” with the station’s reviewer, odds are the footage was paid for by a studio.  Politicians, corporations and charities do the same thing.  Are you shocked?

Other government agencies, including the Census Bureau, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Department of Health and Human Services, have distributed such prepackaged videos, a practice that congressional auditors have described as illegal propaganda in some cases.

Here’s one of the personal experiences I’ve had with this issue.  You tell me if it was unethical, I can take it.

My father was a PR consultant who was hired to pave the way for the introduction of the first smoking cessation method using nicotine replacement –Nicorette, the nicotine gum.  Big tobacco got scared when we started publishing a smoking cessation newsletter for health professionals, among other actions.

A drug company’s money helped fund a global conference on nicotine replacement therapy, which at the time was unknown here.  Government researchers and health policy makers attended.  No product name was mentioned, just science.  VNRs were prepared that promoted the idea of working with a doctor to help quit smoking. Stations ran them as news.  Newspapers ran press releases as articles, with only a few words changed. 

Were we guilty of “illegal propaganda?”  If so, take a good luck at your newspaper today.  You can find the touch of pros like me in just about every story.  Ask yourself, who is benefiting from this article? Who is quoted, who supplied the architecture of this narrative.  Here’s a reform for papers trying to sell their internet editions:  promise full disclosure to your readers by posting the press releases that informed a story alongside  the text.

The news about the Williams deal, coming on top of the other incidents, triggered a slew of accusations and investigations last week. Michael K. Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, ordered an investigation Friday into whether Williams broke laws against payola by not disclosing the contract in his broadcast appearances.

Powell waited too long before he took action.  First rule of scandal – get the truth out, get it out early, and get it out yourself. The reference to payola could be a mark of the standard this affront will be asked to meet – the famous pay for play radio scandals of the 1950s.

Two Senate Democrats, Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon, asked the Government Accountability Office Friday to determine whether the Williams contract violated a ban on the use of government money for propaganda, and whether other agencies had struck similar deals with journalists, commentators or talk-show hosts.

Does anyone remember back when the Government Accountability Office was called the General Accounting Office? I’m sure someone did a focus group, someone else crunched some numbers, and with much fanfare the proposition was put forth that Americans like “accountability” more than they liked accountants.

Their request followed one Tuesday by seven House Democrats, who asked Comptroller General David M. Walker to examine all federal departments' contracts with PR firms and media organizations, including an assessment of whether they violate the propaganda ban.

"The federal use of covert propaganda is unethical, damaging to our democracy and open society, and, as you know, illegal," wrote the lawmakers, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). ". . . [I]t would be abhorrent to our system of government if these incidents were part of a pattern of covert propaganda funded with taxpayer dollars."

I happen to like the word, “propaganda.”  I define it as targeted communication to influence behavior.  The target could be negative (hate your neighbor) or positive (love your neighbor, or at least vote for him).  Covert propaganda is another word for advertising.

A Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday asked Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige to turn over records concerning the payments to Williams. The panel also asked for information about any similar arrangements between 2002 and 2004. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said that he plans to introduce legislation requiring federal agencies to report their advertising spending to Congress and to disclose their role in producing ads.

Democrats in Congress can do little more these days than hold hearings, demand investigations and stir up sound and fury destined to signify not very much under Republican rule.

Senator Harkin is one of my favorite Democrats, but if he thinks ad agencies can’t hide waste, fraud and abuse in a simple budget he perhaps thinks McDonald’s is popular because of its food.

Paige defended the contract as a standard "outreach effort" to minority groups, maintaining that the money "went exclusively" to the production of advertisements. He said the department's inspector general would investigate the matter.

That’s what it said on the budget – “outreach.”  Readers are invited to submit their favorite budget euphemisms for questionable expenditures. “Travel” and “Administrative” are too obvious to be accepted by the judges.

Despite the recent flaps over Williams and prepackaged videos, other federal contracts with PR firms are more typical, agency officials and industry executives said.

PR firms have been paid to push the introduction of the "golden dollar," to urge teenagers not to use illicit drugs, and make the public feel comfortable with the country's new, colored currency.

The “golden dollar?”  Did I miss something?  Are we talking William Jennings Bryan here?  Or is this just another iteration of the earlier theme that PR is OK.  Never mind a few bad apples, or strong-arming techniques, you can trust the people who are lying to you.

Government agencies have also turned to the PR industry to help manage crises, such as when the U.S. Postal Service hired Burson-Marsteller in 2001 to help deal with a crush of media calls in the aftermath of the anthrax attacks. Five postal staffers had been fielding as many as 400 calls a day, said Gerry McKiernan, a postal spokesman.

Anthrax?  Are we saying now it’s unpatriotic to question Uncle Sam’s need for a helping hand from the hidden hand?

"Exhaustion begins to set in, and there was a need for someone outside of our immediate sphere to be helping us with strategic thinking," McKiernan said. "When should we have that press briefing? Is the information we're giving out being received? Do we need more detail? We needed someone . . . to just give us some guidance."

No, what you need is someone to blame when your boss says, “whose dumb idea was that?”  An expert is someone to take the fall.

Ketchum, the firm at the center of the Williams storm, announced last week it had begun a review of its federal contracts and has retained an outside firm to recommend ways to increase the transparency of those contracts. A company spokeswoman declined further comment, referring questions to the Education Department.

A classic defense.  Appoint a respected commission or auditor (George Mitchell, Paul Volcker, God) and make sure they take a good long time to make their recommendations. 

Media organizations and advocacy groups have launched their own reviews. They have filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests with federal agencies seeking information about their contracts with Ketchum and other PR firms.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that has filed FOIA requests with 22 agencies, said it is unlikely that the Williams deal was the only one of its kind.

"If the government wants to tell us something, then the government should just tell us," Sloan said. "They can't pretend that . . . some objective third party is telling us something. Because, in fact, it's the government, and that's propaganda."

Propaganda?  Or public relations?  Armstrong Williams may be a fool, but his greed shouldn’t put a stop to government using professional public relations services.  Deceit is a no-no, but I say yes to honest communication.  Mark Twain said it best:  “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”