The U.S. government should embrace PR, rather than castigate it. Here is what PRSA chief Gerry Corbett should tell the Senate.
Sen. McCaskill, Sen. Portman, distinguished representatives of the Senate Subcommittee, my name is Gerard Corbett, chairman and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America.
It is my honor to represent the public relations industry today to explain to the subcommittee the benefits and value that communication professionals provide in keeping the public informed about relevant matters of public interest.
Rather than adopting a hostile or argumentative tone – suggesting, for example, that this inquiry is the result of electioneering to confront an industry deemed to have too much influence – I will attempt today to lay out, in dispassionate and constructive language, why the actions of communicators serve an indisputable societal purpose.
First, let me acknowledge that the relationship between government and the public relations business has traditionally been a sensitive one. The term “public relations” itself is barred from use by government agencies. This traces back to the Gillette Amendment of 1913, when the Congress, worried about unlimited presidential power, deemed it illegal for government to use appropriated funds “to pay a publicity expert.”
The law was stiffened several years later, and today no government worker may be employed in the “practice of public relations.”
In reality, of course, this is hypocrisy. In point of fact, the government employs thousands of communicators – dubbed public information specialists, public affairs professionals, and a variety of other names – all performing some manner of public relations activities. Your own congressional and political staffs, of course, are packed with individuals serving in public relations roles – authoring and disseminating news releases, engaging social media, promoting events, drafting speeches, etc.
Indeed, the hypocrisy attached to government banning the term “public relations,” while so many government workers engage in its practice would constitute a worthwhile hearing topic in itself. But that is an issue for another day.
Today, we are engaged in examining the merits of hiring public relations for government projects. And “merits,” there are.
- First, our primary role in public relations is as “interpreters.” Our job is to explain – in common language – the meaning and intent and rationale of an initiative.
In the case of the government, public relations representatives are hired to “translate,” if you will, the legal language of legislation into words and ideas that ordinary citizens can understand and assess; in other words, to give the legislation clarity and context.
In that context, Fox News last week quoted an “anonymous aide to Sen. Portman,” who said this investigation would “probe the administration’s use of taxpayer-funded spin” on such areas as healthcare reform. Notwithstanding what I’m certain was an unintentional and unauthorized attempt to politicize this noble process --- there are areas such as healthcare reform are precisely why public relations interpreters are needed.
As you all know, the healthcare bill itself was a 1,200-page piece of legislation that most members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House at the time, admitted they didn’t even read. Now if the Congress which passed the legislation didn’t read it, certainly the American people deserve some interpretation – not to mention, demystification -- of what, exactly, is in this bill that, if sustained, will control an important aspect of their lives for years to come.
Public relations people will provide that interpretation.
- Second, we, in public relations, focus on explaining the “why” of an issue.
Why this government initiative at this time?
Why does this make sense?
Why should the country go down this road?
Why will this law be our long-term best interests?
The “why” is a question that Americans beg to be answered but that often gets lost in the endless posturing and finger-pointing that sadly colors much of our public debate.
Healthcare reform, on which the nation, according to most polls, is split right down the middle – is a good example of a law where people need to know “why” it is the right legislation at the right time.
- Third, hiring public relations intermediaries ensures “disclosure.”
Public relations practitioners are, at base, professional communicators. We are biased toward communicating; toward disclosing information, rather than withholding it.
With respect, such an inclination to share information and make it public is precisely what our government needs to refortify its standing with the American public. I need not tell remind this informed group that the “credibility” of our Congress has never been more at issue. Democrat and Republican opinion polls may not agree on much, but they all reveal that the state of Washington politicians in the eyes of the public has never been lower.
What is needed to restore credibility is disclosure, transparency, open and honest communication; in short, exactly what we seek to provide as public relations professionals.
Finally, distinguished members, we have no illusions that public relations counsel presents a panacea for government. Our industry has, itself, been embarrassed by recent revelations of unethical practices by public relations agencies representing government and business interests.
All of us make mistakes, and the public relations business is no exception. But in the main, public relations works to educate and inform, communicate clearly and transparently, and ultimately seeks to do the right thing.
Rather than castigating the practice of public relations with political witch hunts, government should embrace it.