Mark Borkowski - Defending the public against the boogeyman...while being one himself?
Before I even begin this post, I have to shamefully admit I had never heard the name Mark Borkowski until every recently (am I the only one?) but his name often seems to come up in discussions of public relations. So, coming upon his blog and learning a bit more about him, I admit to a bit of skepticism. I like everything he has to say, I think he makes very valid points in his condemnation of spin, celebrity culture and the machinations of certain people within public relations. However, being in the industry himself (and quite successfully), he seems to me like someone who is very good at maintaining his own reputation by condeming others. Is he the savior of the industry? Or a boogeyman in disguise? Can someone within an industry, reform it? I'm not sure. But I suppose it could be a start. Someone within the industry willingly taking a probing look at what goes on in it is an important step to improving the view of public relations. The fact that it benefits not only the industry, but Mark Borkowski himself may just have to be part of the deal.

"Thank You for Smoking"
Has anybody seen this film? I watched it for the first time just a few weeks ago and Aaron Eckhart's character, Nick Naylor, has become my hero. His character may not have what most believe to be the best ethics or morals, but he is brilliant and his ability to argue his case is awe-inspiring. He is certainly the boogeyman that enters your home and leaves a pack of cigarettes on your nightstand but nonetheless you have to respect the man's intellect. The tobacco industry is a tough sell in the age of anti-smoking laws but Nick's twisted logic and ability to turn an argument around does give even the staunchest anti-smokers (like myself) pause. Perhaps part of what makes the public relations boogeyman so frightening is because he is so clever. That intrinsic (although some would argue learned) skill of being able to think on your feet and have an answer to everything makes the public relations boogeyman a wily foe. The only way to defeat him is to outsmart him...a difficult challenge indeed....

The "dark side"?
Is public relations the dark side? Does that make journalism the light side?
In an article in The Guardian entitled "The Pulling Power of the 'Dark Side,'" (http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1996281,00.html) David McCormack writes that promising journalism students, and well renowned journalists are being wooed away from the once shining glory of the newspaper industry and entering the field of public relations. Although it is clear from the tone of the article that McCormack does not really believe that public relations is an evil and corrupt dark art, but rather a more lucrative field than journalism, titles like this only add to the pervading view of the PR industry. The perceived struggle between journalism and public relations is also part of the reason that our industry often gets the short end of the stick. For, if journalists are the muckrakers trying to clean up society by exposing hidden truths and corruption, than public relations officers must be the obstacles on their path, trying to throw a wrench in the works by giving journalists misleading information and trying to spin stories. The key to dispelling this myth is by revealing how journalists and PRO's work together to create stories, that the relationship between these two field, although rocky at times, is an interdependent one where they rely upon each other to accomplish their goals.

Are public relations officers who work in the not-for-profit sector the antithesis of the PR boogeyman?
NGO's like Greenpeace, Amnesty International and many many others are viewed by the general public as always being the good guys, the small but determined and valiant David in the David and Goliath story. It is also generally believed that those employed in the not-for-profit sector have more lofty goals than those working in big business, surely they must considering their relatively meager salaries. Perhaps this is why, despite all the scrutiny that the public relations field undergoes, those working for NGO's are rarely, if ever, targeted for scrutiny. Yet, the public relations tactics employed by the not-for-profit sector are no different than those used by big business. If anything, they may be deemed more manipulative because the aim of such organizations is generally to tug at the heart strings of individuals. So, although they are not reviled like many in public relations are but, rather, are seen as heroes, they are engaged in the same work, using the same means and hoping for the same outcomes.

So what's the solution? How do we banish the bogeyman? Or more precisely, the notion of public relations officers as bogeymen?

The only remedy is through a stronger foundation of ethical standards. Rules need to be set in place for the practice of public relations and those who break them need to be punished. Although some regulations exist, such as those created by the CIPR and PRSA, those who are members and break the rules rarely see any consequences from it. Without consequences that set an example for others to follow, rules serve no purpose. The honor system is far too idealistic to function in our contemporary society.

However, although the reputation of people working in public relations can improve with stronger guidelines, the actions of people in power will always be viewed under a microscope and are subject to quick judgments and misjudments. When it comes to those working for high-powered companies or individuals, the public will always be quick to be label them villains and monsters.

As a certain professor is always telling us, you can show someone any number of white swans but you can't convince them that all swans are white but if you show them one black swan, they will be convinced that not all swans are white . . .
Did I get that right . . . ?
Because it certainly proves true in the case of the public relations bogeyman. There are plenty of people who work in the field of public relations who are not only good at their jobs, but conduct themselves in an exemplary manner, individuals whose professional ethics cannot be questioned. But those people do not make the headlines, their pictures do not (dis) grace the cover of newspapers, their actions not the subject of blog posts. There are only three things the media outlets are interested in covering and that is celebrities, villains and heroes, respectively. And heroes fall far behind the other two in terms of the interest they generate.

Part of the reason for the growing sense of cynicism among the public when it comes to public relations is the new awareness individuals have gained through the rise of new media.
The focus of public relations is to indirectly spread a particular story, product or point of view. The original source, a public relations officer, is supposed to remain a secret; rather a third party addresses the issue and advances the view you want disseminated .
With the emergence of blogs and all sorts of information being made available on the web, not only can information that was not disclosed publicly be discovered but news of its discovery can spread faster than you can say “public relations nightmare.”
So should public relations people fear the educated consumer? Are we enemies?
We do not have to be. If you act according to ethical and professional standards, than no undisclosed information can harm you. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who do conduct themselves unethically and when they're actions our revealed, the entire professions suffers.