September 22nd 2008
Winner & Associates’ Palin Attack And Ethics Rules
I
n today’s must-read blog post, The Jawa Report presents a compelling case that the PR firm Winner & Associates was behind this nasty hit-piece video making false claims about Sarah Palin’s supposed membership in the Alaska Independence Party:
The claims are false, and definitely were known to be false at the time the video was uploaded, Jawa says, because it was uploaded to YouTube eight days after the NY Times corrected its allegations about Palin’s membership in the AIP – and the NYT is the source quoted in the ad. Less successful are Jawa’s efforts to tie the video directly to the Obama campaign. Connections between the Winner family and firm and liberal democratic causes – including contributions to the Obama campaign – are there, and it’s clear the videos were uploaded on company time (as this post will be, BTW), but that’s not firm proof.
The ad could be a violation of FCC regulations on political advertising, since it neither says it is funded by a particular campaign, or is not funded by it – although there’s some wiggle room when it comes to what’s legal on the Internet.
Jawa traces Internet fingerprints that lead to a number of senior people at Winner, including Charles Winner, the founder, Ethan Winner, the firm’s internet guy who’s apparently the main culprit here, and Jared Liu-Klein, who was Winner & Co’s man on the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame account. What we see in the Jawa evidence is an attempt at Astroturf grassroots: The same ad was uploaded at different times by different people within the firm, it was sent to hard-left blogs like Democratic Underground and Kos (which subsequently removed it), and there were attempts to generate “‘comment chatter” on the ad.
Winner & Co. is not unlike my own firm – we both represent companies with big issues, including controversial development projects and corporate media crises. Some of their efforts, like working to get an LNG transfer station sited off the California coast, are admirable … and I wish it were my account, not theirs. But my firm would never transmit information we know to be false. We would never try to make a false hit piece video go viral. We believe that the channels of communication should be robust and spirited, but we take seriously our obligation to keep them clean and truthful.
If the allegations are true and Winner & Company uploaded a video they knew to be untrue and attempted to hide whoever was behind the video, the firm has violated the ethics rules of the Public Relations Society of America. Granted, this is hardly as heinous a doing as violated federal election law, but it would lead to an ethics hearing before PRSA and professional, if not public, embarrassment.
Here are the provisions Winner appears to have violated:
A member shall:
Preserve the integrity of the process of communication.
Be honest and accurate in all communications.
Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the practitioner is responsible.
PRSA has issued an ethics advisory for “front groups and individuals using Blogs, Viral Marketing and anonymous Internet postings,” which state:
ISSUE: Representation of front groups and individuals using Blogs, Viral Marketing, and anonymous Internet postingswith undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants. (Note: The term “Astroturfing” is often associated with unethical front group activities. Because Astroturf is a registered trademark, it is recommended that the term “Front Group” be used.)
BACKGROUND: A variety of organizations – known as “front” groups – as well as individuals have surfaced on behalf of issues and products blindly sponsored by industries and organizations. PRSA members are reminded of the PRSA Code provision, “Disclosure of Information,” that is based on the premise that open communication is essential for informed decision-making in a democratic society. The provision states that a member shall:
* Be honest and accurate in all communication.
* Act promptly to correct erroneous communication for which the member is responsible.
* Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.
* Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.
* Disclose financial interest such as stock ownership of the client organization, past client work or affiliation
* Avoid deceptive practices.
* Disclose or help expose deceptive practices where possibleRELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE PRSA CODE: At least three Code provisions and three professional values relate to this issue. They are:
CODE PROVISIONS
Free Flow of Information. Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society.Conflicts of Interest. Avoiding real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest builds the trust of clients, employers and the publics.
Enhancing the Profession. Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.
PROFESSIONAL VALUES
* Honesty. We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.
* Fairness. We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media and the general public.
* Advocacy. We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts and viewpoints to aid informed public debate. …RECOMMENDED PRACTICE: PRSA members should recognize that assisting front groups and individuals that represent undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided.
Given that Winner & Associates has clearly violated the Code of Ethics, I would bring them up to the Ethics Committee for a hearing, except for one thing: They are not members of PRSA and therefore are outside its reach. Winners’ parent company, Publicis, has many members of PRSA, including Louis Capozzi, chairman and chief executive officer of its PR and marketing communications group. Capozzi, like me, is an APR (PR’s professional accreditation), so he knows the Code of Ethics well. I’ll send him a note – he’s opted out his email address from the PRSA directory – and will share any response I receive with you.
Posted in 2008, Advertising, Obama, Palin, Uncategorized | 7 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:08 am
September 26th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Comments
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
If this is true, my opinion of politicians and those involved in seedy, opportunistic, and fraudulent campaign tactics (amazingly) has been lowered even more. Why is there a need for this type of behavior?
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Crusader mentality. We are the infidels; they want to kill us.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
The unfortunate reality is that the PR business is full of agencies and communications departments that act unethically. And PRSA has neither the standing nor resolve to call them out.
See… Why McCain and Obama aren’t answering to PRSA
And… PRSA: One good exaggeration deserves another.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
This is ad and video is really such poor form. My family, which lives in LA and does regular business with Winner will be suspending all adds and they don’t even support the McCain Palin ticket.
Even if the firm was not behind it, Winner is employed there and this irresponsible behavior really frustrates my dad. He won’t go out there and post his opinion, but I will. Winner is just about to lose a good client.
Mark