One of the most frustrating - and from time to time heart-breaking - situations we PR people find ourselves in, is when a client is prevented from telling their very-illuminating side of the story for ethical, professional or legal reasons.
Corporates and large organisations have to take it on the chin, and rightly so, but the human beings whose reputations - and sometimes entire careers - are on the line can be very badly beaten about in the process.
I'm thinking here of some of the doctors I have worked with over the years who have had to sit, silent, in the face of all manner of allegation and accusation being splashed across the six o'clock news, with absolutely no right of reply, either for reasons of patient confidentially or because the matter is sub judice. They have had to wait for their day in court for the full story to be told.
It's not my job to judge whether their actions were good, bad or right or wrong, and I don't have the professional expertise to do that. It's my job to get them a fair hearing in the court of public opinion - a hard task when 'the other side' can say or allege anything at all, but the professional has no choice but to hold their counsel. And there is no obligation at all for the 'other side' to reveal the full scope of their story - journalists very often just take them at their word.
Having said that, few hearts will be breaking for Social Development Minister Paul Bennett this week after she released the income details of two beneficiaries who spoke out against changes to the training allowance, ostensibly to balance the story and correct misinformation.
The move displayed gob-smacking naivete.
If she hadn't wanted to follow the time honoured off-the-record approach so beloved by politicians, Bennett could have achieved her ends quite simply, more honourably, and a great deal more strategically like this: she could have released to the media the income details of some hypothetical beneficiaries in similar situations to the two women, and left the rest to reporters.
She's also broken the cardinal rule of these sorts of communications by effectively engaging in victim-bashing. The 'I was a solo mum on a benefit myself' line has only so much credibility after all these months of collecting a six-figure parliamentary salary and all the perks. Bennett needs to realise that no matter where she's been in the past, her position means she's Goliath now, whether she likes it or not. Beating a pair of defenseless Davids with every big and powerful weapon in her aresenal is a bad, bad look.
Recent Comments