Thursday, December 06, 2007


An interesting post on the nature of objectivity and trained judgement. It always seemed there was more than one definition of objectivity. "I am a camera" is too pat. However, anything more than recording what one experiences is considered trained judgement. Whatever happened to "the more one knows the more one sees?" It always seemed this too was a definition of objectivity, which is why PR practitioners should know issues thoroughly.

The challenge still remains to consider issues with as little bias as possible in order to understand them. From that, one builds a defense of clients because the foundation for argument is built on fact rather than opinion or spin. It is hard work, especially for clients who don't have a good story or may have engaged in unethical activity. Because PR practitioners work in the court of public opinion and not a court of law, they don't have an obligation to provide the best defense for a client, even if the client is lying. It is a moral and ethical decision whether to represent a client whom one knows is in the wrong but who won't admit it. I know I haven't had that choice yet in my career: I hope I never have it. Such clients tend to pay well because they know their position is desperate, but money isn't everything. To get a reputation as a "hired gun" who will say or do anything is a good way to wreck a career.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?