The Elephant in the Room

Shownotes:

In the past couple of years, there have been a lot of discussions, debates, articles around how PR practitioners can combat misinformation. It is often cited as one of the bigger challenges along with AI (advanced technology) facing the PR industry.

The Elephant in the Room is the role of PR professionals in the dissemination and amplification of misinformation and fake news. How complicit are we as an industry when propagating the agenda of businesses, individuals, and governments?

Beyond the industry a lot of people ascribe ‘spin’ a pejorative term to the work being done by professionals. So, what’s the truth? To discuss this and more I spoke with Prof Lee Edwards, from the Department of Media and Communications at the LSE. Considering that the title of her 2020 research paper was, ‘Organised lying and professional legitimacy: public relations’ accountability in the disinformation debate’, she has an in-depth understanding of the subject.

In this episode of The Elephant in the Room, we spoke about role of PR in society; the misinformation debate; disposable diversity; ethics of climate communications, AI, ethics in general, and more……..

Thank you Stephen Waddington for the introductions, this fine conversation would not have been possible without your initiative.

Interested in learning more, head to the podcast (Link in comments) 👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾

 Episode Transcript:

Sudha: Hey, Lee Good morning. Wonderful to have you as a guest today on the podcast.

Lee: It's a pleasure. Thank you very much for having me, Sudha. I hope you're well.

Sudha: So, let's get started with a quick introduction to who you are and what you do. I'm really grateful to Stephen for the introductions that he made over email, but I'm keen to know more because I haven't really met with you.

Lee: Yeah, so my name is Lee. I'm a professor of strategic communications and public engagement at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and I've been there about seven years. Prior to that, I was at the University of Leeds, Manchester, and Leeds Beckett originally. My research area is focused on strategic communications, particularly public relations. That's the area I look at most. More recently, it has expanded into the area of public engagement and also media literacy, which ended up being quite nicely related to the type of work that I do.

I originally started in practice. I did about eight years working for the technology industries as a PR consultant. Like most PR practitioners I know, I kind of fell into it with no particular ambition to do PR, but just ended up there. I originally started in New Zealand, then I came back to London. I was mystified by the apparent power that Tony Blair's communications director, Alastair Campbell, had and how much he was hated because he was the proverbial spin doctor. I was working in the profession and didn't really feel like I was powerful at all.

So that led me to do a PhD focused on understanding how power works through public relations and in public relations as a profession. The rest is history, really. I've been working in academia now for just over 20 years and really love it.

Sudha: Wow, that's interesting. And I think that we should have another podcast episode, probably on your PhD, because like you, I'd agree that, yeah, we don't always feel very powerful as communications professionals. In fact, rather disempowered and often isolated, including with clients and within organisations.

Let's move on to the next question. We live in such divisive and polarised times. What do you think is the role of PR in society? We are so set in our views; we all think the choices or the sides that we take are the correct sides to be supported and advocated for.

We've seen, day before yesterday, the attempt on the presidential candidate in the US. All this is a result of the churn happening in society, the conflicts and the unease there. And, of course, communications professionals have a huge role, I believe, to play. We don't often get that opportunity. But between strategic advisors to the C-suite and spin doctors, which most people like to think of PR practitioners as, is there a happy medium between the two? A space that we can occupy with authenticity?

Lee: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really interesting question. There are perhaps two answers to it in the sense that I think currently there's the role that public relations as a profession and practitioners occupy, and there's the potential role that they could play. Currently, I think we oscillate between those two roles of strategic advice and spin doctor.

The strategic advice role is the one that has the most promise, in the sense that it's a role that is more reflective and considered as a contribution to the organisation. It doesn’t just take the organisation for granted and follow what the organisation says. It’s much more of a kind of critical friend type role. And I think that's got to be positive because organisations can become very self-oriented and absorbed with their own purposes. That’s just the nature of the beast. But public relations practitioners have this bridging role that is very valuable. The strategic advisory capacity is important for helping organisations understand the nature of the society they exist in.

The spin doctor role, I think, is what happens when practitioners don’t or aren’t able to take on that more strategic approach. To some degree, that's a question of organisational culture, the degree to which organisational leaders are able or willing to listen, and perhaps also the degree to which comms practitioners are able to make themselves relevant. There’s a challenge there, because if you end up being the spin doctor, you end up simply parroting what the organisation thinks is important, and that’s not necessarily what society needs. So I think that’s what currently happens.

There’s a lot of debate within the profession about the pros and cons of both roles and the desire to be seen as more strategic. I think there is also a much bigger role for communications professionals, particularly public relations professionals, because they are different from advertisers, branders, and marketers. They are more focused on dialogue, discussion, and engaging with audiences. There’s a lot of talk, for example, about relationship building and engaging in conversations. That gives the profession a platform to influence society and the way social dynamics unfold.

For instance, with the shooting of the presidential candidate at the weekend, the ways in which the communications profession responds should also reflect on how they might make interventions as a profession, not on behalf of their clients but as a profession. They should discuss how and why such events might happen, what rhetoric underpins them, and how one might change it and make concrete moves in that direction. They have a lot of influence; these are people who work with some of the biggest companies in the world and with some of the largest media conglomerates. I would like to see a more socially oriented professional identity than we have at the moment. I think that could have a really significant impact on the way people talk about division and debate.

Sudha: I think that's a very interesting perspective, Lee. And I also think, how we contribute to the discourse, whether we contribute just on when you know, strictly has a problem or there's some reality TV show or we are participating in issues that really make a difference to people and to society. I think, we need to definitely consider that.

Moving on from this, we're talking about the U. S. and of course the U. S. has been so prominent in the past couple of decades, not just because of its power, but, what has been happening in politics. So the 2016 U. S. elections, were a time when we saw a lot of fake news or biased news and it brought misinformation to the spotlight.

And there was a spotlight on the role of lobbyists, PR practitioners, foreign actors to build a particular narrative. It’s been eight years since that spotlight. Has there been any change in behaviour or is it more of the same? Because I noticed that, as practitioners, as an industry, we love to talk about things, but I don't think, we really address some of the issues root and branch and try to make a systemic change. What are your thoughts on this?

Lee:I think the reality is that the volume of misinformation that became very visible in 2016 is now normalised. I think that’s probably the case. It was interesting how little it was discussed in the UK election, for example. I’m not sure about the election in India—there have been so many elections—but I was struck by the fact that occasionally it was covered as an issue but not really picked up, and there was no significant monitoring of it as far as I could tell. Although I was away for some of the election time, so it may have happened in my absence.

I think the reality is that we now assume misinformation will circulate, so the focus has shifted from trying to stop the origin to helping people understand what is true and what isn’t, particularly online. I wrote a piece a few years ago that argued that misinformation has also been part of the communications profession for many years. People in organisations or organisations themselves have always framed certain issues in ways that favour their own positions—climate change, tobacco, the chemical industries, for example. This is not new. And so, I don’t think the profession is innocent in this mix.

There was a really good study done by Jason companions and Jonathan on disinformation in the Philippines, where the people producing the disinformation in the context of an election campaign were people from the advertising industry who were working a second job at night producing this material. The skills and techniques our professions use in a legitimate way can also be used illegitimately and are used illegitimately. There’s a responsibility to acknowledge that and work towards changing it.

In terms of whether misinformation will ever stop, I don’t think so. Bad actors, as you say, will always be around. To some degree, the question of how to tackle it involves individual education, media literacy, for example, making sure people can spot disinformation. But I think this goes back to the previous points about the social norm. We now expect misinformation to some extent. We don’t have to accept that as our social norm. So, I think we need to ask ourselves what we are willing to accept in society and what we would like to see minimised. Communications professionals can certainly be part of that debate.

Sudha: I agree with parts of what you say. We’re now in a world where the more important aspect is not just that misinformation exists but how to spot what is true and how to filter out truth from lies or bias from unbiased information. For example, during the Indian election, India is a hugely polarised country, and the media has been polarised for the longest time. People generally know who speaks for whom and then make their decisions based on that.

Similarly, in the US or UK, people believe that media has certain leanings. If you are a left-leaning person, you might read The Guardian, while if you're a right-leaning person, you'll read something else. And that’s similar in India. But in terms of professionals and how we contribute to the news circulating, there perhaps needs to be more open conversations about what is acceptable, what level is acceptable, and how far we are going to allow our practitioners to operate in those areas.

Lee: I mean, these are ultimately questions of the ethics of the profession. And it’s not that people don’t talk about them, but I think, you know, professional associations and practitioners do talk about them. And there are areas where some really fantastic work has been done around inequalities, for example, gendered inequalities, racialised inequalities, where campaigns have pushed the forefront claims for recognition that might not otherwise have been taken up because brands are very powerful, because, you know, large conglomerates are very powerful.

They have some clout, not just for their customers but also for political actors, I think. So there’s power within that kind of market-based context or the overlap between markets and politics for practitioners to do something. But there is also, I think, as you say, this kind of reflexivity or, you know, self-questioning to ask exactly that question of how we limit our negative impact in this kind of space.

And to do that, you have to accept that there is a negative impact. Yeah, and I think that’s difficult for professions to accept because professions of all kinds, you know, their reputation and their legitimacy are built on doing good in society. That’s a big part of the profession. And so, being really overt about the fact that that’s not always the case is a difficult thing, I think.

Sudha: Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. The industry, of course, is a microcosm of society. How does that impact our ability to fulfil our roles in a responsible manner? Because, you know, the makeup of the industry does not reflect our society, essentially.

And we don’t need to speak about statistics in general. So, are diversity and inclusion conversations in the industry today an imperative or a distraction? And I am asking you this question from having been on the PRCA Equity and Inclusion Advisory Council for three years. I think there are startups and newer agencies that are very interested in engaging, and the bigger agencies who don’t give a— I don’t want to use the word, but don’t give a damn.

So, what would you say? Do these people look at it as an imperative or a distraction? Because change is not going to happen unless the big players in the industry decide to put their weight behind any change that is required.

Lee: Yeah, well, I think you put your finger on the pulse there when you say, nominally, we should be a microcosm of society, but there’s no way the profession can ever describe itself as such for a range of reasons, in particular racialised and class inequality. I think this is a huge issue, and, you know, multiple surveys have identified that.

So, PRCA in the UK, CIPR in the UK, and a bit to a slightly lesser extent in the U.S., I think. There is a business case for diversity. The business case for diversity tends to revolve around the narrative of the more diverse you are, the more innovative you can be, the more ideas there are around the table, the more productive you can be, you’ll get the extra leadership, people will be more inclusive, etc.

And I was looking at the recent survey that’s been issued across 12 different professions, I think, that the CIPR contributed to. And that survey, which has just been issued in the UK in 2024, talks about this business case and cites various statistics. So, there is a business case for diversity, but diversity is complicated.

And it’s not without risk. If you want to be really honest about the need to be more diverse, and practitioners from marginalised groups say this every time they are asked, and they are asked a lot about their experiences. It can’t be just a tick box, it can’t be just the word, because really to understand the impact of a lack of diversity, you have to engage with some difficult questions about the really frustrating and miserable experiences that people sometimes have in their professional lives.

And you have to acknowledge that that is because of the nature of the organisations that have been built. And so that opens up difficult conversations that require mutual respect between the people who are marginalised and the people who are in charge, and that also require organisations to put aside their own self-interest in the sense that they can’t only ever manage the value of diversity by assessing whether or not it’s going to be profitable, or whether or not it’s going to get them more votes, or whether or not it’s going to get them more supporters for their charity.

It can’t only be about that. There has to also be a moral question of whether we want people in our organisation who are marginalised from the day they walk in, to the day they walk out, or feel that way, you know, enough on a regular basis for it to be a characteristic of their professional life with us.

And whether we want an organisation that also creates barriers for people who are marginalised to even get in, in the first place. Is that a moral position that we want to take? Because it is a moral position that one takes if one doesn’t do anything about it. It’s an ethical and moral position that is actively taken by doing nothing.

So, I think, from my perspective, with all the claims that organisations make about being responsible actors in society, I think it is a must-have. Because you can’t make those claims when you are, you know, then conducting your day-to-day engagement with your employees very differently.

And then the business case also is important. I think my challenge with the business case has always been that you can achieve the same outcomes without having to engage with diversity. And when diversity requires you to do difficult things, if you’re doing it properly, then it’s much easier not to engage with diversity and to achieve those profits and those changes in other ways, and I think that’s the problem with the business case for diversity. It doesn’t make diversity compulsory. It just makes it kind of attractive as one of the set of options that you might have. So, I think that means it’s always weaker, really, as an imperative.

I think the moral imperative is stronger.

Sudha: Yeah. I mean, I'm really glad to hear that because I think it’s quite frustrating to hear about the business imperative and the business case because.  I mean, DEI has been around for a long time, especially if you look at the U.S they’ve been doing this for decades, and they’re still making a business case, and the business case has not really propelled too much action.

I mean, we’re like 30 years or 40 years into it, and things should have...