Andrew the Sunday Morning "legal" expert has a few fair comments and opinions. But for God's sake Andrew please do not hold up a Bush White House press secretary, or any other professional associated with presidential politics, as any kind of standard for any industry. All good PR is honest hard work. Try getting the head of CBS to be more honest when reporting earnings or firing the on-air talent(reducing operating costs) that works so hard to do a good job every Sunday Morning. Was John Dean your profession's standard for legal excellence?

Everyone is beholden to his, or her, boss. But the topic is the credibility of professional communicators, such as journalists and public relations practitioners. From McClellan's book, it may be inferred that If a press secretary identifies with the field of journalism more than with the field of public relations, he, or she, is less likely to be included in the decision-making process (part of McClellan's beef) and more likely to just play the role of "get out there and spin the story right," because that's what the Administration expects and because that's all the former journalist knows to do. On the other hand, public relations executives understand the importance of being accepted by management, so they may communicate openly and ethically management's decisions. PRSA's Code of Ethics addresses this. (I'll stay tuned for McClellan's "reality-TV" show.)

I would disagree with the first poster's comment: "The trouble with most White House Press Secretaries is that their professional allegiance is to journalism, not public relations."

White House press secretaries' allegiance is to the president and the administration, not to journalism. As former journalists, they should want the truth to come out. But as political appointees, they are advocates of the administration and as such must do what it takes to keep the guy in the Oval office happy--and ultimately keep their job so they can one day write a book and make lots of money.

As far as I can tell, Scott McClellan, like Armstrong Williams, is not a member of PRSA. The trouble with most White House Press Secretaries is that their professional allegiance is to journalism, not public relations. Just look at their backgrounds: most are former journalists. So which is the less-honorable profession? Perhaps those who speak at White House briefings should be required to read one of the more serious books in the field—preferably—one on PRSA's APR list. Just Chapter 5 on Ethics and Professionalism in Cutlip, Center, and Broom's classic "Effective Public Relations" would be a good start.

I wouldn't worry about anyone taking Cohen seriously. He is, after all, a lawyer.

Will

Hummm... When polled, 97% of the employees at my company said we are an ethical firm. So the question of ethics runs very deep here. However,almost daily I'm told to soften up a statement of fact for fear of offending someone, for fear that a competitor might read it, for fear that a fledgling idea might be misunderstood, etc. We send out corporate messages that are filled with subtle jargon-loaded hints about what's to come, but we rarely, if ever, tell the whole story. PR folk, unfortuately, are often relegated to offering the shape and shadow of truth, but rarely the whole truth, and for that, we've earned Mr. Cohen's criticism.

Two thoughts:

First, Cohen is slamming an entire profession for the actions of one person who should have done the honorable thing and quit his job if he felt he was being asked to deceive the American public. Raking all PR professionals over the coals for the lack of judgment of one, and one who worked in the distant galaxy of Washington DC at that, is like labeling all attorneys as slimy ambulance chasers.

Second, where is IABC in all this? Good for PRSA for jumping to the defense of our profession. I'm a member of both associations, but I can feel my limited dollars being pulled toward one.

Agree. I wonder where this reporter would place lobbyists, attorneys, special interests and other advocates. Needless to say, he never conceded the vast amount of reporting that is now neatly labeled "advocacy journalism." It means they've given themselves the liberty of taking sides on issues while presenting it as objective journalism. Go figure.

First of all, this is clearly a game that's being played out to increase increasing viewership/readership, don't you think? It's fun, isn't it?

Secondly, don't lawyers represent "bad" people? Does that make them "bad" people?