This week’s lipstick incident demonstrates The GOP has brought back the smear in earnest, a tactic reminiscent of the Bush campaigns from 2000 and 2004 (image by Mae Li). Personally, this kind of abusive use of communication powers — while effective — should be condemned.
This kind of manipulation should not be a surprise given these recent events:
Using our powers for good remains one of the consistent things we talk about at LComm. In reality, great communication prowess can be used for good or evil. Society has demonstrated that it is susceptible to misinformation. That’s why it was great to see the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) stand up against the manipulative communications tactics used recently.
In a letter to Robert Gibbs (Obama for America) and a letter to Jill Hazelbaker (John McCain 2008), PRSA Chair & CEO Jeffrey Julin, on behalf of the PRSA Board of Directors, asks the campaigns to sign a formal pledge obligating them to abide by the PRSA Code of Ethics in all communications, stating that:
The use of innuendo, incomplete information, surrogate messaging and character attacks, whether in political discourse or other forms of commercial free speech, raises serious concerns for our organization and its 32,000 members, each of whom signs a pledge to the PRSA Code of Ethics. In fact, ethical practice is the most important obligation of PRSA membership, and we maintain that our obligations extend not only to those we represent, but also to the publics they serve.
Many will question the effectiveness of PRSA’s message. Five generations of Livingstons ago, in 1913 my Great, Great, Great Uncle Sigmund Livingston took a similar step, starting the Anti-Defamation League. The League’s purpose is stop the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to end unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens. Says the ADL:
Founded on one man’s iron will to achieve social justice and to eradicate hatred, ADL has invested nearly a century in influencing, educating and effecting reform.
A generation later Nazi Germany arose, and from a communications perspective, smeer tactics and hatred were deployed by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels is often credited with creating Nazi Germany’s Kristallnacht program. The end result: A country drunk enough to allow the genocidal extermination of six million Jews. This country helped liberate those left standing, and in an outcry against anti-semitism, became a champion of Israel, in large part because people like Uncle Ziggy (as he is known amongst the older relatives) beat the drum.
I’m not saying McCain is Goebbels, but the GOP’s use of smeer inspires fear in my heart about what could be. We must stand-up against abusive use of communication powers.
If anything, the past eight years has demonstrated that this country will vote with religious zeal rather than informed decision. Education, and the resulting intelligent decisions that it often inspires, has fallen to the wayside. Our population has become susceptible to manipulation.
As a result, communicators — particularly those in political campaigns — have a moral obligation to use their powers for good. And we as communicators with a voice need to start standing up and saying, “No, this is not right!” I tip my hat to the PRSA for a good action.
Thank goodness you don’t even pretend to be impartial. Then you might have to include some of the half truths that the Oblbama campaign has been using since the fight against Hillary.
Louis: I support Obama, and have stated so on this blog. I also do not support his use of smeer. Neither does the PRSA statement, which you clearly did not read. By far, the GOP has been much dirtier over the past 16 years as demonstrated by witch hunt impeachments, the justification for the Iraq war, Swift boat, etc., etc. It’s disgusting.
I don’t really care for your partiality statement, quite frankly. Both sides need to stop smeering. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and the McCain campaign should be publicly chastised by all parties. If Obama acts in a similar fashion, he, too, should be chastised.
Politics as usual. Until the democratic machine figures out how to harness and leverage the smears being made against its candidate, we’ll continue to see ’same old same old.’ I am not sure that one can argue for “ethical politics,” which seems to be an oxymoron. However, it’s no surprise that RNC is back to its old tricks. So, who do you blame? I blame the millions of Americans who continue to buy into the bullshit. Frankly, it’s a global embarrassment. We’re a country of idiots and Palin and McCain are only proving that point.
Geoff, thanks for your POV. Without really taking sides on the issue or getting too down-in-the-weeds, I heard a quote this morning that came out of a discussion of dirty college football: “Sometimes the team with the most penalties still wins the game.”
I like to point out to people that the words “campaign” and “camp” are adapted from warfare – a “PR campaign”, the “McCain camp”. Obama v. McCain is a war that will end in November. There have been many battles along the way, and also many minor skirmishes. Each side is always using the strategy and tactics they think will get them a win. Sometimes they shift these, as with the Palin choice. We’ll see what happens.
Mark: There is no justification for using unethical tactics. This is not a war, it’s a decision Americans must make to guide the country’s future. Candidates should represent themselves accurately, according to ethics.
There is in fact one justification to the campaigns for using unethical tactics: winning. And this is a big win – influencing the course of world history for four years.
I suspect that in Bush II v. Kerry, in Bush II v. McCain, in Bush I v. Dukakis, etc. that the losing side is not “proud” that they were more ethical. They lost a chance to influence people a lot of people.
In the famous game theory strategy tit-for-tat, the best technique is to be nice to your opponent until they do something bad to you, and then you do one thing bad to them. Then you revert to good behavior unless they do something bad again, which they will if they’re playing the same strategy as well. Hence, for winning, the best strategy once your opponent goes bad, is to also go bad in a measured response ad infinitum.
I do hope that the better candidate is not sitting at home licking their wounds in December, a loser, in debt, after firing their huge campaign staff, proud about the ethical campaign they ran.
Geoff – I have a huge problem with statistics that are as nebulous as “88% of the time.”
What kind of votes were those? Does that include the little resolutions and ceremonial things that pass through acclimation? Does it include items where the president has clearly lobbied his own position instead of that dictated by party platform? Are we using third-party partisan scorecards?
If you’re going to use a statistic like that, then put it in proper context. How often does Sen. McCain buck his own party compared to Sen. Obama?
In reality, this is a false issue anyway. Much of Bush’s low approval numbers comes from conservatives who feel like Bush has abandoned principles (like his father), and conservatives who think it’s not the policy that is at issue, but rather incompetence and poor execution. Therefore, one could easily support McCain without supporting Bush.
Now allow me to shift gears for a moment, and let you see a mirror:
“I’m not saying McCain is Goebbels, but the GOP’s use of smeer inspires fear in my heart about what could be. We must stand-up against abusive use of communication powers.
If anything, the past eight years has demonstrated that this country will vote with religious zeal rather than informed decision. Education, and the resulting intelligent decisions that it often inspires, has fallen to the wayside. Our population has become susceptible to manipulation. ”
It’s funny you mention Goebbels. Some of the scariest communications I’ve seen this election season are coming from bloggers and the “consumer generated” crowd. Did you not see the Will.I.Am video, and hear the hypnotic chants of O-ba-ma? You want to talk about groupthink and doublethink, yet you only see the effects on one side. Congrats on the religious zeal – both sides have shown a mastery of whipping up that frenzy.
The danger in what you write comes about because you are already assigning blame for defeat. IF Obama loses, you are stating it will be because of Rovian-style tactics and smears. You’re not alone in that assessment, by the way. I see it all over the blogosphere.
However, my friend, there is dangerous ideology packed in that statement – dangerous to your cause. It smacks of hubris, a sense that this election is already over, that there’s an entitlement to assume the mantle of power. This election has already been won, and only lies and deceit can prevent Obama from accepting his rightful destiny.
For what it’s worth, I’m not alone in saying this. Go check out Joe Trippi’s blog. He’s getting savaged by Obama-faithful who don’t like his assessment. Trippi thinks Obama supporters are getting too cocky and are underestimating McCain. He says all the attacks on Palin are falling short because many on the left are mistaken about the reasoning behind Palin’s choice.
==================================
That said — I’m totally with you on the need to eliminate the rancor from discussions. Join us if you’d like – http://betterdiscourse.wordpress.com
@mark – I am a HUGE fan of the work of Robert Axelrod.
Tit for Tat for the Win!
Geoff –
If you were really concerned with both sides “stopping the smeers” then your comment about McCain voting in lockstep 88% of the time should have recognized that Obama votes in lockstep with liberal leadership 97% of the time.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html
If you want others to practice honesty, ethics, and truthful discourse, why not try to lead by example?
Ike and “Turk,” it’s not the percentage, it’s the consistancy and then saying you are an agent of change. Voting approx. 90% with the party in power then saying you represent change seems hard to believe. It is a dishonest representation of the facts. Liberal leadership would indeed be a change after eight years of Bush.
Then by the same rights it seems to me that Obama should be advocating a Republican take back of the Senate and House since he’s voted 97% with the Democrats, it would seem that only a party change would constitute real change in the Congress.
Louis: You keep playing politics, but you can’t seem to get to the issue of dishonest communications. That’s disappointing.
Can’t wait until our next meeting Geoff, this will be a lot more fun in person. Call it politics if you like, but I stand by my original point that a post like this that calls for honesty in communications, and then in itself is partial and political is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. But frankly, in his comment above Ike said it much better than I have.
Geoff — it’s also dishonest to assume that what is needed is 100% change.
Seriously, can you tell me what percentage of the work done on Capitol Hill is done in a bi-partisan manner? Where issues cut across party lines? Can you tell me the percentage of the work that eats up the headlines because it is clearly an ideological divide?
If you can’t provide that number, then you can’t use the other one either. And if you are advocating for 100% change, then by all means be prepared to defend it. That is fair and ethical from a communications standpoint.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Geoff, but at the time of Obama’s lockstep votes, the “party in power” in Congress was the Democrats. It’s not like Obama was casting votes as President. Despite his gaffes to the contrary, he hasn’t been elected yet.
Further, I think someone voting 88% of the time looks less like a rubber stamp than someone voting 97% of the time. Will Obama be less in line with the liberal wing as President? I doubt it. Trying to invoke “change” to get from one rubber stamp administration to another is disingenuous.
Your idol worship has clouded your judgment. As a PR practitioner, you need to be able to see through your client’s bullshit and help them make an effective case without jumping into yet another attempt to walk the fine edge of deceptive trade practices.
If you want to practice ethical PR, you need the ability to separate yourself from the product. You need to become an ethical advocate, not a sycophantic follower.
Ike: We all have our political views. But this is not a discussion of that. The issue we are discussing is the manipulation of facts by the campaigns, which is an unethical practice. Thus PRSA’s open letter to Both Candidates. I’m not really interested in a conversation about your, Louis or Turk’s political views. Mine are set, and I am sure we disagree.
Turk made an additional character judgment in this post about me. The Buzz Bin has a clear policy about personal attacks, and between the linked to post in the above comments and the now deleted comment, this line has been crossed. We will not be seeing additional comments from Turk.
That is the way campaigns have run in the past and will continue to this election and future ones. I’m not saying it’s right, but a lot of time propaganda and persuasion are used to advertise against representatives more than credible information to allow people to establish their own opinions. People need to just think for themselves and do what they can to make an informed decision for themselves and stop buying into the crap.
Craig
http://www.budgetpulse.com
Okay, I’ve given this some thought, and let’s back up a moment.
1 – McCain shifts from the Experience argument to the Reform theme.
2 – Obama tries to paint McCain as being McBush.
3 – McCain points out his differences with Bush.
This isn’t that hard to parse. It’s not an issue of “lying,” Geoff. It’s framing, pure and simple. For Obama, “Change” means being as different from Bush as possible. For McCain, “Reform” means being less partisan and less beholden to your own party’s dogma.
Both can be right, and there is no lie.
Why do the republicans try to make an issue out of Obama not bucking his party? It isn’t like his party has been wrong on everything for 8 years straight.
Can’t his team just say that Obama votes 97% with the Dems because the Dems have been right (or at least less wrong than the GOP) 97% of the time?
Matt V: We all have our political views. But this is not a discussion of that. The issue we are discussing is the alleged manipulation of facts by the campaigns, which if proven true would be an unethical practice.
Ike: I have to disagree. McCain is trying to steal the mantle of change, which is a PR gambit, but his history demonstrates that he is anything but a so-called maverick. That’s my point.
One thing I loved about the Democratic primaries was the number of debates. It’s be great if the candidates toured the country together and debated in every state for 50 days. I think it would be so much more substantive.
I’m totally with you on the debates – have a few regular ones, and a few townhall-meeting ones too.
As to “stealing the mantle of change”, I believe I outlined how there is no theft if the two sides can’t agree on the term. One is “regime change,” the other is “change from politics as usual.”
Honesty in communications is a troublesome topic, especially when it comes to politics. I agree that spin has become far too pervasive in our society as a whole, but with both sides being in the wrong on this issue it is hard to say what would really constitute change.
The Bush administration, not unlike the Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations that preceded it, has used obfuscation, lies of omission and fabrication in order to push forward it’s agenda for the country. However, this administration represents the spirit of the Republican party in name only, as I think we can all agree that it has done little to reduce the size of government, increase and protect the freedom of it’s citizenry or make any attempts to limit the influence of government in the lives of it’s citizens.
The campaign tactics exhibited by both parties are dishonest, Obama has stretched the truth, used rigged statistics and made plenty of half-true statemens or lied through omission.
McCain’s campaign seems (at least base on my daily reading of FactCheck.org updates) to have utilized these tools more often, but the issue of ethical campaigning has not been broached by either party, nor by it’s candidates.
What I find most unfortunate is that this issue is being discussed in very few venues, when it should at the top of our list for vetting the candidate which we will support (for the record I support neither Obama or McCain and remain an undecided independent). Electing someone to the most powerful position in our country (if not the world) based on warm, fuzzy feelings is a disturbing thought, but in many ways that is what our election process has become. Whoever makes you feel warm and safe gets your vote, regardless of how their policies may effect your life.
Unethical campaign communications make the electorate more prone to voting on their gut feelings to a candidate than to being an educated voter and understanding what your actually voting for. An undereducated electorate is an extreme danger to a democratic form of government and at it’s heart that is what this form of communication has at it’s core. Neither campaign wants voters to understand, accept and vote for them because they agree with their policy ideals, they want people to vote for them because they “feel” better about them than they do the other guy.
McCain has managed to assume the mantle of change by blaming this country’s ills on a Congress that has been controlled by the Democrats for less than 2 years. Obama has attempted to lay all of our countries ills at the foot of the President and the man who he views as his legitimate successor in the person of John McCain. Neither of them are correct, for neither can truly assume the mantle of change. Their campaigning style aside, I feel as if we are going to have to suffer through a lot more of the same out of Washington until the people of this country realize that sending the same people to Washington year after year is unaccetpable and that the only way to truly affect change to our political system is to remove the old guard Washington elite and replace them with candidates who will accept things like public financing of political campaigns and term limits for congress. The congressional elections are overlooked during Presidential cycles and ignored during mid-term elections. Ethical campaigning aside, our system won’t change until voters change it.
I do find it amusing (naturally) that the PRSA would be challenging anyone to uphold ethical communications esp. since its members (PR industry) are some of the worst offenders: http://tinyurl.com/4vdbt9
Oh crap… Guhmshoo is on the case! (I smell a toon based on this very post…)
@ike I did dude. You’re smelling a toon after the fact. Check link above.
“The difference between 88 percent and 92 percent is significant to anyone who knows the workings of the US Senate or any other legislative body. In any legislative body, the majority of votes are unanimous or nearly unanimous because so many votes are non-controversial – such as commemorating resolutions, procedural considerations and other matters that evoke little, if any, disagreement. When one examines the range of votes in the US Senate, the most conservative senator’s voting record will probably vary, at most, 20 to 25 percent from that of the most liberal senator.” — John M. Blust
What do you know … this story is about NC State Sen. Kay Hagan has been running against US Sen. Elizabeth Dole, but I thought it might enlighten some readers.
If you want to do something funny and worthwhile, compare the McCain and Obama votes. You’ll find they vote together most of the time too.
Ho hum. This election, please don’t subscribe and promote sound bites for either side.
Just curious, Geoff… would this count as a use of incomplete information, baseless information, or outright lie by Sen. Obama? http://snipurl.com/3q8n4
As a communicator bound by PRSA ethics guidelines, should this statement be denounced?
@Ike He (Obama) should be called out on this.