Tell me Lies, Tell me Sweet Little Lies

Scott Douglas: .... but only if you are being honest about it.

During my days as a journalist, I often found myself defending the job against people who insisted it was a scabrous profession full of inveterate liars.

A pre-requisite of being reporter was a thick skin, so usually the jibes bounced off.

Like any job, journalism throws up a small number of dangerous amateurs, outright cowboys and sleekit corner-cutters. That aside, the vast majority of journalists are pros who are in the job to report faithfully and true.

After eight years in public relations, I’ve grown to enjoy the fact that I am not routinely called a liar while going about my daily business.

So, two recent online stories made me sit up and take notice.

The first was a report from a former senior marketing manager with Apple, John Martellaro.

Writing for online publication, The Mac Observer, Martellaro described how Apple execs are said to operate 'controlled leaks' to the media. He was writing, in particular, about a story concerning the Apple Tablet.

Said Martellaro, one of the most important factors in these alleged leaks is that the contact is always one-to-one and either in person or on the phone. It is never, ever via email.

Why? Something called 'plausible deniability'. Should there be a problem, both parties can claim a simple misunderstanding with no pesky paper trail to gainsay them.

But nothing about this struck me as unusual - it’s just Malcolm Tucker 101, right?

However, while listening to one of my favourite PR-related podcasts, For Immediate Release, the two venerable hosts of the show each threw a fit.

Neville Hobson said: “I think this is the most unethical thing I have ever heard of. I mentioned [it] to two friends of mine who said I was completely and utterly naive because that is how the PR business works. They are in PR and that actually shocked me, to be frank.”

Co-host, Shel Holtz, added: “If that is the way PR is practised, I’ve missed it ... it is definitely questionable ethically.”

Hobson and Holtz are grandees of the emerging social media sector and seemed genuinely offended by the very concept of 'plausible deniability'. Understandable, since both are respected champions of the transparency that underpins social media success.

The argument goes that social media demands honesty from anyone participating - one of the factors that makes it so disruptive to businesses used to 'controlling the message'.

And on the social media service, LinkedIn - aimed at professionals wanting to network with each other - there's been heated debate on whether it is ethical or not to spin, to steer journalists away from certain information, to deliberately bury pertinent facts, to lie by omission and even whether some 'white lies' may be good for everyone concerned.

It follows a survey posted by a London PR, Brian Ahearne, under the heading, 'Public Relations and Lying'.

I don’t know how many people completed the survey, but plenty folk have left feedback and it's been international in flavour.

For instance, today, comment number 97: "To paraphrase Edmund Gwenn, 'Truth is easy. Denial is hard.' Telling the truth in PR is always easier than spinning a denial. It's simpler, and one is required to remember fewer details. But not telling all the facts of a given situation is NOT the same as lying.The art - some would say, artifice - of public relations is in knowing where to draw the line between saying too much and saying too little."

I look forward to the results of the survey. In the meantime maybe a quick straw poll of AMS readers: is Scotland’s PR sector inherently honest.... or downright dodgy when it comes to telling the truth?

Scott Douglas is founder of Scottish public relations agency, Holryood Partnership, and also of multimedia specialist, Deadline Press & Picture Agency.