The Ethics Behind Public Relations and Letting States License Barbers

Bruce Horovitz’s Marketing column, “Are Public Relations Agencies Selling Out to Rich, Unsavory Clients?”(Aug. 20), explored the ethics employed by public relations firms in selecting their clients.

Public relations firms should be continuously asked to defend their client lists. The communications expertise and persuasion skills of a public relations practitioner can be used for any cause. They can be used to win converts to devil worship as surely as they can be used to attract donations to a hospital. Thus, the ethical questions surrounding the practitioners’ choice of clients are quite significant.

No direct comparison can be made with criminal attorneys and their representation of unsavory clients. There is a right to legal representation. Our judicial system would not work if criminal defendants did not have access to representation.

The representation of a public relations advocate is quite different since there is no constitutional or moral right for every belief to have access to professional communications advocacy. Beware of the public relations practitioner who alludes to the “right of any cause” to professional public relations counsel. This rationale attempts to coat greed with principle.

Horovitz quoted public relations pioneer Edward L. Bernays, whose test for his representation was whether the cause was harmful. I agree with him and have used that guideline as my own. I could not represent a tobacco company, adult book store or racist cause, which, in my mind, do represent public harm.

It is inconceivable to me that a reputable public relations agency could consider representing either side of an issue such as pro-life or pro-choice. Their own beliefs should preclude representing whichever side they disagree with.

Public discussion of the ethics of the client lists of PR agencies can only strengthen the ethical standards of that profession.

NAT B. READ

Pasadena