Here are a couple pro-propaganda views:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19436/

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008314.php

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008316.php

It's also interesting that this has been going on for a while (Clinton did the same in Kosovo).

Thank you for the excellent perspective. You would think that after Karen Ryan and Armstrong Williams, and that Pentagon advertising office that the administration would get it. They still don't.

As a former journalist and current public relations professional, I am appalled, but no longer amazed, at this continued flouting of the principles of a free press.

These actions damage both the crafts of journalism and public relations and must stop now.
David Cohen

Richard:
I have had several communications with your father regarding why it's important for public relations to be taught in a journalism school, as we do at St. Bonaventure. Your comments today, of which I agree wholeheartedly, help to prove the point. PR professionals with journaism underpinnings would recongize the practices of the Lincoln Group as abhorrent. Lee Coppola

This type of activity tarnishes all professional communicators. It's a good thing that a leader in the industry can call the Lincoln Group out.

As a former journalist and present PR practioner, I could not agree more with your views. And I appreciate you taking the time to make your views known publicly.

This is an outrageous blurring of the lines between advertising and PR and yet another example of the Bush administration's "1984" mindset.

Thank you for exposing this PR firm and administration for what they are.

Your outrage is a bit late - this ship has sailed already. And the media waved to it from the shore as it passed by. In the days after 9-11, the Bush administration quickly learned to use its power to silence "the other side of the story" - from lying about WMD at the macro to refusing to call on Helen Thomas in the media room. And the media ALLOWED this by not riding their asses until they backed down. That was the day the media was bought in this country. First by fear, then by money. What's the difference? With a few notable exception, you permitted - even enabled - the complete corruption of your own profession.

Just read your am blog. You make a strong point. Media should not be for sale. Isn't it though? If not "PR spin" then it is "company spokesman" (paid, of course.) The government hiring the Lincoln Group in Iraq is propaganda in a pure form. The unfortunate reality in our society is that all sectors with the adequate resources attempt to "control the message" through multiple means. PR, Advertising or direct to public communication are all bona fide means to accomplish the "storyboard" intent of the DOD.

I am a paid advocate. I know what I am hired to do and I make no bones about it. I agree with you that the conduct of the US in attempting to control the "free press" in Iraq (is there such a thing?) is reprehensible. Is PR really that much different? Isn't it really all about attempting to or actually controlling the message? In today's highly orchestrated corporate and political climates, is there really "free exchange of idea and information" occurring?

Lots to think about.

Thanks again.

Stephen

As I indicated earlier, this type of behavior pre-dates the Bush Administration (Clinton employed the same tactics in Kosovo - see the links above). It's probably been going for years.

So it's a darn shame that some choose to turn this important ethical and professional topic into cheap partisan sniping. Don't stick your heads in the sand, this has been happening for decades folks.

Best - JG

I believe all of this outrage is woefully misplaced and anyone reading this who thinks their "PR firm" would not do the same thing for a piece of a $300 million contract is fooling themselves. Psyops and information warfare is more vital in this war than most others. Washington used pamphleteers and men like Thomas Paine to "propagandize" at the time. Lincoln used the papers in a similar fashion and the US Army during WWII put out more quality films than all the trash being thrown out of hollyweird today.

If a PR firm gets "outed" as having participated in this type of activity, I have no problem with it. PR firms and Ad firms manipulate the truth and reality on daily basis to coax, prod, con, etc. their target audience.

Joe G is 100% correct. Please, spare me the faux outrage and anger over this. I am more upset that this activity has been exposed...but then again, the media has never wanted us to succeed in Iraq (among other places) so it is no surpise they are gleefully reporting this.

I would have more sympathy with the righteous indignation from you and the media if the MSM wasn't so uniformly and consistently of one political view.
If the MSM themselves could screw up their professionalism and objectivity enough to begin reporting not editorializing, and once again attempt to be a neutral and critical observer of the facts, I could be very sympathetic to your views. The news wire story and video of the staged incidents in Remidi today that the MSM so readily broadcast is a perfect example the uniform and extreme bias of the main stream press. Let's have some righteous indignation over the sorry state of the US and world media.

How is this significantly different than liberal interest groups in the US using PR firms to plant stories in our MSM? Fenton Communications, say?

Conidering the stakes and investment we are making, countering the state-funded, agenda driven media in the Middle East - like al Jazeera - by highlighting the positive developments on the ground is essential.

Three points:

1. Iraq is not the USA. It probably is common practice to use pay for play there, just as it is in many other poor countries where journalists are not well paid. In China, the reporters demand payment to NOT report on disasters, etc. If it is common practice, and you do take the 'high road' you might end up with ZERO results.

2. Getting poor results, but retaining your 'ethics' might be acceptable in peacetime when, say, you're only helping your customers lose market share in China while non-ethical PR firms are getting all the media time with payments. However, when you are AT WAR, you might want to drop some ethics. For example, in peacetime, killing someone is murder, but in war soldiers can morally do so. Hmmmmmm.

3. If Clinton did do the same exact thing, I suggest you FIRST work your outrage on why the media suddenly discovers these stories NOW and not THEN. Because it is very discouraging to see 'ethics' only applied to one political position and the other getting the equivalent of get-out-of-jail-free cards. In fact, if that is how the "ethical' journalists play, then why should the administration listen?

p.s. Point 2 is the real point.

Looks like a lot of people here disagree with you:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/12/1/20659/8833

CJ my only response to your post. It is never too late to correct a wrong. We must continue to make clear the difference between advertising and PR.

Whether a Bush or a Clinton inspired strategy
Pay for play is wrong
It will be exposed and will undermine credibility of our side

I don't know how pay for play got into the strategy. But I hope it is now going to depart through the stage door.

Thanks for writing. I hate pay for play--it is wrong headed and ineffectual.

Lee thanks for reading my blog. There is a very clear line between advertising and PR. Any blurring of it is incredibly damaging to the PR business and to the media.

David..you are so right. In fact we are trying to build democratic institutions in Iraq and a free press is key to eventual success.

I oppose pay for play whether in a Democratic or a Republican Administration I think there is a rather bright line between advertising and PR the most credible communication is an article written by a journalist taking a hard look at both sides of an issue, then opining Our job is to propose stories and spokespeople, not to buy the space or the reporter

Richard,

Kudos for making a strong statement and taking a leadership position in the industry. Many of my colleagues in the journalism community took note and you’ve helped to improve the credibility of the PR profession.

A couple of points for you to consider farther.

You say, "If a free media is a central aspect of a democratic society, then we cannot allow our PR industry to impede its development. It is a perversion of our business, an intentional blurring of a clear demarcation between paid and earned media. We should advise our clients, private sector and governmental, that trust is earned through transparency, continuous communication and dialogue. Let me hear your thoughts on this important matter."

One of my concerns about the PR industry at large is that corporations and industries with deep pockets still utilize firms to create a larger share-of-voice with their key audience: the media. The government plays this role too. In Iraq's case, I wonder how much PR activity is taking place. Do US contractors have ownership over share-of-voice, or is there a sophisticated PR machine in operation promoting a range of views. Do editors at the Iraqi journals understand the dynamic between PR and media?

Thanks again for your thoughtful insights.

Best- Jackson

JS I don't know whether the contractors are using PR in Iraq. What I do know is that we must try to live by the principles that we espouse. So that means reinforcing a free press. PR can play an important role in alerting journalists to story ideas but we cannot be in the pay for play game. No payments to journalists, no payments to media for running articles.

I understand your point of view. But I believe that paying reporters and paying for space is bad business. We lose our effectiveness if we lose our credibility. Again I am not interested in making political points. Just that there is clear line between advertising and PR.

Dear Richard:
I don't disagree with you. But the certainly the circumstances in Iraq are somewhat different than what we have in our stable, democratic republic. I think a case can be made that propaganda in the land of our enemies is a legitimate weapon of war (which ultimately saves lives).

However, I do agree that this was unethical behaviour on behalf of the Lincoln Group and any other US firm which does this type of business with the government. We can draw the line between the actions of government and our business.

Finally, your macro-point about the function of PR is dead-on and absolutely correct. But we should remember that we are working under the assumption that there is a stable, democratic, working government in place.

Best,

JG

Richard, I'm amazed by your amazement. From a historical perspective, it's clear that governments have always bent the truth to achieve their own goals. In recent history however, the US has perfected this art to the point were it is totaly re-creating the (it's own) truth. This is called 'information-warfare'. It works just like bombs, but then on a psycological level. It's very effective!
It's a reality which has been with us for some time now, getting bigger and bigger by the day.

Your blog is great, Richard!

Fred
My dad was in psy ops in WWII. I know we engaged in "black radio" at that time. But here we are at a different time and place. We are held to a very high standard. If we believe in a bright future for Iraq (and I do by the way ) then we have to allow development of a free media.

There has been overreaching by PR companies like Fenton--remember the ALAR scare on apples But we cannot go for paying journalists or buying the space if we claim to believe in a free media

Richard,

What appears to be happening is an example of bad disclosure policies, but not necessarily bad intentions. Obviously, the U.S. military isn?t simply dispensing information; it?s actively looking for pathways to influence Iraqi thinking, true to the discipline of public relations. They may have crossed the line vis-à­¶is attribution and payments, no doubt, but that should not compel them to revert to a pure information dissemination model. They?d otherwise be robbed of their duty to fight the war with words rather than arms.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We weaken our principle benefit of advocacy when we do.

For all the comments about free media in Iraq, I would state 2 things -

First, it is pretty free, and with over 100 newspapers working to keep a market share, there is some stiff competition. Publishing lies there would lead to a loss of credibility that would impact sales negatively, so I presume that the content was primarily true.

Second, no one was forced to either take the payments or to publish, having taken them. It would be so easy to nod, accept the dollars, and not publish - to whom would the military complain?

I believe the media has shown its true colors regading its reporting of democrats and democratic administrations vs. its coverage of Republicans and Republican administrations. The real story here is that the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, et. al, are full of it! Unethical to the core and not really journalists, but propagandists for the Democratic Party.

Having said that, I believe there are too many hypocrites in the media and PR to even have a fair discussion about pay for play. It seems the media ignores the Clinton Administration, ignores stories that hurt Democrats and makes a mockery of the profession (e.g.: its coverage of Katrina and the 2004 election).

Richard, I've followed your company since the early '90s when I first left journalism to go into PR. I've always been impressed with the way you trained your people, and having heard you speak at WeMedia in New York, I am also glad you are at the forefront of bringing PR into the 21st Century.

So after reading your post and all the comments, all I have to say is this: thank you for reminding us that this used to be the United States of America, where democracy was never a matter of convenience; where we used to defeat our enemies by being better than them, not by stooping to the tactics of tyrants; and where freedom of the press was cherished as an American value, not tarnished as a tool for propoganda.

Best,

Gary Goldhammer

I can empathize with your position and outrage that this imbroglio might be framed as a "bad for PR" scenario, but I think this nuanced approach is not what most people are seeing - it's a communications problem. Tranzparency and credibility or "pay to play" are issues only to those who do not believe that the ends justify the means. Unfortunately, I think we are experiencing (again) the results of a belief by politicians and their (paid) consultants that the latter trumps the former most of the time.

BTW - don't be surprized as The Lincoln Group becomes the story - and the chum.

1) Iraq is not a stable, democratic republic like the USA -- it's a battlefield. It's seems somewhat pretentious to apply our standards to a country which in the middle of a bloody war. And history shows a free media can only occur after the development of a stable, democratic government. And clearly that can only happen if we reach the Iraqi people with the right messages.

2) If propaganda is a legtimate weapon of war, why is it wrong for our nation to use it in a nation where we are fighting? It would be one thing if the US did this in US newspapers (and yes, I know they have in the past.) As a weapon, propaganda is much less deadly than some of the other weapons we deploy (Mr. Goldhammer should read a history book someday about Hiroshima).

3) That being said, there is something smelly about a US-based PR firm being involved with this. Americans prefer to have our weapons wielded by professional soldiers, not hired mercenaries. Perhans The Lincoln Group is acting like mercenaries, and they (and the military) should be condemned for that aspect. But then again, they have already been punished with bad publicity.

I really like the idea of the on line community of what is topical. If MySpace is any indication, this would really work.

The fact that such behavior exists does not mean we should condone it. In fact, those of us in PR should stand up and be counted. We should state firmly that we do not tolerate this type of behavior, paying off journalists and buying space. Thanks for reading my blog

We agree to disagree on this one Alan. I think that if we are buying the space, let's label it an infomercial. We cannot have a free media if we are undermining the premise of journalist judgment.

Ok I accept your free market premise but here we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are teaching journalists how to practice the craft, then undermining the credibility of the end product by doing this.

I am not a political guy. I am simply a PR person trying to point out the distinction between advertising and PR. Stories in the media are trusted because they are not paid, they are earned.

Don't give up. Our principles are the mark of distinction of this nation.

I go back to a very simple premise. We have to conduct ourselves in a manner that lives up to the highest standards of democracy. One of the core premises of democracy is a free press that informs its citizenry. The buying of stories and placements is bad strategy

Gosh, what a surprise!

Our American military trying to get positive news into the Iraqi media to get more Iraqis to:
a. support their fledging government,
b. fight for their new freedoms,
c. appreciate their fledgling democracy, and
d. plant fewer roadside bombs that kill and injure our troops.

You may not know it from the AMERICAN news media -- which has a visceral loathing for, among other things, the Bush administration, the Republican Party and the US Military -- but there IS a war on, in which we are making progress, and in which the Iraqis are taking on increasing responsibilities, month by month.

The information that the Lincoln Group and others are placing in the Iraqi media is probably more accurate and more credible than a lot of the garbage being pumped out by our own "main stream media."

My only regret is that we aren't doing more of it.

Cordially,

Bill

P.S. The political propaganda and bias in our own media has now become so intense and pervasive that it simply is not a credible source of information on anything but the weather, the TV schedule and stock prices.

I now rely instead on a cross-section of blogs, left, right and center, to get an accurate sense of what's going on.

Richard
What can I say? Our industry is in a tailspin, there's little leadership and our credibility slips and slips. I am heartened to see the comments from the Arthur Page Society, the only group in our industry with the courage to put ethics ahead of fat government contracts. You were right in January with the Armstrong Williams situation and you are right now.
Still waiting for the Council of Public Relations Firms to weigh in.
Elliot

Sometimes the truth turns out to be disappoining, painful or simply unecceptable to face.
Facing the truth means taking full responsibility for ones actions. If we are not prepaired to examen and question our actions in an honest way, the only option left is to conceal the truth with lies, thereby justifing the actions we took.
In that case we create a new layer of pain on top of the initial pain we caused.
This is the ongoing process known as 'the chain of pain'. It is the way to chaos. It can only be broken by taking full responsibility for our actions - which is a painful procces for the ego.

In my view the item of taking responsibility for our actions and thoughts has been and still is the single most important struggle of mankind. Responsibility however, can only be taken by every one of us individualy!

We still have a long way to go...

Mr. Edelman, you say you oppose Pay for Play, but doesn't the PR industry routinely pay vendors for guaranteed placement Audio News Release and Video News Release services?

Aren't these products nothing more than a glorified version of Pay for Play?

My understanding is that PR vendors are literally paying radio and TV stations to air ANRs and VNRs that stations would otherwise not run, unless they were paid by the vendor.

To me, that's what the term guaranteed placement implies because the only way to guarantee placement is to pay someone at the radio or TV station for the airtime.

In other words, Pay for Play is being done in Iraq, but it's also rampant in the PR industry in the U.S.

Your thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

The ad and PR businesses are treated with low regard in general by the public. People understand that they are pitched to either to market a product or an indirect product. So, I think that trying to improve the image of these professions is probably not going to alter perceptions much.
The story with the military is slightly different in that the actions may have broken some explicit laws on the use of unacknowledged propaganda.

The arguments about "the other side does it too" are widely used when someone gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but it's no real defense. Providing Iraqi journalists with high tech equipment to improve their reporting capabilities or even a grant to support reporting would allow them to find their own stories. Feeding them the material discredits the stories and the journalists. If it was meant to be above board the military wouldn't have had to launder the stories.

The war is lost when you lose the support of those at home, not on the battle field.

As always you provide a very simple and important point. "We have to conduct ourselves in a manner that lives up to the highest standards of democracy." Most people already have a misguided view of PR. I hear, far too often, PR thrown around for this and that, always missing the real purpose for our work. If we are to change the perception of our business, we have to hold ourselves to the highest standards. And things like this are dragging us backwards!

Mr. Edelman,

Thank you for your response. The media is losing its credibility to report fairly and accurately. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather are shamefully awarded Peabody's and given standing ovations from their peers, yet they are the symbol of all that is wrong with the media and why the public has lost trust with that institution. I don't excuse the pay for play tactics -- this subversion of the rules. However, we are in a war for civilization. The media is full of stories that are anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-U.S.
military, anti-Christian, and anti-war. What about the global media bias against Israel? How does a country like Israel get a fair shake?

The media will proudly carry the water for the Democratic Party. All this "Bush lied" propaganda is just plain ludicrous.

The media says the Bush Administration is staging press conferences, yet a reporter from a Tennessee paper crafts a question for a U.S. soldier to ask of Donald Rumsfeld regarding body armor. Is this not staging? Does the media not pre-package everything it sells? Do you believe the media does not have an agenda?

The media will do its best to downplay any positive news coming from this administration while continuing its agenda to do everything in its power to destroy it. Tell me, do you believe there are positive stories in Iraq that are not being told? Are we to understand that the only worthy news to report are the deaths of U.S. soldiers? The daily ghoulish drumbeat is sickening.
No wonder the American people have a negative perception. They get spoon-fed a daily dose of this garbage. What about Al-Jazzeera and other foreign anti-American media outlets such as the BBC? Do you think the U.S. can compete for its message with the garbage these outlets broadcast? How can you even call these stories "trusted?" How can you even call the NY Times or the LA Times stories "trusted?" I could cite you a hundred AP and Reuters stories that are completely slanted against President Bush. Not to mention activist teachers, professors and the Hollywood left.

It would be one thing if there was a free-press in Iraq. It is not yet a Democracy. I hate to use the term subvert, but it seems to me that we are losing the media war in the Middle East because it is being subverted by Iran, Syria, etc. How do you propose we combat this? Propaganda campaigns have been going on since the days of Washington and Lincoln. Surely, you know the U.S. was involved in propaganda campaigns in WWI, WWII and even the Cold War. Our soldiers are dying because our liberal media and the Democrats are willfully playing into the hands of those who would do our soldiers and this country harm. It is obvious that America and Bush are hated because of the B.S. aired by Al-Jazzeera and other so-called media outlets. Yet, we know this information is nothing but lies and distortions. But our media and the Democrats play right into their hands because of their sheer hatred for Bush.

CNN's former President Eason Jordan admitted that the news organization did not report atrocities in Iraq and slanted its coverage so that its reporters could remain in that country to report stories. Again, another example of this so-called falsehood that PR and media people claim is "trust" and "credibility."

I find the media to be so reprehensible at times that we have long passed the point of no return for absolute truth and credibility.

I wish that this Administration was more competent at playing the media game. Ronald Reagan was a victim of liberal media bias both here and abroad, but he handled it like no other.

Kevin

Lest we forget, PR was born out of propaganda both corporate and government in the past century. PR is a scrawny, squalid little business, but it’s our business. Let’s not pretend that it’s a profession, and please don’t talk down to us from your moral hilltop.

You say you're simply a PR person trying to point out a distinction...c'mon, you're an agency head trying to differentiate yourself in the marketplace with your blog and this bit of fake thought leadership decrying fake PR in Iraq...PR imitating PR that’s imitating news. The irony is so rich!

As someone relatively inexperienced to the PR world, what is the difference between "PR ... alerting journalists to story ideas" vs any other entity trying to twist the media to their advantage (or someone's disadvantage)? I think the longer one is in the business of media, the more one realizes there is always a bias. But I'm somewhat cyncal. I've interviewed old ladies who have tried to control my story :) I guess my point is, whatever stories or people you try and "alert" journalists to would (I'm assuming) have a beneficial impact for you in the end. Even if you aren't paying the media to run a story, isn't that just as bad?

Caroline Smith

Dear Mr. Edelman,

I am a student in the Strategic Communications program at Columbia University, and last week one of my classmates sent this story around with a joke about pr people. I walked into class stating your last paragraph almost word for word.

For the last five years I have been working on the agency side in corporate pharma/biotech public relations, largely in media relations. I have had the good fortune of working with senior management at fantastic firms and I have never been asked to lie about my clients or my purpose. Media relations at its best is about raising awareness or driving action around causes, people, organizations or products that are worthy of attention or discussion. What the Lincoln Group did was completely unethical, and detrimental to the industry as a whole.

Thank you for addressing the issue of "pay for play" head on and clearly stating why it has never had a place in the public relations toolkit.

Those of us in PR risk being stereotyped as flaks spinmeisters or even worse. Thanks for standing up for all of us

JF just a thought perhaps there can be simultaneous development by internal R&D tempered by enthusiast comments from involved consumers. This is co creation of brand

TA
Sorry but we are a profession. And I have been on the record about pay for play for the past year. Note my previous comments on Armstrong Williams

CS I see a distinction. We are simply trying to put forward credible spokespeople. The reporters make the call.

TL note today's NYTimes piece
Protest by MoveOn against Chicago Tribune and LA Times newsroom cutbacks Saying that it will inhibit their ability to monitor important public sector activities So newspapers are a vital public resource!

JE Note President Bush's own speech last April on importance of free press to democratic institution building in Iraq

RF We have to get away from pitching to a conversation. How we do our work really matters

RF We have to get away from pitching to a conversation. How we do our work really matters

Hi Richard,

Co creation is great especially if you have intentions to get into customisation.
My main issue with clients is to help them think and/and in stead of or/or. We are living in a quick-fix age. Like you put in your blog quick fixes are often bad for long term results.
--
Kind regards,
Joris Funcke MBA

I know that we do not pay for air time...whether on tv or radio. Just a point of clarification for you on VNRs

I think the issue is quite straightforward. We need to be willing to allow a free press to develop in Iraq. Pay for play undermines it

El
You are one of the few with the confidence to stand up and be counted. I have always liked that about you. We have to make PR folks less afraid.

Bill
I understand your point of view but I believe that we need to get our message across in a credible fashion. If we buy the space and time without acknowledging the content as advertorial instead of editorial, we are undermining our own efforts. Thanks for reading my blog

Thanks Richard
And I too appreciate your willingness to lead. Wish I had a bigger platform...I might actually be heard.
Hope all is well.

Richard and others,

The underlying principle here is transparency. Ethical communication in democracies is transparent. The point of pay for play is to make readers believe that someone else is the source of the message. Research clearly demonstrates that the discovery of pay for play will have a boomerang effect.

Democracy is impossible in the absence of trust in politicians and trust in the media. Such actions only will make the people we wish to influence less trustful of all communication from Americans and those who would support us.

If any one engages in this type of behavior it is wrong. Saying that Clinton did it does not excuse the behavior of this administration. I don't believe that Laura Bush would buy the logical extension of this argument that it would be okay for George to dally in the west wing with an intern because Bill did.

The fact is pay for play, disception and intentionally misleading communication are unethical and bad strategy. They will harm our chances of bringing democracy to Iraq.

Vince Hazleton, Professor
Department of Communication
Radford University

No PR firm ever paid an American reporter to print a story. Right. The hypocrisy here is astounding. The only question here should be are the stories accurate. Not balanced, mind you, just accurate. We in America only get one side of the story most of the time. It is a little weak of you to insist on better in Iraq.

You only have to look at the Armstrong Williams situation to see that what you say is true. That does not make it right nor intelligent policy. Thanks for reading my blog.