PR and the Law

Posted on December 1st, 2009 in PR and the Law by mag10

PR and professionals in PR have to be conscious of the law and follow it strictly. The public opinion of what is constituted as free speech and what is not must be considered by PR professionals since the public is what PR professionals should be most concerned with. The example used in our text book was that of Don Imus. He was the radio and tv host who racially and sexually slurred the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. He lost his shows, but the book says that his first amendment rights were not violated. He didn’t lose his job because of the government, he lost his job because of the public opinion. I agree with this statement. He was allowed to say whatever he wanted but he had to accept the consequences when the public reacted.

The book also says that it is the  job of the PR practitioner to know and understand the laws that govern the PR practice. Not knowing these laws puts the professionals and his or her client at rist for law suits. I think that it is important for PR practitioners to know the law and I also think that it is their responsibility. It is not fair for them to put their organization at risk just because they don’t want to take the time to learn the laws. I also think that it would help a PR professional gain more clients if they knew the laws because the company would trust them more and they would have more credibility.

Disclosure in PR

Posted on November 15th, 2009 in PR and the Law by mag10

The blog by Dave Fleet had some interesting points about disclosure of PR and organizations. He asked if average people really care about whether a PR company working with an organization tell the people they’re working together. I would answer no. He thought the same but also put in the importance of disclosure in his blog. He says that not disclosing workings with a PR firm can derail an organization’s message, cause problems with the industry’s reputation, and the ever-lasting question of ethics. I do not consider myself a person who is “in the fish bowl,” as Dave says, of the PR world. Therefore I do not think that disclosure of a PR firm in the marketings of other companies is important. Whether the message is being said by a person from the company or a person hired to say something from another company for that company, doesn’t matter to me. What matters is the message and the actual company’s activities. I think a lot of average people realize that people in commercials don’t actually work in the company of the product they’re advertising for. I think it’s a given that those people are hired by the company just like PR firms are hired by companies.