Money over ethics is a poor choice.

It only takes about thirty minutes of watching the news before I start asking myself whether I’m being presented material that I want to hear or that which I need to hear. It’s a constant complaint by journalists and news enthusiasts alike. Stop printing what will get good stats, and start printing information that I need to know.

But in a news environment, where readers can pick and choose what they want to read, this may not be realistic. Gone are the days when every person read his or her local paper cover to cover. It’s much more likely that readers are reading blogs that they enjoy and directly feeding content they’re interested in at their disposal, and ignoring, if even acknowledging, all the rest.

This doesn’t mean that reporters should only cover what will be the most popular news story. That’s not the role of journalism. And many journalists still feel this way. Take for example, when in 2008, Sam Zell bought the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Orlando Sentinel. He was later sued by a group of current and former Los Angeles Times reporters who accused Zell of “recklessness.”

One of the first things that Zell did was to discard the old “overly legalistic” handbook and replace it with a new one that began: Rule No. 1: Use your best judgment. Rule No. 2: See Rule No. 1. The handbook further stated “ Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer.”

And now you’re thinking good; finally a CEO is encouraging employee push back. But this moment of clarity was lost when in a later meeting, a staff photographer asked her new boss what he thought “ the role of journalism was in the community” and Zell responded, “ I want to make enough money so that I can afford you. You need to in effect help me by being a journalist that focuses on what our readers want that generates more revenue.”

Zell greatly misjudged the loyalty of journalists to the ethics of journalism. He should have realized the importance of journalistic ethics to his staff member’s reputations and careers. So Zell was sued for “recklessness” and eventually went under when in December of 2008 he filed for bankruptcy.

Just ask any current college student or grad (like myself) the current job market is a scary and uninviting place. Now more than ever, CEOs are realizing that maintaining positive employee relations programs is a critical step to ensure productivity. But apparently Zell, made the tragic mistake of valuing money over assets. Employee assets that is.

What Happened, Scott?

                  George W. Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan was one of the weakest in history. Bush loyally transferred McClellan with him from Texas to Washington D.C. when he was elected. But when McClellan  left his position he started pointing fingers at Bush in his instant best-seller, “What Happened.”

                  I understand the idea that McClellan had an ethical responsibility to reveal what happened in the White House, but his timing was all wrong. If McClellan had truly just wanted to reveal what happened behind closed doors, he could have released that information during his time as a press secretary, not after Fox News broadcaster Tony Snow had replaced him. And if that really was the only reason, which I highly doubt, then he would not have released it as a memoir that gained him profit. If McClellan thought that Bush’s campaign relied on “ propaganda” to sell the war in Iraq, was “terribly off course” in war policy, was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing. Then why didn’t he tell Bush that? Why didn’t he show Bush the ways that he could have improved his campaign? And if Bush didn’t listen, then McClellan needed to share that information with the public right then—not years down the road.

         If anything I think McClellan should have remained loyal to Bush. Saying one thing during his position and then turning around and saying the opposite after he was “relieved” of his duties, made McClellan, as well as the Bush administration, look dishonest. There is no more room for dishonesty in public relations. PR is supposed to create transparency, so that we can truly see what public entities are about. Public relations is already receiving a bad rap because of recent scandals in the media. In reality, PR is the opposite of lying; it’s showing the public the truth. But for most, I think the words truth and PR have no relation to one another.

         Either way, McClellan is still being dishonest, but if he remained loyal to Bush at least his future clients would have seen him as loyal. Now how will his clients know that he will not trash talk them in front of the entire nation after he has worked with them. They won’t; and his career in PR will probably suffer from that.