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.

Hillary's double crossed again

          In the spring of 2008, Democratic presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton’s chief advisor, Mark Penn, was involved in a heated controversy that landed him in the media’s spotlight. The Colombian government hired his public relations counseling firm to help them pass a free-trade pact. This was in direct conflict with Clinton’s stance—which opposed the pact. And when Clinton’s competitors saw the chance, they jumped on it.

         Penn should have quickly seen the conflict of interest and refused to work on the Colombian account. He was working against himself, trying to oppose the pact and confirm the pact at the same time. It not only made him look like a hypocrite, but his clients as well. Although having both of these large accounts could be very tempting, if you are CEO of a public relations agency you should know that it is important to keep affiliations separate, and that devotion to your clients is extremely important.

         I have always been a strong believer that you should admire the company that you work for. If you don’t agree with what your organization or clients are saying or doing and don’t think that you could stand behind their morals, then that’s not the right place for you. Particularly from a public relations standpoint where you have to show your clients in their best light and champion them to public, you have to be honest about who they are and what they are about. And if you don’t believe in them, then you will have to be dishonest. And in PR, honesty is key.

         Penn’s decision to juggle both a public relations firm and a political candidate campaign was probably not the best choice, because political candidates are notoriously black-and-white on many key issues. The odds of all of your firm’s clients and the candidate’s interests not overlapping would be very slim. In order to represent both without conflict or inattention would be a very difficult job to manage. 

Pope Benedict XVI's Public Relations

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI made a trip to the United States.  The trip came on the heels of The Catholic Church’s destructive scandal involving pedophile priests. In order to make a name for himself and in an attempt to combat the humiliation of such a historic disaster, Pope Benedict orchestrated his time in America by including events which would ultimately restore the public’s faith in the church. 

He began by discussing the pedophile scandal with reporters before his plane even landed. Next, he held a conference with sex-abuse victims. In addition, he went to a synagogue in New York, held a mass at Yankee Stadium and spoke with the United Nations.

But the Pope had other options. One option would have been to ignore the problems and try to rise above them. He could have just followed in previous Papal footsteps and visited the president or presided over a mass, but this would have been ignoring the obvious problem. Although the idea that refusing to address the problem would draw less attention to the scandal, the firestorm over the abuse was so well known that ignoring it would just raise more questions.  Either way the pervasive scandal would have made its way into the media. Providing the public with an honest, direct response made Pope Benedict seem candid, which inspired confidence in his leadership.

He could have tried to address the issue on his own turf before coming to America. He previously had attempted to remain silent on the issue, but once he made it to the US he decided to confront the scandal. If however, he had attempted to give his opinion and express his remorse in Italy, then the media might have already covered the information thoroughly and wouldn’t have given the story as much attention on his arrival.

The downside of using his trip to address the pedophile scandal is that it draws more attention to the situation. It could cause the public to concentrate on the scandal rather than the positive issues that he was offering. But completely ignoring it would raise suspicion and leave devotees wanting answers to their questions. 

Dog The Bounty Hunter Scandal

Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" Chapman’s racist language almost cost him his job in November 2007. During an off-screen telephone conversation, Chapman used an obscene racial slur while trying to persuade his son to break-up with his African American girlfriend. After suspending Chapman for a short time, the A&E network brought back the show.

A&E could have completely pulled Dog The Bounty Hunter from the air and refused to work with a man who misrepresented the company in a negative way. But completely pulling the show off the air before gauging the public’s opinion could have cost them a successful program.

They could have cut Chapman’s pay, unless there was a contract preventing it. Typically, a quick way to let an employee know that you are serious is to cut their pay or hours. Giving Chapman real consequences for his actions might have helped to make his situation seem more serious.

Another interesting option might have been to find another star for this type of show. Although it wouldn’t have been the same “Dog” that attracted an audience with his brash antics; they could have found another fugitive recovery agent to replace him.

This, like many PR questions, is a tricky one. I don’t think it really has a simple answer. To not allow employees to have their own opinions, however disgusting they may be, is not a trait that I would encourage for any institution. However, employees must recognize that their behaviors are a reflection on their employers.

I think that A&E should have taken Chapman back with a long list of conditions. Perhaps they could have insisted that he make a public apology for his behavior.  Or they could have insisted that he enlist in tolerance classes.

Allowing Chapman to return, regardless of the conditions still has a negative impact on A&E’s reputation in some respects. It leads the public to believe that racist language and inappropriate behavior are tolerated by A&E.