Codes of ethics are good and everything. The Sermon on the Mount comes to mind. But this journo finger-wagging at PRSA ethics is ridiculous. As in the dictionary definition. Blaming the messenger is a coward’s game.
Yeah, me neither.
So now, a journalist wants the public relations community to hold the messenger accountable for the failures of his own profession. See, these journos are all in a bunch because HOW were they to know what we all knew all along?
The First Amendment is pretty straightforward:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Covers a lot of ground, eh? But very little room for ambiguity. As I read it relative to the situation at hand, people can think or say whatever they want.
Pretty sure Scotty’s covered, too.
Oh, yeah: people can print whatever they want, too. And maybe even ask questions. And print the answers. Ya’ know … if they WANT to.
Also, I’m confident that you get to broadcast and blog and maybe even shout out the window, too. But I’m not a lawyer: maybe that’s what the Supreme Court is for.
Or journo blogs.
I am no defender of Scott McClellan. I cursed him for days on end not too long ago. But to hold him responsible for repeating was he’s told? What does that do to the rest of us? Should we put our clients to polygraphs before accepting an engagement?
Who really didn’t do their job to the highest ideals of their profession here?
Over at McClatchy, they have an idea:
Dissenters, or even those who voiced worry about where the policy was going, were ignored, excluded or punished. (Note: See Gen. Eric Shinseki, Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson and all of the State Department 's Arab specialists and much of its intelligence bureau).
So, Gary, whose professional ethics are at stake?