I was troubled but not surprised to learn that Chevron hired former CNN reporter Gene Randall to put together a story rebutting a "60 Minutes" piece on the $27 billion environmental lawsuit the company faces over alleged damage to the Amazon rainforest.
Telling your side of the story in the face of scathing news coverage is a tried and true PR tactic. But the piece is produced to appear like a purely journalistic exercise, with no attribution to Chevron. Randall is identified with an on-screen super that reads "Gene Randall Reporting," and he signs off the piece with the same language.
The 14-minute video is posted on YouTube and no doubt making the rounds of other social media channels, avoiding the scrutiny and editorial objectivity of mainstream news organizations. Regardless of the facts, I can't help but believe it's intent is not to inform, but to obfuscate. And how could a guy like Randall allow his name and reputation to be used in such a manner?
More troubling, and particularly surprising, are the number of seasoned PR pros who are defending the practice, suggesting the existence of social media channels makes such blatantly one-side, pseudo-journalism permissible. That's like saying it's OK to cheat on your taxes as long as you don't get caught.
There's an old saying in crisis PR that the court of public opinion can be more damaging than the court of law, so it's easy to understand Chevron's motivation in mounting this defense. But that's no excuse for tossing aside transparency, a crucial ingredient to earning trust and corporate reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment