Astroturfing, smear campaigns, social media manipulation, unauthorized release of private information, defamation, character assassination, whisper campaigns, media planting, and gaslighting.

These activities are undertaken by the seamiest, most ethically challenged public relations practitioners. While there are far more PR professionals who abide by ethical codes, the bad actors get all the attention, leading to a sordid reputation for the industry that some believe we will never be able to overcome.

The latest example comes from the agency representing actor/producer/director Justin Baldoni, who responded to accusations of inappropriate behavior by engaging an agency that employed all of the tactics listed above. Initially, the campaign had the desired effect but ultimately backfired as the campaign itself drew more attention than the original allegations.

In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel examine the controversy and address the idea of requiring licensing or certification of all PR practitioners and whether it would weed out those who find codes of ethics to be mere inconveniences to be ignored.

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. Shel has started a metaverse-focused Flipboard magazine. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Links from this episode:

Raw Transcript:

Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 442 of four immediate release. I’m Shel Holtz. And I’m Neville Hobson. And we are recording this the day after Christmas Day. And this topic is very timely news wise. It’s in the news, but it has depth of distinct interest to communicators. And this is the huge kerfuffle surrounding the actors, Blake Lively and Justin Bald, and the aftermath of the work they did on the film.

It ends with us. It’s become a flashpoint for ethical discussion in the PR and entertainment industries. The incident as covered by many, the B-B-C-C-E-O today, New York Times that I’ve seen today, in fact and many others, showcases a disturbing confluence of workplace misconduct allegations and aggressive reputation management strategies.

With continuing allegations over egregious behaviors by PR pros and agencies, what are the [00:01:00] impacts for practitioners and the profession? We’ll address this question right after this.

The conflict began during the production of It Ends with us where Blake Lively accused Baldon and producer Jamie Heath of boundary violations and inappropriate behavior, prompting the studio Wayfarer to implement safeguards such as hiring an intimacy coordinator. Despite these measures, tensions persisted particularly over creative control.

Lively ultimately won significant input into the film’s final cut and received a producer credit as the film approached its release. Private messages revealed a coordinated effort by Baldon and his crisis PR team, led by Melissa Nathan to damage Lively’s reputation. I. The campaign allegedly involved amplifying negative narratives about Lively online while suppressing stories of b’s.

Alleged misconduct techniques included fostering untraceable social media narratives, leveraging media connections to plant damaging stories, and utilizing [00:02:00] tactics reminiscent of campaigns seen in other high profile cases like that of Johnny Depp and Amber Hurt. Documents disclose that Baldon and his team sought to portray lively as difficult to work with and opportunistic, aiming to shift public focus from his actions to her perceived shortcomings.

This strategy significantly impacted Lively’s career and personal brand resulting in a decline in her haircare product, sales and public backlash against her. The PR tactics used in this case highlight the ethical quandaries surrounding the industry’s role in reputation management. The notion that PR professionals could systematically attempt to bury an individual raises questions about the need for stricter professional standards such as licensing or accreditation for PR practitioners.

Something Shel and I have discussed many times in this podcast. B’S public image has remained relatively intact despite the revelations. While Lively has suffered reputational damage. Critics argue this outcome [00:03:00] underscores the pervasive double standards in how society evaluates men and women in public controversies.

Allegations of harassment and subsequent retaliation illustrate persistent issues within Hollywood’s power dynamics. The case exemplifies how crisis management can ve into ethically dubious territory. Real world consequences for individuals and public discourse. It also strengthens the argument for introducing licensing requirements for PR practitioners to enforce ethical standards and accountability.

A number of PR practitioners have weighed in on this, especially on LinkedIn. Many are highly critical of the alleged egregious behavior and actions of some PR practitioners. But before we look at what others have to say, she, what’s your take on the PR issues arising from all of this? It leads me to re reiterate my belief that we do need licensing or a requirement for certification for people to work in this industry because there are no repercussions to the agency that [00:04:00] engaged in this behavior and this behavior is beyond the pale.

I mean if you look at the codes of ethics of any. Association out there that represents people in the communications industry. P-R-S-A-I-A-B-C-C-P-R-S-C-I-P-R, they have violated several of these truth and accuracy. Uh, is one. They engaged in defamation and they spread falsehoods.

The core of her lawsuit is the accusation. That his team spread these false and damaging stories about her, and that violates code of ethics, which does emphasize. Honesty and accuracy in communications. They misused influence his position. And I think this has come out more strongly since this story has gained the legs that it has.

He has been a prominent advocate for women’s rights. They he’s misusing his influence there to a attack. A woman potentially harm a colleague [00:05:00] is a. Breach of trust. There’s a lack of transparency involved here, which is another PR principle of, fostering open and honest communication.

The smear campaign was conducted covertly. S...