Ron Wallace’s agent, Joe Beringer, has asked that our firm assist him in dealing with the media regarding his recent accusations. Our task would be to show Mr. Wallace in a favorable light while promoting his upcoming projects, and to portray him as a positive role model to the media. Mr. Beringer has informed me that Mr. Wallace admitted taking an unknown substance that may or may not have been steroids. Mr. Beringer is offering a very high salary and such a high-profile case will surely be good for our company, assuming Mr. Wallace is exonerated.
I do not think that it is a good idea to take this case unless Mr. Wallace agrees to be more forthcoming. Stating that he has taken an “unknown substance” sounds shaky at best, and his credibility is questionable. If we take this case, and tests prove him to be guilty, our reputations will be permanently damaged. If he did indeed voluntarily take a substance that was unidentifiable, then this situation is no one’s fault but his own. He must take responsibility.
If the client agrees to be forthcoming and tell the media and his accusers that he did take an unknown substance, under the impression that is was not steroids, we can move forward with reconciliation. At this time, we will be able to portray him favorably in the media, but not before then. If he admits that he took an unknown substance and suspected it to be steroids, or in fact knew it was steroids, then we can promote the angle that he is regretful and would like to atone for what he has done. He could stop taking the drugs and enter a rehabilitation program, at which point we would be willing to represent him and focus on the positive side of his career.
Our publicity at that time would focus on his charity, community service, and other good works. His stellar athletic record before the ingestion of the “unknown” substance would be highlighted, indicating that he was a talented ballplayer even before the use of the performance enhancing drug. In similar situations, such as what happened with Barry Bonds, failure to disclose information is more harmful to the client than coming clean up front.
“On November 15, 2007, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Bonds. He was charged with four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. ‘During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances for Bonds and other athletes,’ the indictment reads. The charges focus on Bonds' responses to the grand jury in his 2003 testimony, specifically his denials when asked if he had used steroids, and whether Anderson had administered steroids to him” (Wikipedia entry, retrieved August 16, 2010).
As was seen in this case, lying or concealing information could result in serious charges such as perjury. We do not want our company associated with that. The salary paid to us for taking this case would not be worth the ethical damage. We must remember, “What reasonable persons require, is that advocacy efforts be directed toward genuinely informing impacted publics. Communication efforts will not attempt to present false/deceptive/misleading information under the guise of literal truth no matter how strongly the practitioner wants to convince others of the merits of a particular client/organization’s position/cause” (Cameron, et al, 2008).
What we should keep in mind is that the truth always comes out in the end. We are not being asked to do anything unethical now, but if and when the truth comes out, we will be noted as having been associated with this case. Ultimately, if we decide to take Mr. Wallace as our client and he admits to any wrongdoing, whether known or unknown, we can work with him to put a positive spin on these events. However, if he continues to publicly deny these accusations and dodge any questions regarding the depth of his knowledge, I highly recommend that we do not take this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment