The subset of lawyers who use their education and experience to become defense attorneys know that in the course of their work, they’ll be called upon to defend those who are actually guilty of the crimes for which they are accused.

Another subset of lawyers will direct their talents toward defending their employers–entities and organizations–that they know will not always be innocent of the crimes, oversights, violations and misdeeds for which they may be accused.

Presumably, members of these subsets made conscious decisions to enter their respective lines of work. No one held a gun to their heads to seek such employment, and no one will literally feed them to wild boars should they choose to redirect their talents toward other branches of law.

Professional communicators enjoy similar choices and are similarly as free to direct their talents in ways they see fit. The similarity ends, however, when the lines of ethics and morality are crossed.

As far as this layman knows, lawyers in First World countries are bound to strict codes of ethics that demand truth and compel obedience to a body of laws. If individual attorneys can be true to these ideals and find success in their respective niches, more power to them. If they cross the line, there are mechanisms in place to try the facts and prescribe penalties, if necessary. There can be serious repercussions and the risk of public humiliation.

To the question of why some PR firms and communication shops are willing to bed down with tyrants who starve their people, laboratories that torture animals, corporations that prosper from endless wars and otherwise give spin to the pantheon of 21st Century horrors, the answer is threefold: because it’s profitable to do so, the Nuremberg Gambit is easily invoked, and the penalties, prescribed ot otherwise, for turning a blind eye are largely absent.

Maybe the line is one of the ‘truthiness’ of the spin given rather than the ‘virtue’ of the client. Still, to be fair, I’d have problems dining with someone who works for the likes of Myanmar, North Korea, Hamas or Arsenal Football Club.

Mike

But I sure would hate for communicators to be lumped in the same categories as lawyers. (With apologies to my son and daughter-in-law, who are attorneys.)

Perhaps we communicators could stand where lawyers stand–where there is a fundamental belief that a client has a right to be able to make his or her case?

Something to think about–a good post, Julie…

Mike Klein
Delft, NL