Celebrity Reputation Management and the "Dark Side" of Public Relations

Adrian McIntyre: 00:00:04

He said, she said turned into he sued, she sued, and the media is dragging us all along for the ride. A high profile Hollywood dispute is now unfolding in the media and online.

It's not the first time this has happened, but the implications for public relations and how we all get our information about what's going on in the world are interesting and a little disconcerting. Abbie, what's on your mind?

Abbie Fink: 00:00:30

So reputation management is something that ethical public relations practitioners are often asked to participate and help. And, you know, we are building upon a reputation we might be helping to establish presence in the media on behalf of a client.

We talk a lot about the importance of having a good reputation in the event that something negative may happen.

But I'm concerned about these efforts to intentionally, or at least it appears to be intentionally, damage someone's reputation in advance of what you anticipate might be something coming out negative about you. And I'm not sure that that aligns with an ethical communications practice.

Adrian McIntyre: 00:01:24

So specifically, we're talking about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. They are the stars in a film that's come out just the end of last year. Happy New Year, by the way. The film is "It Ends With Us."

And Blake Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department in December alleging sexual harassment during the production. There have been others who have at least stated similar concerns and complaints. There were some rumors swirling about why certain female actors or even the author of the novel would not appear with Baldoni publicly in the PR push about the movie.

But this has turned into a full blown legal battle. The New York Times wrote an extensive piece telling Blake Lively's side of the story. Justin Baldoni responded with a $250 million defamation lawsuit. The stakes in these defamation lawsuits have gone considerably, by the way. Lively has now also filed a suit in the state of New York.

And in the middle of all of this, you are reading stories about somewhat shady areas of the public relations profession. And without casting aspersions on any one particular person, I have to say it is interesting that there are people whose career path, whose life choice is to either represent high profile celebrities and make them look good, or take down other high profile celebrities and make them look bad.

I mean, this is an ethical concern, for sure, but it raises broader questions about the industry and what is this public relations business really about?

Abbie, you're certainly not caught up in the glitz and glamour of celebrity PR, but you've got a point of view on how this is all playing out. What do you make of this?

Abbie Fink: 00:03:13

Well, and I think that's the biggest concern that I have is the generalization of what public relations is and how it is portrayed in books and in movies and things, that it's all glitz and glamour and parties and this element that is certainly part of what can be a public relations practice, but it is, you know, so much more than what that is portrayed.

And this particular story is really kind of shining a light on that element that is feeding into what it is, you know, what a lot of people think is the career path that we've chosen as a PR practitioner.

So my concerns in this particular idea here is one that it is putting our profession front and center in a story which in most of us would say we don't belong in the story. Our jobs are to push forward the information about our clients and not necessarily be part of the narrative.

As a result of what is happening, the crisis management teams that both sides have hired have found themselves right smack dab in the middle of the story.

And I think there's an important distinction here about what is crisis communications, what is reputation management by the standards that I abide by and our team does and how we manage things versus what we might be seeing playing out here. And it is really, in my view, and the way we would approach any of this is it isn't about taking down someone else.

It has to be about elevating the individuals or the organizations that we've been, you know, hired to provide support for. And so, yeah, $250 million is a ridiculous amount of money.

It is going to be extremely difficult for both sides of that story to be able to prove their point. Again, we've talked a little bit about the role of, you know, what defamation means and what libel means, what slander means when you are a public figure, and there's a different standard there than a private citizen would be held to.

The timing of all of that information, as you said when it came out before the movie and in an attempt to adjust the narrative around what Blake Lively's lawsuit was claiming and what did it do for both reputations and what is it doing to those around them.

You know, her, you know, the others in the movie, as you mentioned, family members on either side that are coming out in support of their, you know, their side of the story. I watched the movie because I felt like I had to have a little bit of context. Certainly, knowing this, you know, knowing what I've read and then seeing the movie. He isn't the nicest guy, but then again, he's playing A character that's not the nicest guy.

So this will be interesting to see where this goes and how it really is going to impact those of us that do this work and what expectations are going to be about how and what we should be doing when it comes to reputation management.

Adrian McIntyre: 00:06:41

You know, you raise a really important point, which is, although for hundreds of millions of people, celebrities are a different class of human, in reality they're just people. They're people with families, they're people with marriages, they're people with problems, just like all of us.

But yet their problems, their marriages, their divorces, play out on a much grander scale, which must be an awful and uncomfortable way to live your life. I certainly wouldn't know.

But there's also something here that is directly related to the issues we discuss on this podcast because it's the way that the media is both being leveraged by people pursuing claims and has also become the target of some of those claims.

I mean, let's be clear. Baldoni's lawsuit is against the New York Times, claiming that their reporting was one-sided and skewed inappropriately. The New York Times has responded saying, we stand by our reporting. We thoroughly researched and reported this story, we reviewed thousands of pages of documents, et cetera. We'll see you in court.

So, you know, at one level, his claim is not, "I didn't do it." His claim is, "the New York Times was unfair to me." So there's that.

Her initial claim was not a lawsuit. It was a complaint to the California Civil Rights department, which is what you do for labor disputes involving sexual harassment in your workplace. She has also then filed lawsuits and her lawyers have said, we stand by our version of events and we're gonna publish all the texts and all the background.

And yet in and among all of this stuff, you're starting to see these names pop up. People who have represented folks in previous very public scandals. The publicist involved on Baldoni's side, for example, also worked for Johnny Depp in the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard saga. And that certainly is a very troubling example of what can happen when the tide of public opinion is turned against a woman bringing a complaint.

I mean, I think at some level we gotta be honest and start from the very basics here. Any woman who brings a complaint about the way she's been treated by a man has got to expect that she's not going to be taken seriously, that she's going to be undermined. I mean, this is just how things are. So it takes a lot of courage to even begin that process.

And how many people out there are sitting and suffering in silence about issues because they don't want this kind of publicity? They're not celebrities, but even in their town, in their church, in their community, they don't want this kind of scandal, this kind of gossip, this kind of, "well, she probably deserved it," or whatever the nonsense is that people say.

But we've got these figures in there who are, who are stirring the pot, who are poking the fire, who are fanning the flames, so to speak. And, and that's troubling because it, again, we don't know what's true and what's not true.

The allegations are that there are professionals in the reputation business, let's just call it, who are specifically deploying online tactics to shift public opinion, armies of sockpuppet accounts, fake accounts, on social media, troll farms, if you will, to try to change the narrative and change the environment in which these legal disputes will be adjudicated. What's going on there? That's a very nefarious form of reputation management in the form of reputation takedown.

Abbie Fink: 00:10:23

Well, and your point about, you know, the initial complaint had to do with workplace harassment in the workplace, which should be between employee and employer, filed with the labor board in your city or state. However that is, and that's where it should land.

The fact that it became public in such a public way and that the alleged harasser decided that this was the better way to address the situation was instead of dealing with it in the workplace environment, went public with the other, other side of the story or his viewpoint of what the other side of the story is. So where do these communications folks fit into all of this? Right?

And where do they get their, you know, their information, their way of thinking about how do they want to do this, why would they select this type of client to work with, et cetera.

And, you know, you could probably argue that there are others, other professionals that would represent individuals, and you would say, how does you know? Why would an attorney take on this person, et cetera? Right. So everyone deserves someone to represent them.

Let's, you know, from a general perspective, it becomes to me a matter of, you know, where. Where does this fall within your own ethical standards and your own moral beliefs about what you. What is right and what is wrong within your business organization?

I do a lot of speaking at college campuses in the journalism and public relations classes, and a lot of times the topic will come around to crisis communications, and inevitably there will be a student in one of those classes that would say, have you Ever been asked to do something that you didn't like? Have you ever been asked to represent somebody or asked to do something that you didn't want to do, but you still did it?

And the answer is, I've been asked, but I've never done it because I put my, you know, my viewpoint, my ethical understanding of things and say, can I stand side by side on this particular issue and feel good about what I'm saying now? There have been times where I have, you know, where we are not always on the quote, unquote, right side of a particular story.

That doesn't mean that that organization isn't deserving of having quality communications, advice and counsel and managing through what could become a negative situation.

But in every instance that we have ever worked on behalf of a client, we have 100% believed we were doing right by them and that they had the right to have quality communications council in the same way that they have the right to have legal representation and other things.

So for me, where this particular story and the previous ones that have involved this very, I have to say, a very intentional effort to take down, in fact, one of the earlier headlines was "we can take down anybody," is not an ethical approach to reputation management. Did she deserve to have, you know, a story played out in the press? Did he deserve to have his story played out in the press?

Perhaps. They're public recognized figures. Interestingly enough, the topic of that movie has to do with abuse. And so it elevated, I think, even the idea of this amongst the topic because of what the movie was about. But it's more for me about is this the right way to do this work?

And I will never tell another professional that I, you know, they've chosen to do this, that's up to them to do it. It is not, in my view, the way to approach this type of work.

And I, you know, I will turn down a client no matter what the cost, if it does not align with our business philosophy, the way that we think as an organization, what we believe as individuals, and what we can comfortably and professionally say. We can stand next to you and have the same conversation and feel good about the work that we're doing on your behalf.

If these individuals can do that, then more power to them. But it is certainly not an approach that, that our team would take.

And really, I'm not sure that those of us that practice crisis communications on an ongoing basis would identify this as something that we would readily take on.

Adrian McIntyre: 00:15:15

Well, it does seem that there's a sort of shadow side to public relations. Which I think we have, to be honest, does go back to some of the early roots of the profession in wartime propaganda and an attempt to skew the point of view of a large group of folks, you know, for or against the war effort, against, you know, Nazism, fascism, et cetera, some of which you might say that's, that's the right enemy to take on. And then the method, you know, we could have debates about.

But even Edward Bernays, considered by many to be the founder of the modern discipline of public relations, used a variety of methods to try to shape the narrative before the communication event. I mean, he famously innovated, if that's the word, the idea of putting together panels of scientific experts and even starting professional journals, publishing reports, and it's funded by the client to try to shape the narrative in their advantage. I mean, famously convincing Americans that breakfast should be a heavy meal in a campaign funded by the bacon industry, etc.

And I might be getting some of these details wrong, but the idea here is, is still valid. Trying to shape the environment in which communication happens is a part of the profession. And then the question of ethics becomes central to that effort.

What troubles me is I think we've become accustomed to, let's just call it dirty pool, in politics, where the idea of let's run negative ads, let's take down the opponent, let's try to dig up dirt with oppo research, opposition research, etc. We've sort of said, oh well, that's fine, that's politics, that's how that's going to go.

That seems to be spreading. Not just now, it's been happening for a while, but it seems to be spreading into other areas of life where you've got other folks whose initial reaction is not to make your case but to tear down your opponent.

And quite honestly, that's a toxic way of communicating, no matter what, that, you know, whatever we mean when we say gaslighting this, is that at a grand scale, right?

And the amount of money that's being thrown at these issues does have me wonder, what is it that you're trying to defend against? I mean, $250 million? Really? Okay, you're asserting that that somehow is an appropriate compensation for their claim against you. Seems a little touchy, seems a little overreacting. Seems like maybe there's something there.

But again, this is just one man's point of view. I don't know the facts in the case. We haven't had a chance to hear them yet. And that's the part that's troubling. We don't know the facts in the case. The lawsuits haven't even gotten scheduled court dates yet, and yet this is playing out in the media. And I want us to be wary of being played in the process.

Abbie Fink: 00:18:27

Well, and you started the podcast by, you know, the he said, she said, he sued, she sued.

And your point there was the lawsuit that we are now discussing is the alleged defamation lawsuit nothing to do with the original claim that she believed that there was a workplace environment that was high, you know, sexually harassed in the workplace, an uncomfortable workplace environment.

That's where we should be focusing the conversation and where the attention needs to be, whether she is an actress or she is an administrative professional or where wherever the employment happens, that's where we should be focusing.

This discussion was whether or not the environment with which the female employee felt harassed by her male colleague, that's where we should be focusing. Right. And it has moved way past that to this is what she said, this is what he said. This is what the New York Times wrote.

This is what, you know, and instead of, as you said, actually dealing with, with the, with the conversation and where it belongs.

And the idea that either side would have wanted to have a communications person, a public relations person, a spokesperson, if you will, to help manage what was going to happen as a result of that particular discussion, 100% on board with that. Right. You know, this is where I have felt I have been sexually harassed in the workplace. I am going to take, you know, I'm filing a complaint. I know I'm going to get phone calls. I need someone to help me manage this communications. The gentleman in the, in the situation, they've. She's filed this lawsuit against me. I need to have someone help me manage this, you know, while I'm doing all the rest of the things. 100% we should be be aligned with that.

But that's representing their interest. That's helping them guide the conversation. It's not about turning the tables and then flipping the conversation about the other person and the terrible things that they've alleged that they are or the things that they're doing. This will never be resolved in a way that anybody's going to feel that they've won.

I hope that the New York Times stays and stands behind their work all the way through this and that fights till the end of this discussion that they did everything right. I hope they did do everything right, that they researched that they checked their facts, that they did all of that.

We just talked in the last episode about the ABC News settlement for not unlike this, a similar situation with accusations and the use of certain words to describe what had occurred. I hope both sides are given a fair opportunity in the original purpose of what the lawsuit was about, which is the harassment in the workplace. The topic is a highly charged one.

It is, as I said, an interesting correlation to what was happening in the movie itself that it was this is what ended up happening, what will play out and how she will become the voice for this topic.

And you know, calling attention, which was something that was important to her in doing the movie in the first place, was calling attention to this topic. We are going to see it. It's going to take months and months and months to be resolved.

And for those of us again that practice crisis communications and practice reputation management and are, you know, whether it's a high profile individual or high profile case or something very close to home, this is going to be something we have to consider and how we have to play and understand. You know, social media has given everyone a mouthpiece. Everyone has an opportunity to stake their claim and make their opinions known.

The legacy media as we've referred to them before, the stalwarts of our industry are in a battle for attention and are trying to continue to be valued in our communities. As I've said before, I believe strongly in our daily newspaper, whatever that's going to look like over time.

But cases like this and where the efforts to intentionally damage an individual's reputation and to be on record as saying that's the goal and the intent is troublesome and is not where I believe our industry should be, nor do I believe the vast majority of those individuals that do this work land is not in that court whatsoever.

Adrian McIntyre: 00:23:33

Thanks for listening to this episode of Copper State of Mind. If you enjoyed the conversation, please share it with a colleague who might also find this podcast valuable.

It's easy to do. Just click the Share button in the app you're listening to now to pass it along. You can also follow Copper State of Mind in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or any other podcast app. We publish new episodes every other Friday.

Copper State of Mind is brought to you by HMA Public Relations, the oldest continuously operating PR firm in Arizona. The show is recorded and produced by the team at Speed of Story, a B2B communications firm in Phoenix, and distributed by PHX.fm, the leading independent B2B podcast network in Arizona.

For all of us here at Speed of Story and PHX.fm, I'm Adrian McIntyre. Thanks for listening and for sharing the show with others, if you choose to do so. We hope you'll join us again for another episode of Copper State of Mind.