In the aftermath of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s comments regarding Malappuram district, the subsequent protests brought public outrage to the fore. While the focus has been on the political fallout, a quieter but equally important issue has emerged – one involving the ethical role of public relations agencies in media coverage.
It’s no secret that the media and PR industries are closely intertwined and often work hand in hand to bring stories, perspectives and interviews to the public eye. Yet, when controversies arise, it’s increasingly common for PR agencies to be scapegoated. The latest example is about the reputable newspaper The Hindu shift the blame on Kaizzen, a PR agency, for adding controversial statements to the Chief Minister’s interview.
Kaizzen has since denied that Pinarayi Vijayan is their client and refuted the claims of involvement in manipulating interview content. The real question that arises here is not just who is responsible for the statements in question but the broader question of how PR agencies are portrayed when things go wrong.
The PR role: Behind the scenes, often invisible
PR agencies play a critical role in shaping narratives across industries. They connect journalists with sources, coordinate interviews, facilitate major announcements and provide context that helps shape media coverage. Yet, despite their contributions, PR firms often stay behind the scenes and receive little or no recognition for their work.
This unspoken arrangement usually works well for both sides. Media gain access to current information and key figures, while PR agencies help shape the public’s perception of their clients. But when controversy or missteps arise, the anonymity under which PR professionals typically operate can become a liability. Agencies are sometimes named and blamed without sufficient evidence or explanation, and their involvement—whether real or perceived—quickly comes into focus.
Shutapa Paul, founder of Dharma Media Consultantshighlights the disproportionate portrayal of PR agencies in such situations, saying: “It is clear that PR agencies are often dragged through the mud in negative situations, while their positive contributions are ignored. The incident highlights the need for a more balanced portrayal of PR agencies, and recognizes their critical role in facilitating communication and providing valuable information, rather than simply scapegoating them when times are tough.”
This perspective points to a crucial element often overlooked in media-PR relations: journalistic responsibility. While it is true that PR agencies provide information and suggest stories, it is ultimately the responsibility of the media to ensure the accuracy, balance and fairness of what they publish. When agencies are blamed for content that appears in stories, it can obscure the critical role journalists and editors play in vetting content.
The ethics of naming public relations agencies
One of the key ethical dilemmas in these situations is whether public relations agencies should be named publicly when controversies arise. While transparency in journalism is essential, selective naming of PR agencies can cast them in a negative light, especially when there is no clear evidence of wrongdoing. Worse, it risks reinforcing negative stereotypes of PR professionals as spin doctors or manipulators, undermining the valuable and legitimate work they do in managing public communications.
As Shutapa Paul further elaborates“Recognizing both their challenges and contributions can lead to a more accurate and fair perspective. That said, PR agencies must also be committed to accuracy and confirm information and responses before sharing. An essential skill of any PR and communications agency is the ability to handle crisis situations and manage reputation during controversy.”
The question of naming PR agencies touches on a wider ethical debate: how transparent should the relationship between PR and the media be? In many cases, PR agencies operate behind the scenes precisely because their role is to amplify their client’s voice, not their own. But when their involvement is highlighted only in controversial situations, it distorts the public’s perception of their work.
PR’s invisible contribution: The problem of selective recognition
Behind almost every major interview, event or corporate announcement is a PR team that has worked to secure access, craft messages and facilitate media coverage. Yet these contributions are rarely acknowledged in the final product. The focus is usually on the subject of the interview or the organization making the announcement, with the PR agency’s role left out of the picture. This lack of recognition is often accepted as part of the job by public relations professionals, but it becomes problematic when they are publicly involved during crises.
This selective recognition reinforces a negative bias against public relations. It contributes to a one-dimensional narrative where PR agencies are primarily seen as entities that “spin” stories or manipulate the media. In reality, PR professionals often work to ensure accuracy, clarity and fairness in the information communicated.
Journalistic responsibility: A shared ethical duty
The ethical question goes beyond the PR industry. When controversial stories emerge, the responsibility lies not only with PR professionals but also with journalists and editors. If the media chooses to publish information from a PR agency, it is their responsibility to fact-check and verify the details. This responsibility is a cornerstone of ethical journalism.
Shutapa Paul weighs in on the shared responsibility between media and PR, noting: “To foster a more balanced and ethical relationship, the media and PR industry must prioritize transparency and mutual respect. PR agencies should be clear about their commitment and the nature of their contribution, to ensure there is no ambiguity, while the media must strive for accuracy and fair reporting and credit PR agencies for their positive roles.”
There must be a change towards more balanced accountability. Media and PR agencies should foster an environment where both sides take responsibility for the information they handle. Transparency and trust should be built on mutual respect, with an understanding that PR professionals and journalists are both working toward the goal of delivering accurate information to the public.
Moving Forward: A Call to Ethical Responsibility
At the heart of this issue is a call for greater ethical accountability on both sides. Public relations agencies should continue to advocate for clearer terms in their relations with the media, and ensure that their role is understood, respected and recognized in appropriate contexts. At the same time, the media must be more judicious in how they portray public relations agencies, and ensure that the blame is not disproportionately placed on the shoulders of those who facilitate access but do not write the stories.
Shutapa Paul concludes, “By maintaining open communication and ethical practices, both industries can work together more cohesively and effectively, building trust and promoting a fairer portrayal of their collaborative efforts.”
In an age where news and stories are increasingly shaped by collaborations between PR and media, both industries must recognize their shared responsibility. Naming a PR agency in controversial situations should never be a substitute for journalistic rigor. Instead, it should prompt a deeper reflection on the responsibilities each industry has and how they can work together to promote trust and credibility.
#Journalism #blame #media #controversies