 |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
Lawyers v PR Agents Are lawyers messing up your communications work?
The October 1999 issue of PR Tactics explains why good legal advice isn't necessarily good PR advice. Like policy experts, scientists and administrators, lawyers work with shades of meaning and distinction. But for the
public, that equivocation blunts the message, confuses it and even sabotages it. To argue, for example, that a client is technically not guilty of an environmental offence may get some minor charges dropped, but will
also reinforce the public perception of the client as an environmental offender. A lawyer may be pleased to tell the media that "the evidence is not sufficient to lead to a conviction," but the PR counsel will
just wince. This kind of thinking also influences the impenetrability of much legal writing, which further diminishes its impact on our audiences. The PR Tactics article suggested winning over the financial and
executive officers by showing that PR people can respond more quickly and more effectively in the "court of public opinion." The article suggested finding media examples of lawyers who won cases but caused
other damage in the process. We'd argue that it's better to win the lawyers over as allies, explaining that different objectives are at play in a media release than in a closing argument. It can be a tough fight. But
there is a substantial body of research showing how communications planning can influence opinion, which can in turn influence juries and even judges. As PR people, we can use that research before an audience keenly
appreciative of the value of good evidence
Cornerstone is a writing and editing firm that uses marketing and PR principles to
create "words you can build your business on." Call us from anywhere in the world for rush work.
|
|||