Professionalism and ethical practice in PR

Hi everyone,

I hope you are all experiencing and learning a lot during your internship as much as I am. Before I start any discussion, I would like to apologize for the delay. This is my first post on the blog. But I have kept a record of all the tasks that I have done and all the insights I gained.

I am Youshrina Mungur from the Charles Telfair Campus in Mauritius and I am actually doing my internship at the Mauritius Commercial Bank (MCB), the leading banking institution in Mauritius. I have been placed in the Internal & Media Relations section. I would like to share with you my first press conference experience. On September 7, 2009, the MCB had its MCB Foundation press conference to announce the winner of the scholarship the bank offers each year to the best High School candidate in the field of economy. There are two main things that struck me on that day.

Firstly, the bank has a policy not to favour any media for good coverage, which is of course a good ethical principle. Everything was well coordinated so that each media outlet could interview the lucky winner and her parents. The bank usually allows newspaper outlets to conduct interviews first and then radio and TV. This is because newspapers usually take less time as they do not have to arrange any equipment or brief the interviewee in terms of posture and so on as would TV. But the national TV wanted to have the first interview at the conference and they even insisted on it. But they were refused this privilege and it went to newspaper outlets as per the policy. Is this ethical dealing? According to the bank, the national TV wanted to have a privilege but the bank does not favour any media. Well, in theory, we have learnt that as far as possible, we should never say no to journalists while maintaining ethical practice as well. But then, it seems to me that in real life, this is quite difficult to apply as companies do have their own ethical policies. According to me, both the bank and the national TV are right in their position. The bank wants to remain loyal to its policy and not favour any media. On the other hand, the media in question wants to get a privilege because it is the only TV network in the country and particularly the national TV.

Secondly, as part of my duty and participation in that event, I had to send invitation to all the media and to make sure that all of them get easy access from the security guys once they arrive for the conference. I did my part and I sent a list of attendees to the security. But the MCB has another policy regarding access. Whoever is external to the bank, unless if it is for transactions, has to line up and take the visiting card, even Ministers. Unfortunately, the media was a bit annoyed about this policy as they had to line up and wait to get a card, particularly when some of them were late for the conference. The journalists complained to me and asked for a “fast-track” for them. I went on recommending this to my department and they said they would consider it but do not guarantee that there would be actually any change. I explained to them that in every case, it is better not to say no to journalists and find a way to please them. I also expressed my view that considering a fast-track does not mean changing the policy as the fast-track will be meant for only the media. It also does not involve anything unethical as it would be only a way to facilitate the job of the journalists which is actually something that a communication department or PR person should do.

“Journalists want you to take care of them and their needs”, ever since I started my studies in PR, I have constantly heard or read this statement. But it is very difficult to apply theories in the real professional world. This situation has left me perplexed for quite a few days as it seems to be an issue arising from conflicting loyalties. Should the bank give more importance to the media and consider a fast-track for them or should it remain loyal to its policy?

Your reactions, please.

Thank you.