CIPR

Between Eric Pickles' pronouncement on the use of public affairs consultants and The Guardian's investigation into what it has emotively termed 'reputation laundering', PR has taken a hit over the last week. Ironically, those who accuse PR practitioners of spin appear to have a knack for it. It's unfortunate that balance appears to have gone by the wayside, as both issues are important. They should be discussed.

Neil Gibbons, Editor of Communicate Magazine, posted a response to the Guardian piece. In it, he articulated the link between reputation management and effecting change (for the good), the need for communications skill and the right to present a viewpoint. It was a considered defence of public relations. Whilst there may well be examples of bad practice out there, as there are in any profession, there are also many that are good. This needs to be recognised.

I was talking to our President-Elect, Paul Mylrea about it too. As a former journalist and Communications Director for Oxfam and the Department for International Development, he is familiar with these issues. He made some interesting points. There are many situations you will walk away from for ethical reasons, but there are times when you have to engage to make progress, particularly in transitionary situations. There may be issues with the way the individual, organisation or country operates (or has operated), but if there is an opportunity to genuinely effect positive change for the benefit of others, then it is fair to consider offering support. Sometimes those outside a situation, with perspective, can give stark advice that others 'inside' cannot, to say 'behaviour needs to change or economic and social prosperity won't be achieved, nor will public opinion change'. Offering such counsel can only be done in a way that is skilled, transparent and ethical. That's the tricky part. Balancing the two requires judgement (for example, is the stated desire or efforts to change / progress / develop authentic?) and practitioners have to be prepared to walk if it can't be done.

As for Eric Pickles' statements, the generalisations and emotive statements may grab the headlines, but in the desire to make a point, there is a danger that the very real benefits of using expertise to support public information requirements, community relations, consultations and other activities will be lost, not to mention the impact on business services sector growth and economic contribution. Yes we have a job to do to participate in efficiency plans, to work smartly. Yes we need to ensure that communications delivers in line with local and national goals. Transparency is of course key. But as I've said before, there should be discussions based on a real understanding of what public relations can and does deliver, how public / private partnerships can work and the development of new delivery and support models.

Our members have the experience and the examples to contribute to both discussions. Tabloidisation of PR doesn't help. Polarising doesn't get us anywhere either. These are difficult, often sensitive issues. But, public relations is a profession that contributes much economically and socially. We have a significant historical and contemporary armoury at our disposal – examples of positive impacts on behaviour, engagement for public benefit, contributions to economic success and of course examples of where we have got it wrong and what we have learned from it.

We are grown up enough to have the discussion. So for those members who have the experience and the examples, please do get in touch. We can bring it together, share it, discuss it and inject the balance that's needed. As for Mr Pickles, the CIPR and its Government Affairs Group are ready and willing to engage. Indeed, we are already working with the Cabinet Office on the new UK Public Affairs Council. So I would urge Mr Pickles, as he himself has urged others, to pick up the 'phone.