1.
ALUMNI NEWS OR "PR?"
The quarterly alumni
magazine at Warren College, Warren
Magazine has a long tradition of publishing
extended and wide ranging interviews with both faculty
and alumni. Over the years these interviews have
sometimes generated controversy since the editors of the
magazine have always regarded the publication as a news
source. Thus, they have treated the interviews as would
journalists, presenting the views of the source as
accurately as possible without concern for whether or
not the readers would approve.
After there were complaints about material in several
recent issues, the president of
Warren College told the
Warren Magazine staff to edit interviews and
other material in the publication in order to be more
positive and supportive of the college's
fundraising goals.
As the next issue of the
magazine was being prepared
for the printer, the president
of the college discovered that a faculty
interview concerning a Communication
Studies professor's
research on organizational decision-making contains
critical comments about the planning process by which
the college is developing a new curriculum. In the
interview the faculty member states that,
"Our curriculum planning group
has ignored almost every principle of good decision
making and it shows in the quality of their
plan." The
college president
suggests to
the editor of Warren Magazine
that he should change the interview to express a
positive view of the new curriculum since a negative
view of academic initiatives will likely damage
fund-raising. If the interview is not changed the
Warren College president wants
the editor to pull the interview entirely from the
publication. The editor is convinced the faculty member
will not agree to change his comments so any revision of
the interview would have to occur without the permission
of the professor. At this late date it would be
impossible to cut the interview entirely without
either delaying publication by
weeks or leaving the magazine
with a cover (already printed with a
photo of the professor and references to the interview)
that does not match the contents.
In the end,
the editor of Warren Magazine has final say
on the content of the publication.
What should he do?
2.
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND THE "TRUTH."
Alice Reckley recently
received a degree in Public Relations from Mammoth College and
subsequently accepted a position as Assistant Communications Director
for Moline College (a local liberal arts institution) working under the
Director of Admissions. One of a Alice's duties is to conduct a
slide-show presentation on the programs and facilities of Moline College
during open-house days for prospective high school students. After
a recent presentation a prospective student (who is interested in
attending law school after college) and his father stopped to chat with
Alice. During the conversation the father asked Alice, "If you had
a friend or relative who hoped to get into a top law school, would you
recommend Moline College to him?" She wasn't sure what to say so
she filled the silence by describing various successful attorneys who
graduated from Moline in decades past.
In fact, Alice knows that
two national measurements of academic quality have recently shown Moline
College students are below average in critical thinking and writing
abilities. These skills are vital to getting a good score on the
LSAT test for admission and for success in the law classes themselves.
In fact, Alice knows she would NOT recommend Moline to friends or family
who hoped for a career in law. However, she also knows her boss
and the college generally expect staff members, especially in PR
positions, to always present the the college in a favorable light.
She understood that was her job when she accepted a PR position at
Moline. Pressure is on the admissions office to recruit more
students and Alice's boss would be upset if he learned she had not been
positive about pre-law study. It is possible that Alice could lose
her job if she admits her honest reaction. Just as she finishes
describing the life of a successful Moline graduate and attorney from
the 1960s, the prospective student's father interrupts her and again
asks, "That's all well and good, but you haven't answered my question.
Would you
(meaning Alice) recommend Moline to a pre-law student now?"
What
should Alice say?
3. WITHHOLDING
INFORMATION
Researchers at the
National Institutes of Health have discovered that a
readily available, low‑cost, over‑the‑counter drug
can significantly reduce the incidence of fatal
heart attacks if taken everyday. Generally the drug
is safe even when taken in the doses necessary to
reduce heart attacks, although some patients will
experience intestinal discomfort as a result of
daily use of the drug. For about 1 in
300,000 patients side
effects could be more serious. The beneficial effect of
the drug is especially clear when used by
individuals who are smokers or are overweight.
However, even with this medication these high risk
individuals are still more likely to die of heart
attack than if they quit smoking or lost weight.
Currently information about the value of the drug in
reducing heart attacks cannot be advertised because
that use is not approved by the government, However,
individual doctors are allowed to provide advice
about the drug to their patients individually.
The NIH (a government agency that evaluates and
distributes health information but does not sell
anything) has the authority
recommend changes to medical advertising rules if it
so chooses.
Several of the NIH
researchers want to launch
a campaign immediately to encourage the largest
number of people to begin use of the new treatment
since thousands of lives could be saved each year.
A few physicians suggest that the information about
side effects be left out of the campaign materials
since people who could benefit from the drug may
incorrectly feel the risk of side effects is greater
than the risk of heart attack. Others at NIH do not
want to mention the benefits to smokers and
overweight patients since these people may decide to
take the drug without changing life‑style in the
belief the drug will protect them from the dangers
of smoking or over‑eating. Thus, the drug campaign
could serve to give some people an excuse to
continue dangerous habits. Still other researchers
want to reveal all information about the drug, in
the campaign, or in fine print on the bottle.
What should NIH do? Launch
a campaign providing full information on the drug's
benefits and risks?
Promote the drug but with only partial information
about the drug's benefits and risks? Stick with the
current state of affairs allowing only individual
advice from doctors to their patients?
|