Through the wringer for Bell Pottinger?

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s recently published report on the activities of Global PR firm Bell Pottinger made for pretty grim reading. Particularly if you happened to be one of those people who is more than mildly surprised by the notion that PR executives, like journalists, lawyers and estate agents, could be anything other than a gaggle of venal and overpaid turd-polishers. And of course, I mean that in a good way. 

There was perhaps something of the ‘Bear shits in woods and Pope is Catholic’ kind of certainty about a headline that told you spin doctors were amoral bottom feeders.  In fact, the whole affair could have been taken from an episode of Absolute Power shot in ‘phone-cam verité’ style.

And that’s not in any way to detract from the sterling work being done by the guys and gals over at the Bureau. If nothing else, it invites one to question the judgment of anyone who’d hire a PR firm that found itself at the centre of a story this ludicrous.

The saga so far does make for a certain amount of shock and horror. And the stories keep coming, from all sorts of angles. Allegations of tampering with Wikipedia entries on behalf of arms manufacturers never plays well. Boasts of being able to bend Cameron’s ear in favour of clients were curried with snake-oil salesman promises of new media manipulation. And all recorded in a hooky meet-up with some would-be apparatchiks from Uzbekistan which, as the Independent’s report righteously explained, is “a brutal dictatorship responsible for killings, human rights violations and child labour”. 

Poor old ‘Call me Dave’: he could probably almost feel sympathy for Bell Pottinger (almost). He’s a former PR man himself; this being the only job he’s held outside the six-fingered haven of overbred privilege, colloquially known as the Westminster Village.

The Bell Pottinger story comes at a time when the integrity of the British press is held in pretty poor esteem by the general public. A bit of a bashing for the evil empire of spin always plays well with the public and gives cowed and jaded hacks some sense that they might still be in the job for the right reasons. It’s also a bullish riposte to the Leveson Inquiry.

In a piece for his own blog www.registan.net, Joshua Foust counsels that this is all a bit of a non-story. He offers some reasonable advice here: “while everyone shakes their head at the idea that public relations actually requires manipulating public opinion, it’s worthwhile to take a few steps back and see what “damage” Bell Pottinger really did.” Foust’s article then helpfully offers the slide show of the Bell Pottinger presentation to undercover BIJ operatives.

In advising and consulting with Uzbeki officials, the argument would appear to run, these wily spin-meisters are actually a little bit like human rights ambassadors. According  to Foust , “Bell Pottinger is behaving responsibly by refusing to engage in PR activities until reforms take place.” But of course they are.

I was curious as to who this Foust was: I mean, might he just be a construct; a sock-puppet if you will; an identity of putative professional probity, a cipher used to ring the Pottinger Bell?...

I must admit, I was kind of rude when I emailed him in connection with his story: I suggested, perhaps unfairly, to Foust that given his ardent and even compelling defence of Bell Pottinger, was not he sure he hadn’t done anything for Bell Pottinger down the years; you know, a bit of consultancy, anything at all like that? And to be fair to him, he got back to me sharpish.

“As far as I know, I have never worked for Bell Pottinger in any way. Classy of you to suggest otherwise, though!”  For the record Mr Foust , I’m sorry; yours is a fine piece of devil’s advocacy and I hope you’ll understand my need to at least try to maintain standards of journalistic probity; I thought I’d get a quote to try and prop my story up.

Joshua Foust, for the record, comes up as a PBS contributor and “is a fellow at the American Security Project. His writing, which covers military affairs, geopolitics, and strategic energy issues, has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, the Christian Science Monitor, World Politics Review and the Columbia Journalism Review.”

While I wouldn’t necessarily chime with everything he holds on this matter, his analysis is cogent enough to merit closer scrutiny. His readiness however to discount the blatant manipulation of Wikipedia was a little unsettling.  “But is editing Wikipedia to benefit oneself really unethical?” Foust wonders. “Sure, it violates Wikipedia’s terms of use, and is probably stupid, but it’s not like PR firms invented Wikipedia hacking....” 

Call me a sentimental old fool but I’m very fond of Wikipedia. It always reminds me of the Hitchhikers’ Guide to The Galaxy; compiled by the travellers through space and time who live in this crazy mixed up Galaxy we call home. Sometimes, it’s blindingly accurate and others, it’s no better than a rule of thumb or worse than an overheard rumour. 

That notwithstanding, I really like the fact that our global encyclopaedia has been compiled by the many voices of the hive. And as such, it’s a living breathing organism, so when we catch wee cankers like Bell Pottinger dumping their toxic sludge on the verges of the Info-super highway, it might be argued that they should justly be held open to odium and opprobrium.

Now, for the record, I have made efforts to speak to Bell Pottinger. The communications firm has not as yet seen fit to get in touch. I remain optimistic.