“Rules of engagement” in the climate change debate

A number of BC and Alberta public relations practitioners are concerned about a campaign being waged by a climate change advocate, James Hoggan. These people have released an open letter criticizing his campaign tactics. They call for the creation of "rules of engagement" to ensure that public debate meets higher standards.

We are BC and Alberta public relations practitioners who wish to take issue with recent statements by James Hoggan concerning the role of public relations in addressing public issues.

Our concern is not climate change. We tend to agree that it is real and that human beings have a major role in it. Our concern is the tactics Mr. Hoggan is employing to build support for what might be called the climate change movement.

To be frank, we find several aspects of his campaign distasteful and even disturbing. We think his analysis is flimsy and comes dangerously close to offending the code of ethics of the Canadian Public Relations Society.

Flimsy Analysis

In association with the David Suzuki Foundation, Mr. Hoggan has argued that the media and public were slow to embrace the issue of climate change because certain PR people (he labels them as “spin doctors” and “propagandists” – to distinguish them from honest advocates of plain truth, such as himself) filled the air with “PR fog” that misled the media and the public.

The relevance of Mr. Hoggan’s analysis to Canada, is dubious. When he argues that “the public” has been slow to embrace global warming, that “the media” has gullibly swallowed the arguments of anti-climate change advocates, and that “PR lobbyists” have used deception, he seems to be talking more about the U.S. than Canada. In fact, climate change advocates have enjoyed huge coverage in the Canadian media (far more than their opponents); Canadians have generally come to believe that climate change is happening; and they are concerned about it.

We are not aware of any study that supports Mr. Hoggan’s notion that Canadian journalists are biased against the case for global warming. Indeed, a search of newspaper archives would quickly show that this is the opposite of the case. The case for global warming has received major coverage in the Canadian news media for a number of years, far more than the case of the global-warming skeptics. That “inconvenient fact” is not mentioned by Mr. Hoggan, possibly because it undermines his attempt to position himself as the only honest man in a community of deceivers. In short, he is using spin to accuse his adversaries of…spin.

Commercial self-interest

One of the reasons that Mr. Hoggan’s campaign has been met with a certain degree of skepticism is that it is curiously supportive of his efforts to position his firm as ethically and environmentally correct. 

He has not hesitated to argue publicly that the case against global warming is tainted by the fact that some energy companies have contributed to it. This kind of ad hominum argument is a sword that cuts both ways.

Ethical  Debate?

We believe in honest, open debate of public policy issues. Mr. Hoggan positions himself as a supporter of that idea. If so, we suggest that it would contribute to such debate if he were to stop utilizing the lowest propaganda tactic in the canon, namely, the demonization of people who disagree with him.

Critics of global warming, he says, are “climate-change deniers”.

As a debating technique, this is odious, since it is an obvious reference to anti-Semitic “Holocaust-deniers”. It carries the unmistakable suggestion that critics of global warming are not just mistaken, they are evil.

Appeals to prejudice have no place in public debate. We are surprised that David Suzuki, a man who has encountered prejudice in his own life, has not spoken out against Mr. Hoggan’s use of an argument that fosters prejudice.

Deceptive tactics

Mr. Hoggan’s attack on what he calls “Astroturf” groups or front organizations, has a strong odor of ideological bias.  Whether they are called “coalitions”, “alliances”, or “citizens’ groups”, the use of such groups to widen one’s political base, is common across the political spectrum. It is especially common in the environmental, animal-rights and human rights movements; in fact, to a significant extent such groups pioneered the creation and management of such groups.

It is a deceptive to argue, as Mr. Hoggan does, that the participation of business (any business) in a coalition organization, automatically taints the legitimacy of what that organization has to say – especially since he infers,that the participation of an environmental, animal-rights or human rights NGO in a coalition organization automatically renders that organization’s views as authentic and believable. We believe that citizens and the media should judge the statements and activities of all such groups impartially.

The need for rules of engagement

Perhaps something good can come from Mr. Hoggan’s campaign, namely support from within the public relations community for clear and unambiguous “rules of engagement” for media relations and other forms of advocacy.

There is some guidance to what those rules might be – for example those parts of the CPRS Code of Conduct that state that members of CPRS “shall not make extravagant claims or unfair comparisons…shall not engage in professional or personal conduct that will bring discredit to themselves, the Society or the practice of public relations…[and] shall not intentionally damage another practitioner's practice or professional reputation.”

We support – and would invite James Hoggan to join in and support -- the development of such rules, in the hope that they will apply to all advocates, whether they be public relations practitioners, politicians or spokespersons for interest groups.

John Barr
Jocelyn Fraser
Gary Ley
Morten Paulsen
Geraldine Vance

Feature FREE Download: Screen Saver To download this screen saver, please supply your name and email address first. Your Name: Your email: you only need to hit submit once and you should get a file to download to your computer.