Light Rays on Saturdays: Mitt's Hair and a Modern Definition of PR

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was at the center of two big stories this week that demonstrate how political communications has devolved into something resembling professional wrestling.  

With President Obama visiting New Hampshire, Romney bought a tiny bit of local TV to air an ad attacking Obama’s handing of the economy. Romney aides also delivered the commercial to reporters. One little problem – the featured Obama quote was really a paraphrase of something an aide to Senator John McCain said during the 2008 campaign. Romney and his aides shrugged off the deluge of criticism.

Misleading and unethical, the ad had little to do with hurting Obama – it’s no secret the economy is his weak spot. It was primarily designed to earn Romney the “See, I can be a tough guy” merit badge among the GOP influencers who have yet to embrace his candidacy. Democrats may use the ad to bolster their attack on Romney as a cold, valueless, flip-flopping, say-anything-to-win candidate.

The other big Mitt story? One thousand words on his hair on the front page of Friday’s New York Times.  The Times even interviewed the “barrel-chested, bald Italian immigrant” barber, who “agreed to share some of the secrets” of Mitt’s hair. Are you ready to be blown away? No dye. No product. And, sometimes Romney trims it himself.

How many of you are saying: “Wow. I honestly don’t give a flying follicle about this?”

Was there no other feature to fill that hole on the Times’ front page? If a candidate were to change his/her hair in the midst of a campaign, that might justify page one on a slow day. But Romney hasn’t. Ever. And while Democratic strategists may see his hair style as a weakness, it has yet to be shown that most potential voters share that view.

Mitt’s hair is certainly a story of some sort. Any candidate idiosyncrasy or notable character trait is fair game. But 1,000 words on page one of a newspaper read daily by world leaders?  People say the media reflects the society it serves, but I wonder what role the media can play in raising our expectations of presidential candidates and presidential issues.

Speaking of raising expectations, the Public Relations Society of America has rolled out a campaign to engage PR practitioners in redefining the profession for the 21^st century.  (Disclosure: I have paid PRSA membership dues for a decade and serve as an unpaid editorial advisor to the Public Relations Strategist magazine.)

There are a lot of good reasons for campaign to redefine PR, not the least of which is that the current PRSA definition: “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” That’s just plain awful. The PRSA’s web-based campaign also will stimulate engagement among professionals worldwide.

There has been tremendous change in our trade this century – the rise of social media has dramatically altered the “who, what, where, when and why” of content creation, distribution and sharing. The dynamic interplay of news and information in shaping knowledge, opinion and preference has never been more complicated.

It would be nice to be able to succinctly distinguish PR from marketing and advertising, but the PRSA also needs to be careful about giving too much weight to modern tactics. We need not redefine our role much beyond what Edward Louis Bernays demonstrated in the 20^th century. The tools change but our job is to influence audiences to adopt and act on a client’s point of view.