The FIR Podcast Network Everything Feed FIR #499: When Saying Nothing Sends the Wrong Message
The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) responded to member requests for a statement about the federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota with a letter explaining why the organization would remain silent. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel outline the key points in the letter, where they disagree, and how they might have responded.
Links from this episode:
The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23.
We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.
Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.
You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.
Raw Transcript:
Neville Hobson Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 499. I’m Neville Hobson.
Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz. At its core, this podcast is about organizational communication, which leads us to occasionally talk about the associations that aim to represent the profession. So today, let’s talk about PRSA (the Public Relations Society of America), which recently signaled a move to remain apolitical—retreating into a shell of neutrality when members were clamoring for them to speak up on controversial issues.
Specifically, I’m talking about the silence from PRSA regarding ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations in Minneapolis. Now, before you roll your eyes and think this is just another partisan squabble, stop right there. This isn’t about immigration policy; it is about the integrity of public information—the very foundation of our profession. We’ll dive into what PRSA said and how I responded after this.
PRSA leadership, including Chair Heidi Harrell and CEO Matt Marcial, sent a message to members claiming that remaining apolitical protects the organization’s credibility. The letter framed this stance as a means to focus on its core mission. Leadership asserts that while they have commented on sensitive issues in the past, the current “complex environment” demands greater diligence, effectively reserving public advocacy only for matters that directly and significantly impact the technical practice of public relations or its ethical standards. By shifting the burden of advocacy to individual members and requiring chapters to vet local statements through national leadership, the society is attempting to build a “firewall against unintended risks.”
In other words, they’re betting that professional neutrality is the best way to maintain trust across a diverse membership, even if it means stepping back from the broader social fray. Now, I have a different perspective. In fact, I’ve published an open letter to PRSA leadership on LinkedIn, arguing that their own Code of Ethics doesn’t just permit them to speak out—it actually demands it.
Consider the “Free Flow of Information” provision in the PRSA Code of Ethics. It states that protecting the flow of accurate and truthful information is essential for a democratic society. In Minneapolis, we have federal officials making public statements about the killings of U.S. citizens—statements that are being credibly disputed by video evidence and eyewitness accounts. When government officials systematically misrepresent facts, that is a professional standards issue. It is not political to distinguish a truth from a lie. It is, quite literally, our job.
PRSA argues that they want to maintain trust across a diverse membership, but let’s be clear: silence is a statement. It’s a message that says our ethical commitments are only applicable when there’s nothing controversial to address. Don’t believe for a minute that neutrality will save your reputation. Silence in the face of documented misinformation erodes trust among the very members who look to the Society to model the courage we’re expected to show our clients every day.
The PRSA Ethics Code mandates a dual obligation: loyalty to clients and service to the public interest. It doesn’t say “serve the public interest only when it’s convenient or not controversial.” When federal agents are accused of violating nearly a hundred court orders and detaining citizens unlawfully, truth in the public interest is eroding fast under the weight of official silence. If PRSA won’t defend the standard of truth when it’s being trampled by powerful federal agencies, who will?
I am not suggesting that PRSA needs to become an immigration advocacy group—I am decidedly not. But I am suggesting a path forward that reaffirms our values without wading into the partisan muck. PRSA could and should issue a statement that affirms the vital importance of truthful government communication. They should issue a call for transparency when official narratives conflict with documented evidence, and they should reaffirm that all communicators have an obligation to accuracy over mere advocacy.
The fact is, our profession depends on a broader democratic society that functions on truthful information. When that foundation is threatened, our standards are implicated, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. And let’s keep in mind, PRSA has members working in federal agencies that may require them to participate in the distribution of false information. Professional associations aren’t tested during the easy times. They’re tested when standing up for a principle actually costs something. PRSA’s current diligence looks a lot like retreat. We should be leading the charge for accountability, not languishing in a state of denial.
The comments to the LinkedIn article I posted show a membership that is anything but neutral on the need for ethical leadership. I’ll make one more point here: this approach to determining when advocacy is required translates nicely to businesses that have retreated from taking stances on societal issues, despite the Edelman Trust Barometer’s continued demonstration that it’s an expectation of their shareholders.
Neville Hobson It’s an interesting one, Shel. I’m reminded of discussions we have had on this podcast previously about the role of businesses to take a stand on issues that are societal but demand some kind of response in some form. This fits that, I think. Your response on LinkedIn was very good; the path forward you outlined is strong.
I did like it when you mentioned the word “courage.” This demands that in the face of fear or apprehension. All those words could apply to the potential minefield PRSA would be wandering into if they stepped away from being “apolitical.” Could there be a response from those federal agencies themselves? Or perhaps a negative reaction from the administration and the White House? That may be a driver behind it. Yet, this sort of situation has arisen before. We’ve talked about the notion of professional bodies taking stands on issues.
The way you’ve framed the issue as ethical and professional—it’s hard to argue against that. This is not a partisan thing. I see you’ve got over 120 comments on LinkedIn to your article. Did you hear anything from PRSA directly, or are they silent?
Shel Holtz No. In fact, a few people who have had issues with PRSA in the past told me they appreciate me posting an open letter because PRSA has historically ignored those. I’m not necessarily expecting to hear anything from them. I don’t hold any leadership roles there, so there’s no reason they should think I’m someone special to reach out to.
But you talk about professional organizations; related to all of this, we recently had the arrest of two journalists reporting on an activist group that interrupted a church service led by a pastor who also has a role with ICE in Minneapolis. It was arguably an illegal action for this group to do that, but two reporters went in with them to cover it and they were both arrested based on an order from the U.S. Attorney General.
The associations that represent journalists were pretty quick with their statements. PRSA talked about making a statement when there is something that is “technically related to the profession.” That would certainly apply in the case of these journalists. But still, the journalism associations were quick, and there was no concern that members might take issue or that the administration might make life miserable for them. They had the courage to take a stance consistent with their codes of ethics.
One member of the PRSA board, whom I know personally, did leave a comment questioning why I singled out PRSA. Why not the Page Society? Why not the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators)? My answer was: they didn’t send me a letter telling me why they’re not saying anything. But I absolutely think every communication association should be advocating for truth in public communications. That’s our job.
Neville Hobson I think the fear of a strong, negative, almost threatening reaction from the administration and the White House is at the heart of this. They have “form” in ignoring ethics or international agreements—they’ll tear up those bits of paper because they say it’s “fake” or “rubbish.” Maybe that’s behind a lot of this.
What you’ve given them is a challenge: will PRSA apply its own ethical framework when doing so carries reputational and political costs? You mentioned others saying PRSA has a history of ignoring public letters. You see this with other professional bodies who are reluctant to take stands, interpreting “taking a stand” as “advocating for a cause,” which they don’t do. I would argue this is splitting hairs because the argument is about upholding standards.
Enlisting support from other professional bodies might be the safest approach—not asking them to take a stand on a specific political issue, but to reassert the point of truthful communication, transparency, and professional accountability. Someone has to do something to address this. This is an opportunity. I understand the reluctance, but I would counter by saying you need to have courage. You represent communicators across the United States, probably Canada, and elsewhere. Who else will do this if you don’t? What would you like to see happen as a result of this discussion?
Shel Holtz I would like to see the professional associations have a conversation on their staffs and their volunteer boards and decide how they’re going to proceed in a way that conforms with the values they purport to espouse.
I understand that PRSA issued the letter because they had been flooded with member requests to do something. A week or so ago, a letter was issued through the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce by 60 CEOs of Minnesota-based businesses—companies like 3M, Target, and UnitedHealth Group. Some people praised it, but most thought it was weak and “milquetoast.” It called for de-escalation but never named ICE or the immigration issue at all.
In the meantime, Target is still under pressure from customers and employees to say something. There was an arrest made by ICE inside one of their stores that traumatized employees who witnessed it, and the company has said nothing. It’s similar to Home Depot, which has had arrests in its parking lots and has remained silent. This disturbs stakeholders. You don’t need a position on immigration policy to talk about tactics that are affecting your community and your business. That’s fair game. That’s where the framework for a statement has to be focused: what is the impact on your business and where does this align with your values?
Neville Hobson It’s interesting. 3M and Cargill are global businesses. That “milquetoast” route was probably the safest way to navigate the tightrope, but it doesn’t really help much other than attracting criticism for being weak. I can equally understand that no one there wants to point fingers in a way that might not advance the discussion, but it doesn’t lead us anywhere.
Shel Holtz Well, look at organizations like Patagonia, which has actually sued the administration, and their sales and profits are doing just fine. There may be a lot of fear that isn’t backed up by substantial consequences. If you look at the streets of Minneapolis these days, you can see where public sentiment is. It’s fine for business to be on the right side of this.
Neville Hobson It is a very tricky situation. Every one of these companies has a statement defining their values, and surely what we’re seeing on the streets of Minneapolis would offend those values. No one’s willing to be counted. Maybe it needs a “safer” avenue—redefining or restating values in public and linking them to these events without naming names. But currently, we only have what we see on the news, and it’s not pretty.
Shel Holtz No, it’s not. The businesses that have a direct connection to this and remain silent are going to be remembered for it. This doesn’t mean every business needs to make a statement—if you’re not based in Minnesota, perhaps it’s unrelated to your standards for public comment.
But going back to PRSA: when you have federal officials making false statements to the public, and you have an organization that advocates for ethical communication, I think that demands a position. That is the framework for businesses and associations to look at: where is the alignment that should lead you to stand up and display that kind of courage?
Neville Hobson Where indeed?
Shel Holtz That’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.
The post FIR #499: When Saying Nothing Sends the Wrong Message appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.