Your thought that the persuasion model fails if the ethics of the product or client are suspect doesn’t seem to be borne out in reality; history is replete with examples, the lengthy tenure of Bernard Madoff exhibit A. Surely, we do aspire to an idealistic view of our profession, and certainly we can use the dialogic approach under some circumstances. But there are situations where dialogue is not appropriate, or even illegal. Competing interests may not be resolvable.

I believe in a situational theory — the tools of the profession work best depending on the situation in which they’re deployed.

In fact, you prove my point when you write:

“Communication, inherently, and certainly public relations, is not being successful if the communication content only serves the needs of the organisation. It is not there for an organisation to simply get on its soapbox and spruke its position/goods/services.

“Organisations that insist on doing this without some form of overarching beneficial societal and environmental consciousness will, hopefully, be put out of business. It is no simplistic equation, however, and it would be counterproductive to get overly reductive about this.

“For instance, steel making is one of the most environmentally pernicious industries around, but steel itself is fundamental to contemporary living. ”

In particular, the need for a business to have “some form of overarching beneficial societal and environmental consciousness…” stands the concept of fiduciary accountability to shareholders on its head. The owners are the boss — we can recommend changes to strategy based on the likely reaction to strategy among our publics. But we will fail in our PR responsibility if we don’t, in the end, support our clients or quit.

Deep thoughts, my new friend.
Sean
Communication Ammo
@commammo