Celebrity Reputation Management and the "Dark Side" of Public Relations

Read the transcript and notes for this episode on our website.

A high-profile legal battle has erupted in Hollywood involving Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, following allegations of sexual harassment during the production of the film It Ends With Us.

Abbie Fink and Dr. Adrian McIntyre talk about the complexities of reputation management in the public relations field, raising ethical concerns around the tactics used by both celebrities and their representatives.

They discuss how these cases reflect broader issues in public relations, particularly the manipulation of media narratives and the potential misuse of reputation management strategies to damage opponents.

The implications of this case extend beyond the individuals involved, touching on the ethical responsibilities of PR professionals and the impact of public perception on personal and professional lives.

Key Takeaways

• The unfolding legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni raises ethical concerns for public relations practitioners.
• Public relations can sometimes shift from reputation management to reputation takedown, which is troubling.
• The tactics used in reputation management can have broader implications beyond celebrity culture, affecting public trust in media narratives.
• Crisis communication should prioritize the core of the complaint rather than deflecting attention to peripheral lawsuits and media claims.
• Ethical PR practices should focus on maintaining and elevating client reputations rather than tearing others down.

Follow the podcast

If you enjoyed this episode, please follow Copper State of Mind in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast app. We publish new episodes every other Friday. Just pick your preferred podcast player from this link, open the app, and click the button to “Follow” the show: https://www.copperstateofmind.show/listen

Need to hire a PR firm?

We demystify the process and give you some helpful advice in Episode 19: "How to Hire a Public Relations Agency in Arizona: Insider Tips for Executives and Marketing Directors"

Copper State of Mind is a project of HMA Public Relations, a full-service public relations and marketing communications firm in Phoenix.

The show is recorded and produced by the team at Speed of Story, a B2B communications firm, and distributed by PHX.fm, the leading independent B2B podcast network in Arizona.

If you enjoyed this episode, you might also like the PRGN Presents podcast, hosted by Abbie Fink, featuring conversations about PR, marketing, and communications with members of the Public Relations Global Network, "the world’s local public relations agency.”

Episode Transcript

(00:04):
He said, she said turned intohe sued, she sued, and the media
is dragging us all along forthe ride. A high profile Hollywood
dispute is now unfolding inthe media and online. It's not the
first time this has happened,but the implications for public relations
and how we all get ourinformation about what's going on

(00:24):
in the world are interestingand a little disconcerting. Abbie,
what's on your mind?
So reputation management issomething that ethical public relations
practitioners are often askedto participate and help. And, you
know, we are building upon areputation we might be helping to

(00:47):
establish presence in themedia on behalf of a client. We talk
a lot about the importance ofhaving a good reputation in the event
that something negative mayhappen. But I'm concerned about these
efforts to intentionally, orat least it appears to be intentionally,

(01:08):
damage someone's reputation inadvance of what you anticipate might
be something coming outnegative about you. And I'm not sure
that that aligns with anethical communications practice.
So specifically, we're talkingabout Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.

(01:29):
They are the stars in a filmthat's come out just the end of last
year. Happy New Year, by theway. The film is "It Ends With Us."
BlakeLivelyfiledacomplaintwiththe CaliforniaCivilRightsDepartmentinDecemberallegingsexual
harassmentduringtheproduction.Therehavebeenothers There
have been others who have atleast stated similar concerns and

(01:53):
complaints. There were somerumors swirling about why certain
female appear withBaldonipubliclyinthe PRpushabout the movie.
Butthishasturnedintoafullblown push about the movie. But
this hasextensivepiecetellingBlakeLively'sside ofthestory.JustinBaldoni
an extensive piece tellingBlake Lively's side of the story.

(02:18):
Justin Baldoni responded witha $250 million defamation lawsuit.
The stakes in these defamationlawsuits have gone considerably,
by the way. Lively has nowalso ofthepublicrelationsprofession.Andwithoutcastingaspersionson
all of this, you are readingstories about somewhat shady areas

(02:42):
of the public relationsprofession. And without casting aspersions
on any one particular good,ortakedownotherhighprofilecelebritiesandmakethemlookbad.Imean,thisisanethicalconcernforsure,butitraisesbroaderquestionsabouttheindustryandwhatis thispublicrelationsbusinessreallyabout?Abby,you'recertainlynotcaught

(03:05):
upin them look bad. I mean,this is an ethical concern, ofviewonhowthisisallplayingout.Whatdoyoumakeofthis?
iePR
Well, and I think that's thebiggest concern that I have is the
generalization of what publicrelations is and how it is portrayed

(03:28):
in books and in movies andthings, that it's all glitz and glamour
and parties and this elementthat is certainly part of what can
be a public relationspractice, but it is, you know, so
much more than what that isportrayed. And this particular story
is really kind of shining alight on that element that is feeding

(03:52):
into what it is, you know,what a lot of people think is the
career path that we've chosenas a PR practitioner. So my concerns
in this particular idea hereis one that it is putting our profession
front and center in a storywhich in most of us would say we

(04:12):
don't belong in the story. Ourjobs are to push forward the information
about our clients and notnecessarily be part of the narrative.
As a result of what ishappening, the crisis management
teams that both sides havehired have found themselves right
smack dab in the middle of thestory. And I think there's an important

(04:33):
distinction here about what iscrisis communications, what is reputation
management by the standardsthat I abide by and our team does
and how we manage thingsversus what we might be seeing playing
out here. And it is really, inmy view, and the way we would approach

(04:53):
any of this is it isn't abouttaking down someone else. It has
to be about elevating theindividuals or the organizations
that we've been, you know,hired to provide support for. And
so, yeah, $250 million is aridiculous amount of money. It is

(05:14):
going to be extremelydifficult for both sides of that
story to be able to provetheir point. Again, we've talked
a little bit about the roleof, you know, what defamation means
and what libel means, whatslander means when you are a public
figure, and there's adifferent standard there than a private

(05:36):
citizen would be held to. Thetiming of all of that information,
as you said when it came outbefore the movie and in an attempt
to adjust the narrative aroundwhat Blake Lively's lawsuit was claiming
and what did it do for bothreputations and what is it doing

(06:00):
to those around them. Youknow, her, you know, the others in
the movie, as you mentioned,family members on either side that
are coming out in support oftheir, you know, their side of the
story. I watched the moviebecause I felt like I had to have
a little bit of context.Certainly, knowing this, you know,
knowing what I've read andthen seeing the movie. He isn't the

(06:23):
nicest guy, but then again,he's playing A character that's not
the nicest guy. So this willbe interesting to see where this
goes and how it really isgoing to impact those of us that
do this work and whatexpectations are going to be about
how and what we should bedoing when it comes to reputation
management.
You know, you raise a reallyimportant point, which is, although

(06:45):
for hundreds of millions ofpeople, celebrities are a different
class of human, in realitythey're just people. They're people
with families, they're peoplewith marriages, they're people with
problems, just like all of us.But yet their problems, their marriages,
their divorces, play out on amuch grander scale, which must be
an awful and uncomfortable wayto live your life. I certainly wouldn't

(07:08):
know. But there's alsosomething here that is directly related
to the issues we discuss onthis podcast because it's the way
that the media is both beingleveraged by people pursuing claims
and has also become the targetof some of those claims. I mean,

(07:29):
let's be clear. Baldoni'slawsuit is against the New York Times,
claiming that their reportingwas one-sided and skewed inappropriately.
The New York Times hasresponded thoroughly stand by our
reporting. We thoroughlyresearched and reported this story,
we reviewedyouincourt.So,youknow,atonelevel,hisclaimis not,I

(07:51):
see you in court. So, youNewYorkTimes wasunfairtome.So there's
"I didn't do it." His claimis, "the New York complaint unfair
to me." So there's that.erinitialclaimfor was not a lawsuit.
It was a complaint to theCalifornia Civil Rights department,
which is what you do for labordisputes involving sexual harassment

(08:16):
in your workplace. She hasalso then filed lawsuits and her
lawyers have said, we stand byour version of events and we're gonna
publish all the texts and allthe background. And yet in and among
all of this stuff, you'restarting to see these names pop up.

(08:37):
People who have representedfolks in previous very public scandals.
The publicist involved onBaldoni's side, workedforJohnnyDeppinthe
JohnnyDepp AmberHeardsaga.Andthat vs. Amber Heard avery troublingexampleof
what canhappenwhenthetideofpublicopinionisturnedagainstawomanbringing acomplaint.Imean,

(09:02):
Ithinkatsomelevelwegottabehonestandstartfromthe verybasicshere.Anywomanwhobringsacomplaint
about from the very basicshere. Any gotto expectthat she'snotgoingtobe
takenseriously,thatshe'sgoingtobeundermined.I mean,thisis justhowthingsare.Soit

(09:26):
takes alotofcouragetoevenbeginthatprocess.Andhowmany peopleouttherearesittingandsufferinginsilenceaboutissuesbecause
theydon'twant this process.And how many people out there are
sitting and suffering insilence about issues because they

(09:47):
don't want this kind ofpublicity? They're not celebrities,
but even in their town, intheir church, in their community,
they don't want this kind ofscandal, this kind of gossip, this
kind of, "well, she probablydeserved it," or whatever the nonsense

(10:10):
is that people say. But we'vegot these figures in there who are,
who are stirring the pot, whoare poking the ire,whoarefanning ,
Well, and your point about,you know, the initial complaint had
to do with workplaceharassment in the workplace, which

(10:33):
should be between employee andemployer, filed with the labor board
in your city or state. Howeverthat is, and that's where it should
land. The fact that it becamepublic in such a public way and that
the alleged harasser decidedthat this was the better way to address

(10:56):
the situation was instead ofdealing with it in the workplace
environment, went public withthe other, other side of the story
or his viewpoint of what theother side of the story is. So where
do these communications folksfit into all of this? Right? And
where do they get their, youknow, their information, their way
of thinking about how do theywant to do this, why would they select

(11:18):
this type of client to workwith, et cetera. And, you know, you
could probably argue thatthere are others, other professionals
that would representindividuals, and you would say, how
does you know? Why would anattorney take on this person, et
cetera? Right. So everyonedeserves someone to represent them.
Let's, you know, from ageneral perspective, it becomes to

(11:41):
me a matter of, you know,where. Where does this fall within
your own ethical standards andyour own moral beliefs about what
you. What is right and what iswrong within your business organization?
I do a lot of speaking atcollege campuses in the journalism
and public relations classes,and a lot of times the topic will

(12:02):
come around to crisiscommunications, and inevitably there
will be a student in one ofthose classes that would say, have
you Ever been asked to dosomething that you didn't like? Have
you ever been asked torepresent somebody or asked to do
something that you didn't wantto do, but you still did it? And
the answer is, I've beenasked, but I've never done it because

(12:25):
I put my, you know, myviewpoint, my ethical understanding
of things and say, can I standside by side on this particular issue
and feel good about what I'msaying now? There have been times
where I have, you know, wherewe are not always on the quote, unquote,

(12:45):
right side of a particularstory. That doesn't mean that that
organization isn't deservingof having quality communications,
advice and counsel andmanaging through what could become
a negative situation. But inevery instance that we have ever
worked on behalf of a client,we have 100% believed we were doing

(13:09):
right by them and that theyhad the right to have quality communications
council in the same way thatthey have the right to have legal
representation and otherthings. So for me, where this particular
story and the previous onesthat have involved this very, I have
to say, a very intentionaleffort to take down, in fact, one

(13:32):
of the earlier headlines was"we can take down anybody," is not
an ethical approach toreputation management. Did she deserve
to have, you know, a storyplayed out in the press? Did he deserve
to have his story played outin the press? Perhaps. They're public
recognized figures.Interestingly enough, the topic of

(13:53):
that movie has to do withabuse. And so it elevated, I think,
even the idea thetopicbecauseofwhatthe moviewasabout.Butit'smore
for meaboutisthistherightwayto dothiswork?AndIwillnevertellanotherprofessionalthat

(14:15):
I,youknow,they'vechosentodothis,that'sup to
themtodoit.Itisnot,inmyview,thewayto approachthis
type ofwork.AndI,youknow,Iwill turndowna
client nomatter whatthecost,ifitdoesnotalignwithour businessphilosophy,theway

(14:38):
thatwethinkasanorganization,whatwebelieveasindividuals,andwhatwecancomfortablyandprofessionallysay.Wecanstandnexttoyouandhave thesame
conversationand feelgoodabouttheworkthatwe'redoingonyourbehalf.Iftheseindividualscan do
that,thenmorepowertothem.Butitiscertainlynotanapproach that,thatourteamwouldtake.Andreally,I'mnot

(15:05):
surethatthoseofusthatpracticecrisiscommunicationson anongoing
basis wouldidentifythisassomethingthatwewould readilytakeon.
Well, it does seem thatthere's a sort of shadow side to
public relations. Which Ithink we have, to be honest, does
go back to some of the earlyroots of the profession in wartime

(15:30):
propaganda and an attempt toskew the point of view of a large
group of folks, you know, foror against the war effort, against,
you know, Nazism, fascism, etcetera, some of which you might say
that's, that's the right enemyto take on. And then the method,
you know, we could havedebates about. But even Edward Bernays,

(15:51):
considered by many to be thefounder of the modern discipline
of public relations, used avariety of methods to try to shape
the narrative before thecommunication event. I mean, he famously
innovated, if that's the word,the idea of putting together panels
of scientific experts and evenstarting professional journals, publishing

(16:15):
reports, and it's funded bythe client to try to shape the narrative
in their advantage. I mean,famously convincing Americans that
breakfast should be a heavymeal in a campaign funded by the
bacon industry, etc. And Imight be getting some of these details
wrong, but the idea here is,is still valid. Trying to shape the

(16:38):
environment inhichcommunicationhappensisa part
part of the profession. Andquestion ofethics becomescentraltothateffort.Whattroublesme
What troublesbecomeaccustomedtojustcall accustomed
to, let's justInpolitics,wherethe in politics,
where the idea oflet'opponent,let'strytodigupdirtwithopporesearch,oppositionresearch,etc.We'vesortofsaid,ohwell,that'sfine,that'spolitics,that'showthat'sgoingtogo.Thatseemstobespreading.Notjustnow,it'sbeenhappeningforawhile, to

(17:15):
go. hatseemsto be bespreading. Not just it's been happeningforawhile,butitseemsto
bespreadingintootherareasoflifewhereyou'vegototherfolkswhoseinitialreactionis notto
makeyourcasebuttoteardownyouropponent.And quitehonestly,that'sa

(17:39):
opponent. And quite honestly,that's a toxic way of communicating,
no matter what, that, youknow, whatever we mean when we say
gaslighting this, is that at agrand scale, right? And the amount
of money that's being thrownat these issues does have me wonder,

(18:04):
what is it that you're tryingto defend against? I mean, $250 million?
Really? Okay, you're assertingthat that somehow is an appropriate
compensation for their claimagainst you. Seems a little touchy,
seems a little overreacting.Seems like maybe there's something

(18:24):
there. utman'spointof p
Well, and you started thepodcast by, you know, the he said,
she said, he sued, she sued.And your point there was the lawsuit
that we are now discussing isthe alleged defamation lawsuit nothing
to do with the original claimthat she believed that there was

(18:49):
a workplace environment thatwas high, you know, sexually harassed
in the workplace, anuncomfortable workplace environment.
That's where we should befocusing the conversation and where
the attention needs to be,whether she is an actress or she
is an administrativeprofessional or where wherever the

(19:11):
employment happens, that'swhere we should be focusing. This
discussion was whether or notthe environment with which the female
employee felt harassed by hermale colleague, that's where we should
be focusing. Right. And it hasmoved way past that to this is what
she said, this is what hesaid. This is what the New York Times

(19:32):
wrote. This is what, you know,and instead of, as you said, actually
dealing with, with the, withthe conversation and where it belongs.
And the idea that either sidewould have wanted to have a communications
person, a public relationsperson, a spokesperson, if you will,

(19:52):
to help manage what was goingto happen as a result of that particular
discussion, 100% on board withthat. Right. You know, this is where
I have felt I have beensexually harassed in the workplace.
I am going to take, you know,I'm filing a complaint. I know I'm
going to get phone calls. Ineed someone to help me manage this

(20:13):
communications. The gentlemanin the, in the situation, they've.
She's filed this lawsuitagainst me. I need to have someone
help me manage this, you know,while I'm doing all the rest of the
things. 100% we should be bealigned with that. utthat'srepresentingtheirinterest.That'shelpingthemguidethe
guide the conversation. It'snot thetablesandthenflipping the

(20:36):
conversationabouttheotherpersonandtheterrible things
thatthey'veallegedthattheyareorthethingsthat they'redoing.
Thiswillnever beresolvedinawaythatanybody'sgoing to feelthat
they'vewon.IhopethattheNewYorkTimesstaysandstands behindtheirworkallthe

(20:56):
waythroughthisandthatfightstilltheend ofthisdiscussionthattheydideverythingright.I
hopetheydiddoeverythingright,thatthey researchedthattheycheckedtheirfacts,thattheydid
allofthat.Wejusttalkedinthelastepisodeaboutthe ABCNewssettlementfornotunlikethis,a
similar situationwithaccusationsandthe useofcertain

(21:20):
wordstodescribewhathadoccurred.I hopebothsidesare
givenafairopportunityintheoriginalpurposeofwhatthelawsuitwasabout,whichistheharassment intheworkplace.Thetopicisahighlycharged
one.Itis,asIsaid,aninterestingcorrelationtowhat was
happeninginthemovieitselfthatitwasthisiswhat the

(21:43):
workplace. The topic playoutand howshewillbecome the voiceforthistopic.Andyouknow,callingattention,whichwassomethingthatwasimportant
toherin doingthe movieinthefirst place,wascallingattention
tothistopic.Wearegoingtoseeit. It'sgoing totakemonths and monthsand
monthstoberesolved.Andforthoseofusagainthat practicecrisiscommunicationsandpractice

(22:10):
reputationmanagementandare,you know,whether it's ahighprofileindividual
orhighprofilecaseorsomethingveryclose tohome,thisisgoingto
be something wehavetoconsiderandhowwe have toplayandunderstand.Youknow,social
mediahasgiveneveryoneamouthpiece. Everyone

(22:31):
hasanopportunitytostaketheirclaimandmaketheiropinionsknown. Thelegacymediaaswe'vereferredto
thembefore,thestalwartsofourindustryareina battleforattentionandaretrying
tocontinuetobevaluedinourcommunities.AsI'vesaidbefore,Ibelievestronglyinour dailynewspaper,

(22:58):
whateverthat's goingtolooklikeovertime.Butcaseslikethis andwherethe
effortstointentionallydamageanindividual'sreputationandtobe on
recordassayingthat'sthegoalandtheintentistroublesomeandis notwhereIbelieveourindustry

(23:22):
shouldbe,nordoIbelievethevastmajorityofthoseindividuals thatdo
thisworklandisnotinthatcourtwhatsoever.
Thanks for listening to thisepisode of Copper State of Mind.
If you enjoyed theconversation, please share it with
a colleague who might alsofind this podcast valuable. It's

(23:43):
easy to do. Just click theShare button in the app you're listening
to now to pass it along. Youcan also follow Copper State of Mind
in Apple Podcasts, Spotify orany other podcast app. We publish
new episodes every otherFriday. Copper State of Mind is brought
to you by HMA PublicRelations, the oldest continuously

(24:04):
operating PR firm in Arizona.The show is recorded and produced
by the team at SpeedcommunicationsfirminPhoenix,anddistributedbyPHX FM,
distributed by PHX.fm, theleading independent B2B podcast network
in Arizona. orallof us us hereat Speed of Story and PHX.fm, I'm

(24:27):
Adrian McIntyre. Thanks for doso.Wehopeyou'lljoinusagainforanotherepisodeofCopperStateofMind.