The First Amendment; Karol King

The First Amendment and a free people weekly examination of civil liberties and the media in the United States and around the world the program has produced cooperatively by WGBH Boston and the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University the host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Brownie group. What do we mean by corporate free speech. How should the corporation be treated should it be treated as an institution or as a person in the light of the law. What's the public's right to know in regard to all of this Well I'm very delighted to have as my guest today a man who knows a good deal about this has recently written about it in the public relations Journal and who knows it on an everyday basis representing one of the Fortune 500 companies. He's Karen King the senior vice president of Texaco was born in Dallas Texas on October 15th 19 17. He was appointed director of public relations for Texaco in 953

named General Manager Public Relations and personnel was 57 and from that time on till his appointment as. Assistant to the chairman of the board has been up and up and up Texaco's and Mr. King knows his business certainly and I'm sure he's very much concerned about the affairs of corporate free speech in a time of Energy be in short supply and the public in anger sometimes being felt and concerned about the energy situation. I started out Karen King. What is your definition of corporate free speech what do you mean by that. Dr Ruben I think today the public and rightfully so is looking to corporations to do more than earn a profit. They look to corporations to do more than just produce a service. Then somehow or other we have something that's called social responsibility. And corporations are expected to behave in a socially responsible manner.

If corporations are to take on these very humanistic obligations then it seems to me they should be accorded the same right. And that is the right of free speech both to. Promote whatever positive positions that they have with respect to those things that are rightfully within their sphere of influence and perhaps on the other side to dissent from activities or actions which they feel might interfere with their capabilities to deliver on those obligations which society has thrust upon them. Now in a similar fashion to the individual you and I have. Free speech as long as we are responsible. Should the corporation. Be criticised or punished under the law when it acts irresponsibly using its rights to freedom of speech or should it try to duck out at that point saying we're an institution not a person. Well as one who's been on the receiving end I can only tell you

that it seems to me that we are castigated quite openly freely and at many levels in our society constantly seven days a week 24 hours a day. So I don't think there's any danger of our getting away with something under the guise of free speech. But to get more specific suppose we're now in the area where people say what was on your mind when you did that and it refers to the CBS program 60 Minutes and the landau case Colonel Landau who has won this last level of his case in the courts. Suppose they come to you and say what was on your mind when you made this decision or what was on your mind when you put these ads in the paper. Would you feel that that was an intervention into your corporate free speech or not. I'm not sure whether I'd call it intervention I don't think I'd particularly like it. But on the other hand I don't think I have anything to hide. In my work which I've been doing for some 35 40 years now I have a very

good point I think at least has a pretty good maxim that I follow and that is that I don't do anything and I don't say anything and I don't write anything that couldn't appear on the front page of The Boston Herald Bergen if you like. But Mr. King I'm going to level a charge at you now. You're currently president of the Public Relations Society of America. I wonder whether you're a representative of the average corporate person in that I just assume that your comprehension of civic responsibility as a corporate person would rise above the many corporate practices however widespread that you would think would be just awful. Well I can't dispute that. I'm sure of it. There are many people in business who don't perform just the way society would like for them to. I'm sure there are many journalists and radio commentators who don't perform just the way society would like for them to do. But I do believe that responsible people in our society in whatever line of

business are N-Gage ought to have pretty high objectives should strive for those objectives and I believe the Public Relations Society of America does provide for that. At least we are a professional society. We do have a code of ethics. We have a grievance board. We have judicial panels and we punish our members when they violate that code of ethics. Well I congratulate you by the way on your elevation to the presidency and I wish you all good luck on it. But as you and I both know corporations have been through a very troubled period I'm not just talking about the energy crisis in your own field but period in which payoffs and kickbacks and all sorts of under the counter activities not only in the United States but abroad the laundering of all kinds of monies sullied the public image of corporate responsibility. Do you believe that the corporations have come back far enough through good works. The logical operations now to say that was in our past or in the past of some of our members and we ought to we ought to accept the fact that we're on a different level now.

I think that's very hard to handle as a generality. I think there are some corporations who've made mistakes and they've been punished either legally or socially or by loss of consumer goodwill and there will be other corporations in the future that will probably make the same mistakes. You know a corporation is really nothing but a piece of paper. What really counts is your leadership. If you have a good chairman and chief executive backed by a sound board of directors the reputation of the company will be good. If you're unfortunate enough to get somebody who's a little slippery who wants to cut the corners tries to take an Enron that corporation can get in trouble. Well I wonder now let us take three mile river which you have no responsibility for other than his present reason newspapers as I do. But a three mile river we've all learned from the news reports after the fact that the power company involved did not tell all the truth did not tell it right away did not report to the NRC that the

NRC itself was guilty of some delays in accepting the fact and that the only sufferer really was the general public now. The question is isn't it now time that in addition to the Public Relations Society of America that corporate executives themselves when something so fundamental to the public interest is concerned then together and say we 12 we 15 we 20 We don't claim to represent more than the people on this list. We find that the actions taken these last two months were reprehensible. Well you know I don't want to be an apologist for three mile harbor or for the corporation involved. But again I come back to the fact that corporations are nothing but pieces of paper they're a charter the failure of Three Mile Harbor seemed to be a three mile island seemed to be a human failure and that human failure started with an operator and it went on to a supervisor and perhaps it went on to management. And certainly there were nuclear energy officials present at the very same identical moment and none of them

quite was able to grasp what was going on well enough at that moment under stress to determine what should be said. And you know God save us. Either you or I being in the same situation. How can you make a decision when you really don't know yourself what's actually wrong and how can you take the responsibility of suddenly telling the public something that you don't really know whether it's correct or not but I suspect they were under that kind Well I wouldn't be entirely because I think they knew a great deal that they didn't say but let us just assume that we buy your premise. We also must follow along and say well now that that's happened. Corporation that take out a lot of advertising for diverse diversified energy sources including atomic energy just have to take it on the chin because the public doesn't know which way to turn. There's been an awful lot of corporate free speech from the company involved a three mile river and a lot of it has disillusioned the

public so we get back to the beginning that yes there is a lot of corporate free speech and we should encourage it. But the penalties are as great as the opportunities would you agree to that. The penalties can be as great as the opportunities but I think too that people have stand by their principles in the current energy shortage in the United States of America. You know I do for instance that we should go to the extreme of shutting down immediately all nuclear plants generating electricity in this country I think would be a mistake. We simply cannot afford to import additional hundreds of millions of barrels of oil from abroad because we can't get it in the first place. And if we try to do it in the second place it would run the price of all energy up completely out of sight. We have to balance risks. No one thinks too much about the fact that we kill forty or fifty thousand people a year on the highways and we don't put the automobile companies out of business. As yet there hasn't been a single life lost due to an industrial atomic energy problem.

And yet we are scared to death of it. Then we're the only country in the world that scared to death of it. Japan isn't stopping nuclear plants Germany isn't stopping them France isn't stopping them UK isn't stopping them. But we're frightened and I understand that fright and I understand the fear and I do think we should do everything possible to make our nuclear plants safe. But I do think we're going to need that energy and we're going to need it off the bat. Well let me let me in now move on to your own area which is largely contracted on oil resources. There is a shortage of energy in the world I'm absolutely convinced of it I am sure that most sensible people would know that when the Saudis cut back a million barrels a day and that when Iranian oil goes from 5.5 million barrels to whatever it is 4 million barrels or less that we're going to have a shortage that our own resources are not as ample as they once seemed. I've wondered why with all these corporate free speech around there isn't more talk between the oil industry and will say the Titan automobile

industry. Why doesn't the oil industry say you know look read our ads. Why are you trying to sell trucks to every youngster in the country that burns up all their gasoline. Why don't we have a planning group to determine the automobile needs of the nation and the kind of plant that we ought to have. We supply everything that causes your wheels to roll. Process unfair perhaps you're already doing it. Bernie I've got to respond to that with a bit of a wry smile on my face which your listeners cannot see but both the automobile industry and the petroleum industry have been trying to do that since about 1970. But the fact of the matter is that the automobile companies have to produce the product that the American people want. I don't know whether you're aware of it or not but the Ford Motor Company some six or eight years ago brought out a vehicle with safety belts on it and try to promote it in their advertising in a cost I think maybe 50 or $75 more than the models without safety

belts and didn't sell sell a lot right. Not only that but their competitors completely overlook the fact that a safety belt would do anything that even bother with talking about them. The Ford Motor Company took a licking. Well but there we're reaching incident prices Will Rogers once said is the only country in the world where people go to the port poorhouse in an automobile. It's maybe in Los Angeles is the only country in the world will people go to the gas station in an automobile. Now isn't there a point at which the leadership of the giant corporation must be stronger than it has been. Let me ask you this. Do you want corporations to terming public policy in this country. If they're individuals if they're citizens yes. To the degree that they are surprise than my response to you is very simple. I believe the corporations do what public policy wants that public policy can be enunciated by groups of citizens that can be by vested interests it can be by consumer groups it could be by state legislatures the Congress the president any a little bit as long as it represents citizen activity in forcing their

will as to how they want their investor and commercial enterprises to operate. The day that the American Congress takes action as it has to save the automobile industry by such and such a year you must have automobiles that will run additional mpg. That is now mandated there for the automobile industry will be in competition. One company with another to see who can produce a car that will get 20 miles to the gallon. How are they going to do it through lighter engines through lighter weight through the use of plastics. We don't know. That's why it will be competitive. That's why it's a good thing that we have a competitive system to solve these problems. But until the government mandates that. Mileage of 20 miles. The automobile industry is going to give the consumer what he wants. And up until this year as you all know after 73 74 little cars got a big shot in the arm in 76 and 77 they were a drag on the market. And in 78 the big cars were

back. Now here we are in 79 and we see the little cars coming back and you can't give away big cars. Now why is this. It's because what the public wants the public bars and ensure we have a mandate from the federal government reflecting the overall needs and desires of our society. You automobile companies have to simply compete with one another. I think we're all going to get what you want. All right now in the area of corporate free speech Mobil Oil Company has taken the lead under her bridge Mertz I'm sure that you get a little rankle every time somebody says her bitch merits as if he was Columbus who discovered America. But nevertheless he did open the financial taps to a great deal of advertising supported by the mobile company using editorials all sorts of columns of great interest in presenting the position of the Mobil Oil Corporation which is now being widely imitated corporations are not so timid as they were. Given all of that. I'd like to just juxtapose your thought about the public getting what it wants. I don't think we know enough

about the giants of American industry as individuals they are important people. They're your boss and my boss and so on and so forth. But they don't play the political role in. Politics meaning the how the state goes the poll is not necessarily political parties they don't play a political role commensurate with their their power. If more of them say than not let's wait until the Congress tells us in the Congress doesn't pass any energy legislation. The corporations are waiting. The public is blaming every party and we're all playing craps with destiny. Well it's mostly about a promise that doesn't make one just jump up and down and bleed. But let me respond to that this way. I believe that in the past 10 years the average man in the chief executives office in a major corporation has found that instead of spending perhaps 75 percent of his time running the business and

25 percent fooling around with this business what he calls public relations public affairs government relations that ratio today is virtually reversed. Every chief executive I know of a company that has a really has a lot of public visibility is spending 75 percent of his time dealing with public issues. The things that are in the news every day that are the subjects of legislation in the Congress subject of legislation in the state legislatures the regulatory agencies a company like mine has to deal with some 30 or 40 regulatory agencies every day. And if we don't deal with these people properly and responsibly they can do things to put us out of business to make it much more difficult for us to do our job. And I think too that you will find the second and third level our generation if you please the executives who are coming up today. Many of them are much more articulate much more much more attuned to the public needs and

desires. They are more responsive. They want to get into the public arena and participate in the dialogue. And business knows that if it doesn't do this it cannot survive because business survives only at the will of public opinion. Well the president of Harvard reinforces your view. He said the Harvard Business School has got to be reorganizing is one of the best business schools in the country. That in Stanford and in other schools. But he says I've got to deal more with ethics in public policy and public responsibility didn't mention the media. Perhaps it's because he's the president of 100 and sure that sooner or later he will as you start your year as the director of the public relations side of America which has a great many corporate institutions. Sending representatives on their own. How do you respond to the charges made by many that the corporations are richer than the rest of us as individuals. Therefore they have an awful lot of money to spread around to give their point of

view. Their response is of course as you say that your article. Well everybody else can do that too but it just seems that the amount of money that you spend on advertising does tell. What's your response when the public interest types public interest group types say that the commercial corporation dominates in the idea field. I'm going let me give you a specific example. Texaco is a fairly large company and we feel we have an obligation to our 36000 domestic employees some 400 shareholders in the United States and many millions of customers. We're carrying out an important responsibility in the energy field. Maybe we do it well maybe we don't but we think we have a right and an obligation to set for their point of view often to get that point of view visible. It's necessary for us to purchase page space in which to provide what in effect is an editorial reply in the broadcast business. We

can't do that incidentally you know on the airwaves because the FCC Fairness Doctrine sort of blocks us at least in the view of the networks and that's another story. But I think the corporation has it right and it has an obligation because when the fellow on the other side and we have consumer interest groups in the energy business which I'm sure you're aware they work day and night and they're on the phones to radio television newspapers syndicates wire services begging to be interviewed begging to let their allegations and charges be heard. Dying to make the front pages and they're willing to do anything from walking in the fountain in the wall from the White House to get on the air and they do and they do so with great success because they're charging they're attacking. They're alleging. And most of the time they have no responsibility. They have no constituency and so they can attack with impunity. When a company like mun has to respond to charges whether it's from a Department of Energy or a public

interest group or a consumer interest group believe me you have no idea of the care with which we put this response together. The number of departments we have together the legal department the tax department of finance and economics of the executive department and probably three or four other issues before that's ever turned loose. We want to make sure it's accurate. T's crossed i's dotted so it cannot possibly be challenge as a result. Companies sometimes seem a little bit awkward. And he diluted in the press oftentimes don't understand why it takes us four or five hours to respond to a charge that was made in 30 seconds. But that's the way it works. And I find that the detractors and the alligator alligators if that's what they're called. It's like a play on words. Now they can get their space and they do. Front page at the top of the news on ABC NBC or CBS or even on the

MacNeil-Lehrer Report. We have to respond as best we can. From your point of view some of the Al against if we can call them are too full of allegories What do you make of the the test put down in the case of First National Bank of Boston versus Bill Oddie back in 1960 saying that yes corporate free speech can. And can be one of the rights of the giant corporation but in effect it should deal with the property business or assets of the corporation should affect those because that's such a wide parameter anyhow. Welborn I do believe this I don't believe the corporations ought to be running around talking about things that are completely outside their field and we've seen some evidence of that. There is a company in New York with which I'm familiar. That's in the let's say the soft goods business in which the president of that company used to take a column and talk about trade with China are you know something

completely unrelated to his business. I don't think that is the business of business and I don't think messages of that kind are pertinent are relevant or make any sense at all. I believe on the other hand not an oil company for instance which is being castigated for everything under the sun. Almost anything it does to protect itself. I'm beginning to feel pretty comfortable with. But seriously I think that if if we talk about taxation or if we talk about imports or we talk about foreign trade things that are related to energy one way or another are tax blocks then I think we should let our views be known. But I agree entirely that we shouldn't get off on an irrelevant or unrelated subjects. That's not our business. And if we're going to spend our stockholders money we ought to be able to account to our stockholders and say yes we spent this in the interest of you the shareholders. If we can't do that we shouldn't do it. It happens that each of the last four years I've invited the incoming president of the

PRSA public relations side of America to sit before these microphones and. They have all had a very high sense of responsibility and and public awareness. And I've asked them each the same question What are you going to do to shake up the public relations aside of America so that it becomes a more vital force. It is a syphon those of us in the business of media and information the average person in the street has never even heard of it he doesn't even know that there is a responsible group monitoring and he's not very sure if he has heard about it whether they have an effect or not burned frankly I don't care whether the average person is aware. It's like many other professional societies which say the chemical engineers are the architects of sati. I think the main thing is that there should be a professional public relations group to which people can belong because they do have high standards. And you asked me what am I going to do to shake it up. I'm not going to get up what I'm going to do is move it up. My

principal plank of my nine hundred seventy nine. Platform is it. I am going to make this a not I along with about eight thousand two hundred other people who are members of this society. We are going to put in a professional development program and when the tide rises everybody rises with it. It will benefit members of the society who are already members and it will be of great benefit to the people who are coming out of our public relations schools who are coming in at the entry level and we will have a hierarchy of professional development for those people that will go with them all their lives. If you stay in this business for more than two or three years without some kind of continuing education work you become obsolete. And I'm afraid many of our people have 20 years experience but it's 20 years of doing the same job for one year of time. Oh you're winning me over your warming the cockles of my heart etc. etc. Are you going to do it one time or another this year or sometime in the future abandon that

study of one book and test six weeks later in favor with the other professionals have done and said This is the D-League curriculum we must have you are you speaking the accreditation program the accreditation program as it presently exists was a first step. You know you gotta crawl before you walk before you run. Accreditation was a first halting move. I can see in the future where the proper professional development program earning continuing education units where people will continue to do things like writing attending seminars continuing their education they will be automatically accredited and then they will have to maintain their accreditation by continuing their work throughout their careers. Well if I was in England I would be bouncing my hand on the table and yelling Here here because that's that's the kind of talk we need. Well I wish you all good luck. Karen King as the incoming president the Public Relations Society of America I think they've made a very wise choice. I know you're going to have a

terrific year how you'll do it. Doing all you work at Texaco and doing you work for the PR as a I guess busy people do it all for this particular. Subject corporate free speech and the public's right to know. I think your answers have been both been both candid and refreshing They certainly haven't been the stock pulled out of the middle drawer response and I appreciate that very much. Thank you so Karen King for this edition of The First Amendment and free people I thank you good to be here thank you so much for having me. This is Bernard Ruben. The First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties and the media in the United States and around the world. The engineer for this broadcast was Michael Garrison and the program is produced by Greg Fitzgerald. This broadcast has produced cooperatively applied to the GBH Bostom and the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University which are solely responsible for its content.

This is the station program exchange.