After reading the Dallas Cowboys case study that was handed out in class, I was curious about one fact in particular. After the whole scandal was covered up pretty well, why did Michael Irvin ever admit to doing anything to Evertt McIver after retiring from the NFL? If it was true that he was at fault, then why would he admit to it after getting away with it?
The public relations aspect on the case, in my opinion, was unethical. The Dallas Cowboys are in fact the DALLAS Cowboys, and it is the taxpayers who help pay for the feild they call home, therefore, I think the citizens have the right to know what is going on. The 'no comment' approach definately worked, but it was unethical in my eyes.
If I were involoved with the Dallas Cowboys scandal, as a public relations practicioner, I'm not quite sure what I would do. I am a huge Cowboy fan, and I'm all about winning, but if winning means disloyalty to the public, as a practioner my word would mean nothing, if I went along with the 'no comment' approach. The way I would probably go about it, is admit what happened, see if we could just set a punishment for Irvin, get it over with, and move on. Action needed to be taken if it was indeed, not an accident. The public should have been notified.
The no comment can work in some cases, such as personal, or family matters, but it should be done so with caution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment