A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. A characteristic of a front group is using a name that misleads the public as to what their actual intentions are (i.e. Alliance for Better Foods actually being a company that supports the use of GMOs). A real world example that I found through some research is a group called the "Non-Smoker Protection Committee". This name sounded noble, and for a good cause. When I first saw this name I thought the organization might be working towards putting a ban on smoking, to avoid second hand
…show more content…
This rule states that practitioners "must be honest, disclose the sponsors, and avoid deceptive practices."
In the case of "Toxic Sludge is Good For You", a publicist actually contacted the writer of "Toxic sludge is good for you" and asked him not to use the terms "Toxic" or "Sludge" because they now call it Bio Material. The publicist did not want the release of the book to carry bad connotations with toxic sludge because there was a new effort to sell the so-called bio material to farmers, to be used as fertilizer. This is incredibly ironic because the publicist was indeed trying to convince people that toxic sludge can be good for you.
I tried to find some of the arguments on why front groups should be supported by the public and I really could not find anything.
The PRSA does not allow the use of front groups. However the use of these third party techniques is still utilized and cannot be held legally responsible for doing so. I think that any ethical person who knows the true intentions behind front groups would not support them. Just because they are a PR technique and I am interested in PR does not mean that I support being deceitful to your audience. The use of front groups is basically lying and I believe that the misuse of them should have a stronger
This rule states that practitioners "must be honest, disclose the sponsors, and avoid deceptive practices."
In the case of "Toxic Sludge is Good For You", a publicist actually contacted the writer of "Toxic sludge is good for you" and asked him not to use the terms "Toxic" or "Sludge" because they now call it Bio Material. The publicist did not want the release of the book to carry bad connotations with toxic sludge because there was a new effort to sell the so-called bio material to farmers, to be used as fertilizer. This is incredibly ironic because the publicist was indeed trying to convince people that toxic sludge can be good for you.
I tried to find some of the arguments on why front groups should be supported by the public and I really could not find anything.
The PRSA does not allow the use of front groups. However the use of these third party techniques is still utilized and cannot be held legally responsible for doing so. I think that any ethical person who knows the true intentions behind front groups would not support them. Just because they are a PR technique and I am interested in PR does not mean that I support being deceitful to your audience. The use of front groups is basically lying and I believe that the misuse of them should have a stronger