« School Seeks Fees from 'Bong Hits' Plaintiff | Main | Law Firms Using Social Networking for Training »

Firm Under Fire for Staged 'News Report'

In a story reminiscent of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's fake news conference last October, a Connecticut law firm and its PR consultant are coming under fire for a staged "news" program airing on public-access TV. The half-hour program features two partners from Hartford's Shipman & Goodwin being interviewed about their recent $12.4 million jury win in an eminent domain case against the town of Branford. Conducting the interview is the firm's PR consultant, Duby McDowell -- and therein lies the problem.

As reported by the New Haven Advocate, McDowell is a former TV journalist who covered state politics for Connecticut's WFSB-TV Channel 3 and who continues to serve as a news analyst for the station. In the video (which you can see at this Web site the firm set up about the case), she is identified as "Duby McDowell, WFSB Political Analyst," but never as a paid PR consultant for the lawyers being interviewed. Her "co-host" in interviewing the two lawyers, Tanya Meck, is identified as a former planning and zoning chair in West Hartford, without any mention that she, too, is a paid PR consultant. The Advocate explains why this setup might not be a good idea:

"The PR video, unlike a news chat show set in an actual television studio, is not a bipartisan discussion of the issues. For one thing it has no analyst from the other side. There's no one representing the town, not an official, not an attorney.

"It is a set Shipman & Goodwin rented out for the occasion. McDowell does not tell the viewers that this show has nothing to do with WFSB-TV. She does not inform the viewing audience that Shipman & Goodwin is a client, that she is getting paid. She does not say the law firm hired her company, Duby McDowell Communications LLC, which specializes in press relations, strategic communications and media training."

Here's the kicker: The Advocate asks McDowell whether the video might lead a viewer to think she was functioning as a WFSB political analyst rather than as a paid PR person. "Yes," she replies straight out, adding after several seconds, "However, it is pretty clear during the whole video. ... We needed some sort of title for everybody, and that is what we came up with." What, in her opinion, made it clear? The video has several references to the firm's Web site about the case, which both interviewers refer to at some point as "our Web site," and the video concludes with this: "This program has been presented by Shipman and Goodwin." To me, this looks like a classic example of fake news, one that is sure to mislead at least some of the people who watch it.

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on January 28, 2008 at 02:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Comments

As someone who advises law firms on public relations, this stuff infuriates me. What were they thinking? It only takes one event like this to hurt a firm's hard-earned reputation. PR firms and paid consultants who pretend to be reporters have no place in our business and law firms need to "just say no" when their PR firm cooks up a fake interview.

Posted by: Rich Klein | Jan 28, 2008 3:46:03 PM

Shipman & Goodwin LLP would like to respond to this article and comments as follows:

1. The video was posted on a website that contains exclusively public record information about the case of New England Estates v Town of Branford. The website is clearly identified as being sponsored by our firm; thirty-seven times in 29 minutes, the video refers back to the Shipman & Goodwin -sponsored website.
2. The video was taken off the website by citizens of Branford and given to the town's local public access television station, which made its own independent decision as to whether airing it was appropriate.
3. Ms. McDowell identified herself in the video as a political analyst for a Connecticut TV station because that is an accurate statement of her professional identity; it is how she is known publicly in Connecticut.
4. No reasonable person could have thought that the video was an WFSB news program. The fact that it was prepared by and paid for by Shipman & Goodwin is stated expressly on the screen. Nowhere does the video state that it is a "WFSB production" or show the Channel 3 logo or anything else identifying the TV station as a producer, sponsor or participant.
5. The video and its use bear no resemblance to a "fake news" program because the sponsor and the participants are accurately identified.
6. The original story about the video and website was written by a woman who resides in Branford and who reported on the New England Estates trial in a personal blog while the trial was in progress in August - September 2007. The public record information posted on the website regarding this case reveals significant inaccuracies in those blogs.

Posted by: Timothy S. Hollister | Feb 1, 2008 12:35:11 PM

This is a public relations nightmare. The law firm obviously won't do this type of thing again, so let us all move on to other things. Peace, Brother.

Posted by: Elvin Hayes | Feb 1, 2008 9:10:08 PM

Post a comment