Why are some companies cast as villains in the court of public ...

[HudsonKB16]

Why are some companies cast as villains in the court of public opinion while other companies, facing similar circumstances, are seen as heroes?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

The vice chancellor of clinical research at Duke University suggests that a public relations agency that ghostwrote an honest article about a defective drug would lose its pharmaceutical client.
 
  What should public relations practitioners do when their
  research reveals that a pharmaceutical client's drug may have defects?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[nmyers]

Answer to Question 1

In this case study, it is obvious that Ashland was sensitive to public opinion and
how its actions were being perceived. Although Exxon took steps to deal with the
Alaskan oil spill, it came across as being uncaring and unwilling to be held
accountable for its actions. In contrast, Ashland's chief executive officer was
quick to accept responsibility for his company's failures and moved very publicly
to resolve the situation. This case underlines a public relations axiom:
Perception is reality.

Answer to Question 2

The PRSA Code does clearly suggest that practitioners should not mislead
members of the media and the public and should reveal sponsors for causes and
interests represented. Two-way symmetry suggests that the agency might
encourage the client to improve the product. However, with vast amounts of
money devoted to product development, the very real possibility exists that the
agency-client relationship would dissolve. It might be difficult for an ethical
agency to tell a client it will work on other aspects of public relations but will
look the other way while the client tries to mislead the media and the public.