2015 has thus far been a pretty tough year for broadcasting companies. First, NBC took a major hit to its credibility when Nightly News anchor Brian Williams was found to be less than completely honest in his storytelling. Now, PBS, the independent and publicly funded network that many Americans look to for educational and unbiased programming, is at the center of its own media firestorm. If this recent story has somehow not been on your radar, here’s a quick recap:
Earlier this month, Britain’s Daily Mail published a story, using leaked Sony Corp. emails posted by WikiLeaks that reveals that Ben Affleck sought to have his slave-owner ancestry censored from the PBS series “Finding Your Roots.” The host of the popular show, esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., sought the advice of his friend, Sony CEO Michael Lynton, via a now public email exchange and in the end, the segment around Affleck’s slaver ancestor was edited out of the episode’s final cut.
News of this celebrity-requested censorship case has created a barrage of media backlash, with harsh criticism directed at Affleck, Gates and PBS. While Affleck was responsible for asking that the story not air, the bulk of the criticism has been directed at Gates for acquiescing to Affleck’s request, even though his emails with Lynton make it clear that he was fully aware doing so “would be a violation of PBS rules.”
In fact, even PBS Ombudsman, Michael Getler, has been critical of both Gates and PBS, posting a column on the issue in which he refers to how the emails between Gates and Lynton “make clear that Gates understood the serious journalistic and credibility issues at stake.” He goes on to say that PBS was “asleep at the switch when this broke,” and that the institution “deserves all the articles and TV reports,” for responding with “a statement that said essentially nothing and very quickly looked pathetic, as if they were hiding something.”
Last week, Affleck posted a response to the outrage on his Facebook page. He doesn’t apologize for his actions, reminds the readers that the show was not a news program, and explains that his request to shelve that part of his family story was because it would be embarrassing. I imagine it would have been a lot less embarrassing if he had simply let the Gates and the show’s producers deliver the episode without his creative collaboration.
This story offers so many interesting lessons for PR professionals helping to build and protect the brands we represent. For now, I’d like to highlight just two key takeaways:
Trust Your Gut
Gates’ emails highlight that the academic was clearly conflicted by the situation. He knew that if he accommodated Affleck’s request to censor the show and it became public, it would compromise the program’s integrity. His gut was telling him what he should do and if he had listened, he wouldn’t be facing criticism and further investigation. Instead, he opted to appease the Academy Award winner and thus has jeopardized his personal brand, as well as that of PBS.
Know Your Audience
Had Affleck taken time to consider his audience, he would have known that he could trust them with the truth of his family’s heritage. Our nation carries the shame of more than two hundred years of abuse and oppression caused by a system of slavery. This is not a burden Affleck carries alone and rather than hiding the truth, he could have used his story as an opportunity to begin an honest and productive dialogue from the outset.
History has shown us that the American public loves giving second chances, especially to celebrities. Given this, the backlash against Affleck will lesson over time. I wonder, however, if forgiveness will come swiftly to Gates, whose reputation is built less on his celebrity status as host of a PBS show than on his academic contributions focusing on African American studies. What do you think?