Public Relations to Whistleblowers: The Real Troublemakers?

The effect of whistle blowing to a company may vary depending on the situation of the problem itself. It could do bad, horrible things to a company’s image but it could also do good, or even, no affect at all—if, only if, the company’s PR team is the master in handling mishaps, especially whistleblowers.

But what exactly is a whistleblower?

Apparently, the definition that most researchers like to use is that whistleblowers are the people working within an organization to disclose an illegal, immoral, or illegitimate unethical activity to persons inside or outside the company that may be able to do something to the situation. It may sound to be the right thing to do, but it can be real depressing for the public relation people in handling these kinds of issues, especially if the information shared could harm the company’s image—which some whistle-blowing cases are mostly controversial.

Generally speaking, having someone within a company to disclose information of the business is already an issue to be dealt with. So how does Public Relation supposed to react to such problems? They are the ones who should jump in to the root of the crisis and handle it for the company’s sake, not just for its prestige, but also for the sake of the actual employees that are working in it. Public relation officers should be the ones who are responsible to make sure the communication shared between a company and the public is going through effectively, and the ones who should avoid all possible miscommunication to happen in the future. 

It might have been a nightmare for any PR officer to encounter such issues like whistleblowers to erupt within a company, especially if it could put that company’s reputation at risk. If we are talking in worst possible situations, not only the business is at stake, but it could also cause a tremendous consequences to the company’s economical progress, and putting them to a sudden exposure to the media could also put the company's image at harm.

So what can PR do? In any given situation, they need to make sure that the condition wouldn’t go worst than already is, especially to the public’s eyes. No matter how bad the circumstances, PR people need to stand behind the company’s back, and fight for them to protect, or even “rescue” its reputation from crumbling down. They need to put aside everything else and try to suppress the situation from getting out of hand. Even a few scholars have stated whistle blowing is an act of communication because of the concerns shared between people in the organization, and as communication officers, PR need to ensure that these messages are being transmitted efficiently and dodge any problems to occur.

If you think about it, the PR team is all the company has, the ones who could actually save them from going downhill. Whistleblowers may look like the savior or “the angel” from unveiling the unethical actions within an organization, but to the eyes of the company itself, in some cases they may be dubbed as the troublemakers, and they need to be taken care of before they can cause problems to the whole business.

The Fine Line Between Creating Shared Value and Corporate Social Responsibility

At first, identifying the thin line between CSV and CSR could be tricky, not to mention with their purpose is almost equivalent to each other (the two works in a concern to satisfy the society). Although I am familiar with both terms, I still wouldn’t be too confident to jump into the act of explaining my own description of the dissimilarity between Corporate Social Responsibility and Creating Shared Value. The way I see it those two operations may go hand-in-hand because of their similarity by revolving it around the community—or simply just ‘to do good’.

But as I took a little closer of their definitions, their benefits, even the examples of both actions, now I can officially say that those two are, in fact, very much different. Though both may correspond with each other, and they basically ‘look’ identical at first glance, but it is safe to say that each of them serve an entirely different purpose. But, still, very important for every company to conduct if they want their business to survive.

Now, before we can do a differentiation between Creating Shared Value and Social Corporate Responsibility is only logical if we know what both terms actually are. Creating shared value could be identified as a strategy to develop—or, even reinforce—the company’s future market with also, at the same time, could build up or strengthens the economy of the company, the relationship with the communities/stakeholders, and their marketplace. So basically CSV is a long-term plan for a business in order to maximize their profit and also to satisfy their communities. And how do they do that? This is where CSR comes in.

CSR is a “voluntary activities undertaken by a company to operate in an economic, social and environmentally sustainable manner.” Mainly saying that CSR is one of the ways for those companies that undertake CSV for the sake of their business’ future, especially if they operate under socially, environmentally, and economically responsible manner, CSR would be essential for them to undertake.

In order to create value (CSV) you need to do CSR. The main goal of CSR is not actually to gain profit for the business. It is simply to do well towards the community/society with a philanthropic activity. And with that, it supposed to lead onto creating a strong value or bond between those parties involved, or simply, ‘joint value creation for business and society’, which is exactly CSV’s beneficiary. As in for CSR, the benefits would be something along the lines of citizenship, sustainability, and philanthropy.

In simple terms, the one true goal of CSR is to do ‘noble’ things to the society, such as undergoing a friendly environmental activity or just simply doing a volunteer work. It is entirely separate from profit maximization, while CSV is a complete vital part of it. We can see that now if companies are doing some CSR is wouldn’t exactly be beneficial for the society only, in fact, the whole thing is merely a strategy for the company to gain more profit in the future by looking good to the eyes of the communities or their other stakeholders so they would carry on supporting the company to continue their business. Now we may think that it is almost sneaky, but then I guess that’s just how business works.

Reference:

Corporate Social Responsibility. (n.d). Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-rse.aspx?lang=eng

Epstein-Reeves, J. (n.d.). What is 'Creating Shared Value'?. Forbes. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2012/06/04/what-is-creating-shared-value/

Understanding Philosophy in The Modern World

All I know, when it comes to philosophy, I always get that impression or message from people that you have to strengthen your faith because you’re going to be questioning every single thing in the world, even your own religion. With the term philosophy itself it may or may not have been already a pretty intimidating subject for me at first glance. Personally, I think the topics of philosophy and the learning that comes along with it is always has been a study about why we think what we think.

And that already sounds confusing.

But as I go along with the lectures about philosophy I began to understand about what that particular subject actually covers. The topics discussed are about “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence,” a legit quote that I got from one of the lectures in the university. It is basically saying that we should all question the things we know all about the world, why do we think it that way, and how does those knowledge or concepts were first constructed in our minds, even how we identify the ethics or grasping the idea on what is “right” and what is “wrong”.

For me, the study of philosophy has opened my eyes wider to become more sensitive and aware about issues that are happening in the world, and to be more critical when it comes to receiving new information. But to see philosophy through my own eyes—honestly speaking—is still very blurry to me because I haven’t mastered the whole idea of that subject. Thus, here I am wanting—needing to learn that. 

Now with the help of the Internet, we can say that we have no limitation in terms of gaining knowledge anymore. The perfect example would be this; I came across a couple of essays that talks about the issues of philosophy, one of them that intrigued me the most was one that discusses the meaning of life itself. “Does life have a meaning?” the title says. I was too overwhelmed with the terms and the language used as the author relates sciences, theories of the great philosophers, and the basic knowledge of life itself, how the author thoroughly discusses about what may constitute life, and how he questions everything and just mainly throwing every bit of information that almost made me claw my eyes out when reading it.

I was able to access those essays so easily in just a type away. And that clearly helps studying, particularly in philosophy. Knowing that we have limitless access of information can sometimes make you very glad to be living in this era.

Speaking of the online world, I also had the chance to watch a video that talks about philosophy in the modern era. How we have the Internet that can connect us all over the globe, how it able to create communities that constitutes people coming different parts of the planet that contributes in storing their opinions and thoughts about the world. I also think the speaker of the video made a great point about having the online world as a door for us to take part in the society. How it enables us to connect and share knowledge with one another.

And that plays an important part in studying any philosophical studies. So I do expect a lot in this particular subject that I get to learn, who knows, maybe I get to be a philosopher in the future, without the beard of course.

Election: Power Over The Media

The presence of politics in Indonesia is obviously not the strangest to the eyes and ears of the citizens, not to mention the last elections held and the presidential election later this year. Promotions after promotions have been slapping straight at our faces and forcing us to see around the country.

But before we could even begin to discuss about politics in Indonesia, we all should understand the key main points or the absolute definition about politics. Politics can be referred as a game. A game of what, you may ask? It is a game of power, a game so dangerous if it is played wrong. It is the technique or practice to influence other people that have less power. The player of which holds one of the strongest authority in controlling one specific society or a state.

Then comes another one of the key elements of politics, which is power. What is power? Power is the ability—or even, a right to influence people that is given or ‘delegated’ to a person. Imagine having a power that big over a country, it is that easy to find ways to use it to the most extreme for your own benefit.

Now, Indonesia is one of the countries that has the biggest amount of users that make use of the media to access news about politics—not only about politics really, you literally can find everything about everything, and that also includes the news about this year’s election on the screen of your mobile phones or your television screen.

But every good thing comes with its drawbacks, of course, and with this matter, the media of Indonesia can be considered to be the ultimate tool to spread propaganda message to its viewers by its owners.

Even though the launch of the social media world may be beneficial to the politicians in helping their promotions, it may not be a big help for them after all. Even though the number of the social media users in Indonesia keeps on increasing every year, it only covers a certain 30% of the country. With the remaining 70% has only television or other traditional media such as newspaper as their source of information. The political parties of Indonesia also have to implement the traditional—old ways to promote themselves in order to survive, and that includes television.

What makes this a serious concern is that politicians own many of Indonesia’s media outlets or channels. It may seem okay at first glance. The presence of politics to the citizens of Indonesia is no longer a strange thing to their eyes, with the ability to access news regarding the matter with only one click away.

The major problem that couldn’t be ignored is that the media coverage tends to have one-sided information or even stories about the owner of that certain media or channel. KPI or Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia or even the Indonesia Broadcasting System already did their duty in warning off the two televisions stations because of their program that broadcasted a bias TV show about their owner—who is running for the vice presidential candidate for this year’s election—Harry Tanoesoedibjo along with his partner, Wiranto.

Same thing happened with the others television stations that are being owned by politicians. Critics and reviews also has been attacking the stations owned by the Golkar Party’s Aburizal Bakrie and the one that is owned by the National Demokrat’s Surya Paloh. The said TV stations has been alleged to cover stories and news that aims to show their biasness towards their owners and does not show their neutrality in political matter.

Earlier this month, Indonesia just held the legislative candidates election for achieving the spot in the presidential election that would later be held later in the year. One of the most well known techniques that have been adapted by the political parties is to use their power in terms of influencing the people is by exploiting the TV stations that they owned.

One of the examples would be the so-called quiz broadcasted in a certain local television station that gives off general knowledge questions to its viewers about the country. With giving off the title or theme of the quiz the name of the owners that are running for the presidential candidates, and making the viewers to chant their names in order to join the competitions.

That particular program was also being reproved by the broadcasting commission about the biasness of it and by indirectly giving off the impression in also promoting them for the election, and it has been said that it violates the promotional ‘rules’.

To top it all off, it also has been reported that the state-owned, public broadcasting television station, or the oldest TV station in Indonesia is also being reproved because of its program that broadcasted the two-hour-and-a-half coverage of the convention of the Democratic Party, which is obviously led by the current president of the country, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.  

Then comes with the presence of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, even Youtube. Many of the politicians in Indonesia already launched and tackled their selves good into the social media world to have better access to the citizens—even the first lady of the country, Ani Yudhoyono, has already made herself an account on instagram that received so many critics and comments regarding the photos she posted.

So with everything that happened, then comes the question, how would all of this effect or influence the people with all this promotions in the social media world? Is it really effective? Or not even close? It may seem ridiculous to be a young citizen of Indonesia about this matter, but we can only hope other people would consider their voice wisely, and realize that their voice matters.