Labour Together: What Did APCO Do That Journalists Don't?

(MENAFN- PRovoke) I have been following with some interest the mounting outrage among journalists in the UK over work commissioned by Labour Together-a think tank that led the opposition to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and has been largely supportive of current Prime Minister Keir Starmer-and conducted by the London office of global public affairs firm APCO.

Over the past week, this story has gained quite a lot of traction. Starmer is facing calls for an inquiry into APCO’s work, characterized variously as an investigation and as a“smear campaign.” The Public Relations and Communications Association’s Independent Standards Committee is also looking into the matter.

The PRCA’s last high-profile investigation led to the expulsion-and ultimately the demise -of Bell Pottinger, which means that this matter needs to be taken seriously. So I would preface the following by saying that there may be aspects of APCO’s work that are not contained in published accounts, and also that additional and more damaging accusations may come to light as the story develops.

But as of this writing, this case looks like if not a nothingburger at least a case of largely manufactured outrage-although I acknowledge that reasonable people might agree to differ.

Allow me to summarize the“accusations” against APCO as I understand them from published accounts in the Guardian and the Sunday Times (whose reporters were the subject of the investigation), by the BBC, and on the“Democracy for Sale” Sun stack, which has led much of the reporting.

According to the BBC:

Labour Together“commissioned a report that investigated the personal and religious background of a Sunday Times journalist.”

APCO agreed to investigate “the sourcing, funding and origins” of the Sunday Times reporting, and a journalist who has since published a critical book on Starmer.

APCO’s report included information about journalist Gabriel Pogrund’s Jewish beliefs and claims about his ideological position.

It also suggested that ** Pogrund’s** previous reporting, including on the royal family, “could be seen as destabilising to the UK and also in the interests of Russia’s strategic foreign policy objectives.”

And according to the Guardian, the report included findings from“discreet human source enquiries”-which I take to mean that APCO spoke to people.

If I’m reading all of this correctly-and again, there may be more to the story than I have seen in these published accounts-those journalists expressing outrage appear to be accusing Labour Together and APCO of acting… just like journalists.

The firm investigated the background and beliefs of its subject, just like journalists do. It looked into the sourcing, funding and origins of a report, just like journalists do. It spoke to sources, just like journalists do. It drew inferences and suggested conclusions, just like journalists (particularly British political journalists) do.

The only thing it didn’t do that journalists routinely do is that it didn’t publish its conclusions to all and sundry. And“it’s only okay if you use the information to damage someone publicly” seems like a weird principle to build an argument on.

I suppose all of this might benefit from a spirited debate about whether public relations professionals should lower themselves to use the same standards and practices routinely used by journalists. To be perfectly honest, I would rather we didn’t, but I do think that within certain parameters such“investigations” (a loaded term for what is essentially basic research) are not only acceptable but sensible.

It makes sense for organizations-corporations and others-to understand the people who are writing about them, their views and (particularly) their biases. It seems to me perfectly fair and reasonable to draw upon published sources of information, including social media accounts, to reach that understanding. And I have no objection if organizations and their agencies, draw conclusions from their research-even if some of those conclusions might be erroneous.

I would suggest that in most cases, public relations professionals should rely on publicly available information rather than, for example, digging through garbage bags for dirt (something journalists have been known to do) or hacking phones (something the Sunday Times’ parent company has engaged in more or less routinely).

And I would suggest that in all cases the information not be used as a form of leverage to inhibit publication. There have been suggestions, lacking specifics, that this kind of“leverage” may have occurred in the Labour Together case, which would potentially alter the complexion.

And finally, I would suggest that from a reputational perspective, public relations professionals should consider the potential cost, should their efforts come to light. We live in an age of rage, and there will always be individuals eager to bait that rage.

But what we are seeing right now seems to be more about weaseling out of responsibility (“I was surprised and shocked to read the report extended beyond the contract by including unnecessary information,” said the person who commissioned it); political axe-grinding; and hypocritical manufactured moral panic.

That may change as the story develops. And I probably wouldn’t argue with someone who said this wasn’t particularly smart. But public affairs people acting like journalists is not an outrage.

MENAFN15022026000219011063ID1110744617