• According to the PRSA Code of Ethics, how is the PR practitioner unethical?
  • What is the logic behind the phrase Wag the Dog, and how is it relevant to the situation involved?
  • In your opinion, what positive or negative stereotypes has the PR practitioner confirmed in his role in this movie.

-Questions found at Barbara Nixon’s Intro to PR blog: http://publicrelationsmatters.com/

1. The PR practitioner in the movie “Wag the Dog,” is considered unethical because he failed to disclose all information needed in order to allow the public to make a clear decision. He also lied to the public creating a false truth. The PR practitioner was very skilled at what he did and one might think that he was doing everything perfectly. The PRSA Code of Ethics states that one must be honest and accurate in all communications. In the movie Conrad was precise in his dishonesty and did an amazing job creating a masterpiece that the world could believe.

2. The term “Wag the Dog,” is most literally taken, the tail wags the dog. Most people understand that dogs wag their tails so if you wag the dog you are taking attention away from the obvious. The movies story is all about diverting the publics attention away from the obvious in order to strengthen the publics opinion of the incumbent presidential candidate. The title is perfect for the movie.

3. I think the movie can be taken either way. The more thought that is put into your response to this movie determines your stance. The movie came out around the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and therefore catches a bad rap because it was so parallel with the times. I think the movie is a funny adaptation of a possible scenario but not likely and shouldn’t be taken so serious.

Casey Sherwin