Can PR guru Max Clifford be social work's Mr Fixit? He is certainly looking well. Perhaps he has been on holiday.
He opens by recognising that good news isn't news to many in the press but the best way to go about changing perceptions is to employ someone who understands the media game. He admits he might be a tad expensive.
Clifford moves on to Baby P but believes there is a way to prevent bad news being published. Knowing the system and knowing how it works is ever more important.
He compares the lot of social workers to that of Robert Murat, who was caught up in the Madeleine McCann investigation. Destroyed by media lies, Murat sought the help of Clifford who was able to halt the series of stories.
Social workers are the sacrificial offering now that Murat was and the media are now looking for more Baby P cases - aided by those members of the public who will want to exploit the negative publicity.
Some good news does make it into print, The Pride of Britain Awards being an example. Although social care often features in the stories of the award winners, their efforts remain hidden.
But the overriding theme is that social workers have to be involved in getting the good news across.
Clifford invites questions.
The first is to challenge the way Madonna has handled THAT adoption. Clifford immediately finds a positive angle: Madonna, although she came in for criticism, put the spotlight on adoption.
Another questioner raises the subject of confidentiality when trying to publicise the social worker's side of a negative news story. That is a situation where a PR expert can embark on the skill of damage limitation. Proof that there is no need to vilify the social worker could be provided to an editor even if it were confidential - on condition that it is not published - simply to put the other side.
A contributor from the floor suggests social workers are let down by press officers, as do the professional bodies, and the call went out for Clifford to set up a training course for them
Better hope there isn't a press officer in the auditorium.
Sod's law is now proven.
A local authority press officer complains about a wall of silence that she runs into internally during inquiries. The upshot is that their comments may be limited to a few words at the end of a negative story.
Someone has just turned up the volume. A contributor from the floor is handed a microphone and bellows "Don't you dare say I haven't done anything" at Clifford, who, cool and unflustered, responds that he isn't accusing anyone of doing nothing but emphasised the importance of media representatives.
And with that, it is definitely time to stop. Only he is now surrounded on the auditorium floor and has to hold an impromptu audience.
Sir Max Clifford has not left the building.
Reading this along with the main article on CC.
"Your organisation, your professional body, whoever runs this show, and pardon my ignorance but I don’t know who that is, have got to find a way of combating this.”
So let me get this straight - Max Clifford (the man who rinsed out Jade Goody's death on the basis her children could have a good future - minus his large commission of course) came to give a speech and did not know GSCC was the head reg body? (Surely 5 mins research would of helped out there, a sign of his lack of commitment I'm sure) He is part of how the whole media sensationalism and blame tabloid culture became what it is now (david mellor anyone?) - and now he is stating that social profession need to learn the tricks of the media game to stop bad publicity. I am a daily reader of CC and from personal experience understand that social care is one (if not the) toughest professions to work in and is not done for financial gain but because caring and help of improving quality of life for others less fortunate then ourselves and a lot of the time without any credit. All social care professionals have the moral high ground, why bring yourselves down to that level? I can only hope he was there on a voluntary basis.
Max Clifford has a very valid point. If social workers had a PR machine it would protect all those in the profession and ensure that they are given the respect they deserve. The fact that he was unaware of your GSCC does not demonstrate his ingnorance but shows your lack of representation in the public arena when 'it hits the fan'.
Social workers advocate for vulnerable members of the community but you guys have to remember that your jobs make you just as vulnerable.
This is not about social workers lowering themselves to the medias level, its about looking at this as a risk assessment of the profession; a form of crisis intervention. It does not matter if social workers choose not to play the 'media game' because the media game will continue to play. If chess is the medias game then social workers need to have the most powerful piece on the board.
I fully agree with Sally. I feel that the social work profesion has been damaged by the negative press and in turn Social workers become demoralised, because we cannot fight back. It is my view that GSCC has let us down very badly. I think Max is right, we do need a champion, sadly our governing body is not it.