Jay Rosen has sparked a mighty informative dialog about blogosphere coverage of the Department of Education/Armstrong Williams/Ketchum public relations agency "pay to play" propaganda/corruption scandal (Bloggers Are Missing in Action as Ketchum Tests the Conscience of PR). See also, this follow-up on PressThink by Lisa Stone (Ketchum and Bloggers: Who Said What? What Remains? Lisa Stone Reports) For those who missed it, the Department of Education signed a $1 million contract with the Ketchum public relations firm to tout the "No Child Left Behind Act." Among other things, the contract included $240,000 to syndicated columnist and television host Armstrong Williams to support the Act, which he did and did not publicly disclose.

Armstrong Williams has been rightly excoriated by many, and as someone else has said, Williams' losing his column and hosting duties would be a good start at repentence for his sins. I don't think the DoE has even begun to take full responsibility for this corruption.

However, what Rosen argues is that PR Bloggers haven't made as big a stink about the Ketchum PR firm's role in this scandal. Aren't they at least as culpable as Williams and the DoE? Rosen isn't saying that it wasn't mentioned, but that there didn't seem to be any sustained outrage. Here is Rosen quoting Canuck Flack:

"Why was the PR blogging community so subdued in its reaction? Why didn't a feeding frenzy of debate and recrimination erupt, as in other parts of the blogosphere, building and tearing down arguments by the minute?"

However, one thing that PR bloggers and others should note is that, whether or not there was sufficient outrage among PR bloggers, there was virtually no outrage among bloggers in general. The focus of outrage has been on Williams and the DoE/Bush Administration. Part of that is certainly due to politics. Part of that, I think, is that most people don't expect much in the way of ethics from PR firms.

If many already believe that journalists lack credibility, where do PR flacks stand? For the most part, I would expect many to believe that PR only adheres to two rules: 1) It isn't illegal; and, 2) It isn't a deliberate falsehood.

Rosen is right that PR bloggers should be concerned that they might not have paid sufficient attention to significant ethical lapses by their peers. All members of the PR profession should be concerned, however, that no one else seems to have paid much attention either. If gross violation of your profession's ethics is widely ignored, that is not a good sign of the health of your profession.