Ethics in murky depths of the PR jungle

Principal findings of the Rennie inquiry

* A PR agency's paying someone to attend a closed meeting undercover and report back is "not ethical conduct." (Shandwick did pay someone to do this at some stage, but Mr Rennie could not find evidence linking Mr Sorensen and Mr McGregor to this particular conduct.)

* Use of the term "extremists" by a PR agency towards political foes of a client is unethical. Mr Rennie recommends that the PRINZ consider whether it is ethical to assist a commercial arm of the Government to express its "opinion" on citizens who disagree with the Government's actions and policies.

* Letters drafted by a PR agency, attributed to non-existent people and sent to newspaper editors to support the view of a client, is "plainly unethical" but drafting letters to send to people with sympathetic views, who could then send them on to newspaper editors, did not conflict with "normal public relations."

* The preparation of a client's property before a media visit, targeting of media which presented material unfavourable to a client, seeking contact with editors and journalists who were sympathetic to a client's business, and placement of sympathetic "articles," was "not unethical." (Mr Rennie describes the Shandwick campaign as "comprehensive in planning and execution," and says the main object of concern was Timberlands itself.)

They said it

Mr Rennie (findings, point 91): "In my assessment, it is unrealistic to expect Mr Sorensen and Mr McGregor to make an ethical judgment, in this situation, that what they were instructed to do by Timberlands, with the apparent support of control agencies and ministers, was unethical and should not proceed."

Point 119 - "It is clear that any person who was 'anti-Timberlands' was likely to be categorised as being one of the 'extremists.' Such denigration of citizens with strongly held opinions about the use of a public asset is in danger of Goebbels-type misuses."

Nicky Hager and Bob Burton, complainants: "The current investigation concerns ethics, not law. In law, people can 'get off' on a technicality or by a loophole concerning the wording of the law.

"We believe that has no place in the judgment of ethics ... we trust that the issue will be violation of the spirit of the code, not a legalistic and semantic argument over the letter of the code."

Klaus Sorensen, chief executive of Shandwick: "We are heartened by the very broad support received during this fiasco, especially from clients who have remarked favourably on the determination which we showed on behalf of our client and our loyalty to that client, even when our company and ourselves as individuals came under attack."