Pennsylvania Railroad Case Summary

489 Words2 Pages

Were lee’s actions in response to the railroad accident consistent with practice today? I believe it depends on the company and the practices of that company. Where some companies stick to the old policies of trying to avoid the spotlight and play down the negative attributes that may arise from negative publicity. Where in this case Lee decided it was best to be open and honest with investigation and even volunteer information to the media that was not yet asked. With using the full disclosure method it allows the public have trust in your company that you’ll do the right thing or you’ll fess up to the consequences that may arise. Additionally, with introduction of social media and everyone having a cell phone that is capable of taking pictures/ video the argument can be made that is best to have full disclosure, and disclosed were really happened as the videos will eventually make their way onto the Internet and potential to go viral which could …show more content…

Do you think the courts of public relations development would have been affected? I believe the accident happened Lee more than likely would’ve been terminated from his position. In this day and age they tended to avoid admitting fault and shied away from the reporters. However, Lee decided that it was best confront the issue head-on and be open and honest with what had happened contradicting the company potential policies for the company. I believe we did a great deal of work for public relations and consider pioneer of them. I believe how the public reacted to hearing the full truth show the way public relations this should be handled. In certain totalitarian states news of accidents and disasters is often largely suppressed. What do you consider there reason to be retaining a posture given up by American public relations practices more than 80 years