Allocating responsibility for the damage from deceptive PR-materials disseminated by the media: A thought experiment

Media practitioners often rely on PR specialists as a source of information. Journalists use press releases, newsletters, press briefings, etc. as a foundation for editorial content. But what happens if the media passes along PR-materials to audiences that are not absolutely true, or even intentionally false, and the public is deceived by these false messages? Who bears the responsibility for harmful consequences? Who should be held accountable: A deceptive PR practitioner, the journalist who relies too heavily on this type of source, or the public? The paper utilises the methods of legal philosophy to approach these questions and to theoretically examine how responsibility is (or could be) allocated between the actors in the communication process. Using the methodology of a thought experiment —a hypothetical case in which a pharmaceutical company makes a false claim about its products and disseminates it via a press release— the authors come to the conclusion that the balance between freedom of speech and property rights requires an individual case-by-case approach, and that deceptive messages themselves are not a crime. To hold a company responsible in each case, there must be a specific victim who demands restitution and justice, and turns to the courts or judges to adjudicate the dispute.