Collaborators for Change: Research on the Relationship between Communications and Diversity Executives
Download the Full Report (PDF): Collaborators for Change ReportDownload the Press Release: Collaborators for Change Report Press ReleaseDownload Social Graphics: Collaborators for Change Report Social GraphicsSpecial thanks to our sponsor:
This IPR Signature Study is provided by the IPR Center for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionThrough interviews with 20 Chief Diversity Officers and 20 Chief Communications Officers conducted in 2023, “Collaborators for Change: Researching the Relationship between the Chief Communications Officer and the Chief Diversity Officer and the Role of DEI in the Workplace” examines the impact, influence, and importance of the CDO position, and the dynamics between these key executives in driving organizational change.
Five key findings:Origin of the CDO Role: All Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) had prior diversity-related experience predating the formalization of the CDO position, with an increase in involvement following George Floyd’s murder.“Technically, I had been doing this work long before I had the title…I’ve been representing (the organization) and building our diversity program and platform for many years. However, it was in 2020 when the tragedy of George Floyd occurred, and Breonna [Taylor] and so many others, I sat down (with the founder) and we talked about our level of commitment to DEI. We decided we needed to make this an all-agency, all-hands-on-deck emergency SOS and I was asked to lead our efforts. We created a global committee of over 100 employees around the world that got together and said, ‘This is not just a Black and White issue, this is an issue of humanity, and we need to all take a stand and make a difference.’” -CDO, global marketing agencyDEI Prioritization: George Floyd’s murder catalyzed a focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, making DEI in the top 10 priorities for nearly all organizations that participated in this study.“It’s top 10, and it’s probably right on the cusp, creeping into the top five. I would like to see it prioritized a bit more in the context of where we are as a business and as an organization. We’re going through a bit of a transformation right now. And so, oftentimes, when organizations are going through that, DEI gets deprioritized a little bit. I don’t feel like it’s been completely deprioritized, but I do feel that we’re continuing to try to remind leaders that you don’t only focus on DEI when things are going well. If the business is challenged, it’s actually when you really need to have a strategic and intentional focus on DEI because it’s a lever and a driver for your business.” -CDO, global retail companyReporting Structures: There’s a consensus among CDOs and CCOs for the CDO role to be a stand-alone, executive position, preferably reporting to the CEO, although some organizations opt for reporting to the Chief Human Resources Officer.“The way it works here I think is really powerful. Our CDO reports directly to the president of the university and sits as a member of the senior most executive leadership team. I think that’s the ideal place. If we could make it a more high-profile reporting relationship, I’d say we should, but you don’t get much more high-profile than reporting to the chief executive of the institution.” -CCO, private universityOptimism Despite Challenges: CDOs face a number of challenges including overwork, limited resources, and DEI fatigue, yet both CDOs and CCOs express cautious optimism about the future of DEI efforts and their working relationships.“I’m really hoping that we can find a language that unites people in talking about the need of equalizing the grounds of opportunities for all the people, not just in higher ed, but in our country. That needs to happen. Access to food, access to education, access to clean air. And I’m hopeful that this forces us to dismantle what we know, then we can mourn, and we can get over it and really find something that works for everybody. Because we cannot pretend like these things are not here. You can call it whatever you want. I want the recognition and the proactiveness to do something to change this for our next generations. We cannot ignore these things as if they don’t exist.” -vice provost, DEI, public universityThe Relationship with the CCO: CDOs and CCOs view each other as allies in communicating the results and impact DEI initiatives have on the organization. “You need a network of communicators who are fully invested in telling the narrative around this topic, and to understand how it shows up in the business, even when it’s not being called DEI. If you think about the segmentation of your customers and the demographics of your company, the diversity of your products, and your innovations, and the reasons why those innovations either unfolded or took hold, the basis of it was about the diversity of thought and creativity.” -head of development, national financial services institution
About the Institute for Public RelationsFounded in 1956, the Institute for Public Relations is an independent, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the science beneath the art of public relations™. IPR creates, curates, and promotes research and initiatives that empower professionals with actionable insights and intelligence they can put to immediate use. IPR predicts and analyzes global factors transforming the profession and amplifies and engages the profession globally through thought leadership and programming. All research is available free at www.instituteforpr.org and provides the basis for IPR’s professional conferences and events.Media Contact: Brittany HigginbothamCommunications & Outreach Managerbrittany@instituteforpr.org352-392-0280
...
This report is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research CenterIn, “Generative AI in Organizations: Insights and Strategies from Communication Leaders,” the Institute for Public Relations (IPR) conducted interviews from November 2023 to January 2024 with 30 communication executives, chief communication officers (CCOs), agency CEOs, academics, and leaders to examine how generative AI is impacting their function and organization. This report specifically examines the role of AI tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, DALL-E, and others, probing how they are shaping communication and marketing strategies.
Topics covered in this report include:— What is generative AI?— Comfortability of communication leaders with generative AI— Comfortability of organizational Leaders with AI— Ownership of AI in organizations— Concerns about generative AI— AI guidelines and frameworks— Impact on communications function— How communicators are using generative AI— AI training and professional development— What communicators need to know— Impact of generative AI on the business— Who to follow— Tips and prompts
Based on the interviews with the 30 communication and technology leaders, the following key findings were identified:Comfortability with Generative AI: Communication leaders are generally comfortable with using generative AI, emphasizing continuous learning and the need for proper guardrails. Communication leaders seemed to be more comfortable using the technology than other organizational leaders.Concerns about Generative AI: Concerns around security and the need for validating AI-generated content are common, with many leaders emphasizing the importance of reviewing/editing AI outputs. Other risks noted include leaking sensitive information, misinformation, plagiarism, hallucinations, data security, and copyright infringement.Ownership and Governance of AI in Organizations: There is no consensus on who owns generative AI in organizations, with responses varying from centralized ownership to shared responsibilities across different departments.AI Guidelines and Frameworks: Organizations are creating guidelines, frameworks, and policies for the ethical and secure use of generative AI. A few said they are waiting to roll out AI in their organizations until they can test and experiment with it.Ethical and Transparent Use of AI: There is a strong emphasis on the ethical use of AI, particularly in maintaining transparency with stakeholders, such as labeling, and ensuring compliance with industry regulations, especially in sensitive sectors like healthcare.Use in Communication: Generative AI has positively impacted the communication function, enhancing tasks particularly in the realm of idea generation, content creation, and workflow efficiency. It’s a tool, not a strategy: Generative AI is seen as a tool augmenting communication tasks, especially repetitive ones. Most respondents emphasized generative AI enhances work, rather than functions as a strategy, emphasizing the importance of humans in the process.Training and Professional Development: Communication leaders emphasize the importance of AI training and professional development, focusing on ethical use, usage guidelines, and the creative potential of AI tools.Societal and Ethical Implications: The broader societal and ethical implications of AI, such as its potential impact on equity, bias, accessibility, and power dynamics, are areas of consideration.
Yanique Woodall is Chair of the IPR Board of Trustees and Vice President of Communications at CVS Health.
... 
Gainesville, Fla. – The Institute for Public Relations (IPR) Board of Trustees has elected three new Directors for the IPR Commissions and Centers of Excellence. The Directors help guide the mission, research, and strategy of each of these centers based on critically important long-term areas of interest determined by Trustees.“We are thrilled with the election of these new directors to our esteemed Centers for Excellence,” said IPR President and CEO, Tina McCorkindale, Ph.D., APR. “We are confident that they will steer the Centers toward innovative research and growth.”The three new directors are:IPR Organizational Communication Research Center (OCRC)– Geoff Curtis, IPR TrusteeIPR Measurement Commission– Angela Dwyer, Head of Insights at FullintelIPR Center for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (CDEI)– Damion Waymer, Ph.D., Professor and Director at the University of South Carolina School of Journalism and Mass Communications
Geoff Curtis – IPR Organization Communication Research Center Geoff Curtis is director of the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center beginning in 2024. Curtis succeeds Ethan McCarty, previous director of the Organizational Communication Research Center. Geoff Curtis was most recently Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Chief Communications Officer at Horizon Therapeutics. He joined Horizon Therapeutics in 2015 and has more than two decades of global healthcare communications experience.Prior to joining Horizon Therapeutics, Geoff served as senior vice president at Edelman Public Relations and as part of its National Health Media Team he led media strategy and execution for a large portfolio of pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device clients. Previously, Geoff was group director of the media practice at WCG, a W20 Group company, where he provided product and corporate communications counsel and handled ongoing media relations for a broad range of healthcare clients. Before WCG, he held a similar role at GCI Group.Prior to joining GCI, Geoff served as a public affairs manager in the Pharmaceutical Products Division at Abbott (now AbbVie), where he led internal and external communications programs for the immunology, neuroscience, and oncology franchises.
Angela Dwyer – IPR Measurement CommissionAngela Dwyer is director of the Measurement Commission beginning in 2024. Dwyer succeeds Dr. Julie O’Neil, who previously served as director of the Commission.Dwyer is Head of Insights at Fullintel. She helps brands improve business results through data-driven, actionable insights. She has worked at public relations agencies and media research firms consulting with brands across several industries including consumer, healthcare and automotive. She has presented and published several original, award-winning research papers on varied topics including news content that drives recall and engagement, the measured value of public relations and factors that increase trust.Prior to her role at Fullintel, Dwyer was SVP of Measurement at Lippe Taylor, a NYC-based agency, where she developed a research-based metric to predict positive recall. Previously, she opened and managed PRIME Research’s new business and operations in Brazil and South America, where she worked with global brands on integrated media measurement projects.Her contribution to the field has been celebrated with several industry awards. She has been recognized with a PRNEWS People of the Year Award as a Data & Measurement Game Changer, a PRNEWS Top Women Award in the Industry Champions Category, and an AMEC Rising Star recognition as an innovator in communication measurement.
Damion Waymer, Ph.D. – IPR Center of Diversity, Equity, and InclusionDr. Damion Wayner is director of the IPR Center for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion beginning in 2024. Dr. Waymer succeeds Emily Graham and Dr. Natalie Tindall, who previously served as co-directors of the Center. Damion Waymer, a native of Orangeburg, SC, is the Director of the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina. Prior to this appointment, he held varied administrative roles including the Senior Associate Dean of the College of Communication & Information Sciences as well as the Department Chair of Advertising & Public Relations at The University of Alabama.Previously, Dr. Waymer led aggressive faculty recruitment and retention initiatives in his role as Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, Development & Diversity at the University of Cincinnati. He spearheaded new faculty development opportunities, and he created annual university-level awards such as the Provost Exemplary Department Award where top departments were recognized for their excellence in a pre-determined area. Dr. Waymer is a seasoned communication researcher and practitioner who has conducted respected research in the contexts of public relations, crisis communication, corporate social responsibility (CSR), branding, and strategic communication. He has held faculty appointments at leading research institutions such as Virginia Tech, University of Cincinnati, and Texas A&M University.
About the Institute for Public RelationsFounded in 1956, the Institute for Public Relations is an independent, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the science beneath the art of public relations™. IPR creates, curates, and promotes research and initiatives that empower professionals with actionable insights and intelligence they can put to immediate use. IPR predicts and analyzes global factors transforming the profession and amplifies and engages the professional globally through thought leadership and programming. All research is available free at www.instituteforpr.org and provides the basis for IPR’s professional conferences and events.
... 
As the world becomes increasingly polarized and experiences turmoil, scholars have envisioned different ways that public relations can contribute to the common good. For example, Shen and Jiang (2021) renewed the call for a community approach to public relations, echoing the proposition by Kruckeberg and Starck (1988) that public relations should be about restoring and maintaining a sense of community. On the other hand, recent research (Ni & Shen, 2023; Shen & Northup, 2023) on different groups of publics highlighted the importance of people’s identity, particularly their identity salience, in influencing their perceptions, motivations, and even behaviors. In this post, I discuss the concept of identity strength and identity salience and their implications to internal community development.The internal community approach posits that organizations can build and sustain internal communities and reimagine the workplace as a space for co-creation, solidarity, diversity, and inclusion. The development and growth of such internal communities largely depend on members’ individual agency. Contributing factors to individual agency include the strength and salience of one’s identity. In the context of internal public relations, identity strength refers to internal community members’ (e.g., employees) extent of identification with an organization as part of their total sense of self. In contrast, identity salience explains the relative importance of these members’ identification to their sense of self.Research on identity in public relations has primarily focused on types of identity and their intersectionality, not identity salience. Ni and Shen (2023) first examined the role of political identity salience in affecting people’s communication behavior regarding COVID-19. They conducted an online survey with 556 adults that reflected the diverse racial makeup of a large city in Southern US. Their findings revealed that individuals with a highly salient political identity tended to exhibit reduced constraint recognition, indicating that the more salient one’s political identity, the more likely they were to believe they could personally address the issue of COVID-19. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that political identity salience was positively associated with increased problem recognition. In other words, those individuals with a strong political identity were more inclined to recognize COVID-19 as a substantial problem requiring immediate attention and action. Additionally, individuals with a highly salient political identity were found to engage more actively in the forwarding of information about COVID-19. This suggests that it was the most dedicated members from various political groups, irrespective of party affiliations, who were actively involved in disseminating information about COVID-19, potentially contributing to the heightened politicization of the issue. In another study of alumni publics, Shen and Northup (2023) concluded that alumni’s identity with an academic unit, i.e., identity strength, as well as their identity salience could enhance their agency. These empowered alumni agents also displayed higher levels of engagement with the academic unit, including being involved in their events, guest lecturing and mentoring activities, and feeling enthusiastic about the organization.Implications for Internal CommunicationExtending these research findings to internal communication, public relations practitioners can facilitate institutional and individual community members to co-create and re-create rules of communication and dialogue. When community is fostered in the process, members’ identity strength and salience could rise, which then activates their individual agency. Empowered internal agents could at the same time become more engaged and involved in the internal communities. They may also contribute to more information flow in and out of their internal communities, such as conducting more positive megaphoning of their organizations.
Hongmei Shen, Ph.D., APR, is a professor in public relations at the School of Journalism & Media Studies, San Diego State University.
... 
This summary is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research CenterMuck Rack examined AI use among public relations professionals in 2023.A survey of 1,001 public relations professionals was conducted Nov. 2 – Dec. 14, 2023.Key findings include:— The number of PR professionals who said they use generative AI increased from 28% in March 2023 to 64% in November 2023. — 21% of PR professionals at agencies said they never disclose their AI use to clients, compared to 6% of PR professionals who work for a single brand.— 74% of PR pros report an increase in the quality of their work using AI and 89% say they complete projects more quickly with AI. — Generative AI is mostly used for writing social copy (64%), research (58%), writing press releases (58%), and crafting pitches (54%).Check out how public relations professionals are using AI in their workflow
... 
This summary is provided by the IPR ESG & Purpose Research LibraryThe Potential Energy Coalition examined global perspectives on climate change action and best messaging practices.An online survey of 57,968 respondents was conducted June 12 – August 28, 2023 across 23 countries with over 2,000 respondents per country.Key findings include:— 71% of total respondents on average agreed with the statement “I support immediate action by the government to address climate change,” compared to 13% of respondents who disagreed with that statement. — The largest gap in support by political leaning was in the U.S. (46 percentage points), followed by Australia (30 percentage points), and Brazil (25 percentage points). — Messages that resonated most with respondents focused on urgency and generational aspects, such as “Later is too late because it’s putting our children’s futures at risk.”— Other messaging themes that resonated most with respondents include: —- Messaging that concentrates on holding larger polluters accountable.—- Motivating messages about optimistic realities, i.e., the portion of energy already coming from clean sources.Learn how different climate messaging tactics are perceived across the globe
... 
This blog is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research CenterWhen should artificial intelligence (AI) use be disclosed? Recently the journalism world was rocked when Sports Illustrated, once heralded as one of the best examples of journalistic excellence, was revealed to have published articles and product reviews written by AI while passing them off as human-created content. The public and industry backlash against the magazine’s dishonest and deceptive practices demonstrates the importance of ethics in AI use and how poor decisions in content production can lead to long term consequences. The ethical issues surrounding artificial intelligence are not totally new. They are rooted in longstanding questions about transparency, trust, and the fears of technology itself. There is a palpable concern in the public relations industry that AI will eliminate jobs, or, at the very best, radically transform them. There is also a sense of professional uncertainty around use itself. When is it appropriate to generate content using AI? What are the consequences of using AI for activities such as brainstorming, editing, or fact-checking? How do practitioners ensure that information generated on AI platforms is accurate? What should clients and readers know about how the content is made? Is there a threshold for disclosure? Is disclosure even necessary as AI use becomes an industry norm?In public relations practice, transparent communication is an ethical mantra that has been around for decades. Transparency literature certainly advocates for all sorts of disclosures. However, practical issues make the application of transparency sometimes easier to talk about than implement. For instance, does a PR practitioner have to disclose AI use that was used for brainstorming? What if the AI platform was used for editing content? What if AI was tangentially used to get background information? It is determining when that appropriateness threshold is met that creates an area of debate for the PR profession. As a field, we have yet to create a definitive answer.The Argument for DisclosureDisclosure is frequently identified as a best practice because people ought to know who is writing and creating content. It reveals bias, honesty, and upholds the tenets of transparency. In a field that values authentic communication, purely AI-created content loses the humanity that good communicators provide. Like the byline in an article or content information in a press release, disclosure of AI use provides a level of accountability for the PR practitioner or firm. As disinformation becomes a continuing issue in communication, disclosure of AI use also positions public relations practitioners as good faith actors in combatting fake news. It shows that the field values its audiences, clients, and society, and honors their trust in public relations as a profession. Disclosure of AI use also provides a starting point for client conversations. Some clients may not want their work completed using AI for a variety of legitimate reasons. Generative AI systems operate on a continuum of openness. Clients, particularly in healthcare, may not want their proprietary information used on a platform that could cause disclosure of private and proprietary information. Generative AI use in healthcare communication provide unique issues, particularly in a field that has detailed privacy regulations such as HIPPA. Clients may also be reluctant to accept AI-generated work, considering the intellectual property issues that it could pose, including innocent copyright infringement and the lack of copyright protection given to purely AI-generated work. Disclosure helps the audience, clients, and practitioners know where they stand regarding content creation. It facilitates discussions while also maintaining the ethical transparency expected of the field.The Argument *Against* DisclosureThis heading appears with asterisks because almost no one argues that AI use should never be disclosed. The nefarious use of AI to create deceptive and misleading content is never acceptable. No professional public relations practitioner would ever argue for such a position publicly. However, there are questions about when revealing AI use is necessary, especially in situations where the use is tangential or minimal in comparison to the content created. Consider the following examples:— A PR practitioner writes a news announcement for a client and then runs that announcement through ChatGPT to determine if there are logical inconsistencies in the piece. — A PR firm working on a new PR campaign brainstorms using generative AI ideas about logo creation and infographics but does not use the actual produced work product. — A designer uses AI to edit a photograph to enhance the colors and slightly edit the photo for clarity. All these examples present scenarios about the degree of which AI use warrants disclosure. There is a difference between using AI to build complex content with proprietary information and using AI to brainstorm potential campaign ideas. Afterall, there are many tools used in the PR practitioner’s daily work such as spell check, photo editing software, and the internet that aren’t disclosed because its use is assumed. Perhaps these scenarios raised more questions than answers, but it is something PR practitioners and the industry writ large will have to grapple with.Will the Law Require Disclosure? Much of the contemporary conversations around AI have been rooted in fear of its power. AI is a tool that can facilitate deception, discrimination, defamation, and infringement at a faster rate than before. Deception is particularly troublesome because the ease of AI creates a lowered barrier to entry – anyone with a smart phone or computer and a free subscription can produce a lot of bad content. Because of this, the government has entered the discussion on AI disclosure. For example, AI is regularly used in hiring decisions. Currently New York City, Maryland, and Illinois have laws that mandate the disclosure of AI use in employment screening processes. NYC’s law requires annual bias audits for the AI system. [i] Illinois’ law regulates the use of AI in job interviews where the AI platform evaluates facial expressions and answers to score the job candidate.[ii] Maryland’s law, passed in 2020, mandates that employers seek permission to cross-check applicant’s faces against facial recognition databases.[iii] At the federal level, the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023, is an attempt by Congress to address some of the same issues addressed by states and cities. While not law, it signals a direction in how lawmakers view the excesses of AI use in job decisions, and how there is a concern about the privacy and discrimination applicants may face in a truly AI-driven process. Lawmakers are also concerned about AI platforms disclosing when content is AI-generated. There is currently a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate called the AI Labelling Act,[iv] which would require disclosure of AI chatbots and content. There is a House version of this bill as well. If passed, it would require AI platforms to label its outputs with disclosures that they are AI-generated. The disclosures would be embedded in the metadata of the content. However, industry is also addressing when to disclose certain content. For example, Google, and later Meta, require disclosures for all AI-generated political ads in 2024. The requirement is global, and Meta’s policy specifically mandates disclosure when AI is used to create synthetic people or events. Similarly, YouTube is requiring disclosures and content labels of AI content for realistic videos. Their blog post announcing the new policy specifically mentioned that AI-generated content disclosure is particularly important for “sensitive topics,” such as elections, public health, and conflict.The 2024 U.S. presidential election also raises concerns about disinformation generated from AI. However, this is a global problem. In October 2023 the impact of disinformation created by AI was on full display in Slovakia where Michal Šimečka, a political candidate, was shown on Facebook making comments about rigging the election. The image and voice were AI-generated deepfakes published within 48 hours of the election when Slovakian law mandates a quiet period by candidates and the press. Because the timing of the deepfake was within 48 hours of the polls opening, combatting the disinformation was extremely difficult and demonstrated the type of crisis disinformation can produce within the democratic process. In the U.S., the Federal Election Commission (FEC) recognizes the problem of AI, specifically deepfakes, within political campaigns. However, concrete legislation on combatting deepfakes is still under development federally, and only three states, Washington, Minnesota, and Michigan, have laws that directly address the use of AI in elections. These laws vary in their approach to AI use in campaign content. Washington requires a disclosure of AI use, while Minnesota mandates a ban on deepfakes within 90 days of the election.[v] Michigan requires a ban of “materially deceptive media” 90 days before an election, and mandates disclosure of media “manipulated by technical means.”[vi] The effectiveness of these laws and potential federal regulation remain to be seen. AI and deepfake technology’s insidious impact likely materialize in 2024 globally because the actors involved in creating this information will not likely operate within the boundaries of any law.So… Should PR Practitioners Disclose AI Use?The answer likely depends on content, but overall, it is best to disclose when in doubt. Disclosure is an issue of integrity for the PR profession and its work. As the Sports Illustrated example shows, failing to disclose opens organizations and practitioners up to severe criticism. PR practitioners should welcome the opportunity that this technological issue provides. Given the protracted partisanship in Washington, D.C., and the slowness of federal agency regulation, it is likely the public relations industry, and not the government, that will decide the practice of AI disclosure. PR practitioners are well positioned to comply with these types of disclosures given their expertise in digital communication and the ethical awareness the field has for transparency and trust.Disclosure presents an opportunity for public relations practice to positively lead in the era of disinformation through commitments to transparency. It is important to note that laws provide a baseline for behavior, not a ceiling. Proper disclosure of AI use provides for a heightened standard for the industry and profession. It seems that even ChatGPT agrees. When prompted with “should PR practitioners disclose their use of AI-generated content” it replied, “Overall, disclosure of AI use in PR is not only a best practice for maintaining ethical standards and trust but also important for navigating the evolving landscape of digital communication and AI technology.”[vii][i] “Local Law 144 of 2021: Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT),” New York City, 2021. Accessed from https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decision-tools.page.[ii] Illinois General Assembly. “Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act.” 820 ILCS 42. Accessed December 5, 2023. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=4015&ChapterID=68.[iii] “Labor and Employment – Use of Facial Recognition Services – Prohibition,” sponsored by Delegates M. Fisher, Adams, Arentz, D.E. Davis, Howard, Miller, and Qi, enacted under Article II, Section 17(c) of the Maryland Constitution, Chapter 446, 2020.[iv] United States Congress. (2023). [Bill Number: S.2691 – 118th Congress]. Retrieved December 20, 2023, from https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s2691/BILLS-118s2691is.xml.[v] SB 5152, Section 1, [604.32], 2023-24 Session, Cause of Action for Nonconsensual Dissemination of a Deep Fake Depicting Intimate Parts or Sexual Acts; SB 5152, 2023-24 Session, Defining Synthetic Media in Campaigns for Elective Office, and Providing Relief for Candidates and Campaigns.[vi] Public Acts of 2023, Act No. 265, Michigan Legislature, 102nd Legislature, Regular Session (Approved November 30, 2023; Filed December 1, 2023; Effective February 13, 2024).[vii] ChatGPT. “Should PR Practitioners Disclose Their Use of AI-generated Content?” OpenAI ChatGPT, December 5, 2023.
Cayce Myers, Ph.D., LL.M., J.D., APR is a professor and director of graduate studies at the Virginia Tech School of Communication. He is the Legal Research Editor for the Institute for Public Relations. He can be reached at mcmyers@vt.edu.In full disclosure, AI was not used in writing this piece except for the final quote.
...