In certain quarters, the honourable and legitimate business of PR has acquired a bad name. To some extent that is the fault of certain ‘rogue members’ of the profession, but when done correctly, PR is strongly in the public interest.

PR professionals should deploy all the regulatory and legal means available to prevent the publication of false and damaging allegations against their clients. This will lead to the best outcome for the clients, and chasing the proverbial reputation horse after it has bolted will have limited benefit. However, it is often not recognised how such work also serves the public interest.

The importance of not misleading the public is recognised by all the major UK media regulators, as provided for by the editorial codes published by IPSO, IMPRESS (the Leveson-compliant print regulator), NUJ, and Ofcom; as it is also in the code published by the US Society of Professional Journalists.

Speaking on the importance of the public not being misled from the seminal speech of Lord Hobhouse in Reynolds v Times Newspapers, said in his seminal speech: “There is no human right to disseminate information that is not true. No public interest is served by publishing or communicating misinformation. The working of a democratic society depends on the members of that society being informed not misinformed. Misleading people and purveying as facts statements which are not true is destructive of the democratic society and should form no part of such a society.”

Subsequently Mr Justice Tugendhat (as he then was) made the following observation in his judgment in Qadir v Associated Newspapers: “There can be no public benefit in publishing… misinformation”.

Best practice for PR professionals not only serves the client’s best interests, but also prevents the public from being misled by media publishers (generally, but not always, the Fleet Street titles) and robbed of their freedom to make informed choices about where they spend their money and place their trust.

However, this outcome is not always achievable, and sometimes PR might find themselves fighting against the publication of a misleading story. Despite operating under complete best practice, PR practitioners may only be able pare down a story to a much less damaging version of what was originally intended — instead of stopping the story completely.

Enlisting the help of a specialist lawyer may still be unavoidable, but can temper down the reputational damage for the client. In recent days I have prevented the publication of false and damaging stories for a high-profile independent school, a member of the Upper House, and a leading healthcare provider.