The Public Relations Concept - Essay Example

Sur Public Relations The term “public relations” is believed to have been introduced by Edward Barnays. The father of PR, as some would later call Barnays, used it in his publication Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923). Since that time, corporations and state agencies alike have broadly applied the “public relations” concept to their practice. At the same time, contemporary scholars agree that this term has failed to firmly establish itself as a beneficial concept and a positive social phenomenon. Jacquie L’Etang, the leading British theorist of PR, describes this situation in his “Public Relations and the Rhetorical Dilemma” publication. He emphasises that “public relations needs more public relations to increase public understanding of its role in society” (L’Etang 34). Public relations are seldom referred to in a positive way in the media. This concept is typically defamed as a mere propaganda and industry of spin which is busy trading in deceitful information and lies (Miller, 2003). Others publicly acknowledge the pragmatic mission of PR by saying that it is just an art of getting material into the press without paying for it, specifically, “the art of getting favourable coverage without paying for it” (“How to Get Free Publicity”). These approaches seem to be widely applied when the public needs to be manipulated against a certain governmental or corporate project. PR is announced pure propaganda and spin and the message is quickly dismissed. At the same time, while PR gets frequently referred to as spin or propaganda, this understanding of the phenomenon is one-sided and obviously lacks objective consideration. To make matters worse, this understanding is too simplistic and conceals the essential component of PR. Namely, PR is targeted not just at corporate interest advocacy, but at the advocacy of public interest, too. Apparently, the simplified interpretation of PR prevents public from realizing how PR makes up a part of normal information management practice in democracies and its role in getting public support for some practices that are beneficial for the general public as well as businesses. By drawing on contemporary critical sources on PR, our aim is to adequately examine the work of a PR practitioner, explore the sphere of PR objectives, compare the views of critics and advocates of public relations, and discuss ethical considerations in today’s PR. In addition, this paper attempts at producing a new objective understanding of PR and its role in modern society. It has already been mentioned that critics of PR generally refer to it as propaganda or spin. Propaganda in this respect has a clearly negative connotation and gets perceived as a pejoratively loaded concept. While it was not so in the distant past (research shows that propaganda was a term used to speak about contributing much into mobilization of the general public opinion), the term propaganda started to be applied differently after the World War I. In the period of lost ideals and widespread disillusionment, propaganda began to be seen as a tool of democracy advocacy (Tye 94). For instance, Edward Bernays considered propaganda important for democracy functioning because it advocates the developments in governmental policies or some new approaches in business. In the following years, the concept of propaganda developed even more to denote psychological manipulation of the audience by the repetition of a few simple points. In this case, the audience was perceived as a passive receiver and as “a vulnerable and persuadable lot at risk from propaganda” (Brooker & Jermin 5). Understanding public relations in terms of propaganda reduces PR to “the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate conditions, and direct the behaviour and achieve the response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (Jowett & O’Donnell 4). The propagandistic underpinnings of PR were formulated by Lasswell (1995) and other scholars accepting public relations as propaganda which is still necessary for maintaining democracy. In tune with the foregoing views, PR has been defined as a way of obtaining what corporations want without altering their behavior or reaching a compromise (Grunig & White 92). It has also been referred to as “a utopian attempt to make an inherently evil practice good” (Grunig 16). Besides, PR scholars provided the following description of PR: “the whole public relations staff must be seen as active propagandists on behalf of their organization, thereby setting an example to other employees to seize those moments in daily conversation which provide the opportunity of giving favorable information about their own organization and the work” (Hardern 13) Contrary to viewing PR in terms of its propagandistic underpinnings and asymmetrical nature, the so-called ethical representation of PR appeared. Instead of perceiving communication as a one-way process and the audience as a passive receiver, it placed the public interest in equal or superior position. Grunig & White’s model of symmetrical (in other words, two-way) PR was introduced. Their understanding of PR as communication-based phenomenon necessarily incorporates the process of dialogic interaction. Dialogue is understood as a certain process of statement and counterstatement in which people both influence and get influenced (Heath 365). The symmetrical view of PR is based on perceiving the latter in terms of communication as a two-way process. For example, L’Etang says that public relations are about communication and exchange of ideas to facilitate change (L’Etang 18). Based on recognition of democracy value, PR has been defined as the key promotional agent of mutual understanding between two parties. To illustrate, the definition of the Public Relations Society of America is PR “helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” (Public Relations Society of America). Similarly, the Institute of Public Relations provides the following definition of PR: “the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organization and its publics” (Baines, Egan & Jefkins 7). While PR essentially promotes understanding between corporations and public, we’d better neither idealise nor condemn it in white-and-black terms. Saying that public relations are capable of serving public good and responding to public interest does not mean this is going to be the priority for many practitioners unless certain measures are taken. One should remember that public relations are inseparable from what is called strategic action since they are linked to the concerns of economy, power, state, and money. In other words, in the concept of public relations the strategic component is evident. According to Mayhew, strategic action is designed for the purposes of achieving ends at other people’s expense (Mayhew 36). Hence, PR theorists justify the selection of only certain truths in order to benefit the organization. Mayhew compares the role of PR professionals with that of attorneys that defend their clients in court where the opposite side has the right to present its counterarguments (Mayhew 203). Thus, the balanced and realistic definition of public relations will be that of PR as a strategically planned communication used by organizations for the purposes of establishing and sustaining the symbiotic relationships with the general public. This explanation, based on Krishnamurthy’s deconstruction of the term, appears the most relevant since it focuses on PR as a communication activity, acknowledges the role of managers in PR (strategic component), and identifies the role of the public as a stakeholder in the process (symbiotic relationship implies ‘mutually beneficial’ relationship) (Krishnamurthy 8). Based on what has been said above, the question arises whether PR can ever be perceived as an ethical practice. While the stereotypic view of PR promoted by the media and media scholars refers to public relations as the practice grounded on manipulation, spin, and persuasion, rising popularity of ethical and professional codes in PR industry makes them vitally important tools of rebutting this opinion. At the same time, the analysis of the codes ratified by Public Relations Society of America as well as the Institute of Public Relations exposes their apparent deficiencies in promoting ethics. While the biggest purpose of codes of ethics in any industry has been to provide certain moral as well as practical standards and expectations, the “integrity component” is undeniably present in such codes. It is by these codes of ethics that organizations instil trust in the general public and get the respect they want to get. By issuing their codes of ethics, corporations establish themselves as respectable and professional entities. In the situation when the whole PR industry seems to be struggling for recognition as an industry (such as law or medicine, for example), a good code of ethics would be of great help. Yet, the codes adopted by Public Relations Society of America as well as the Institute of Public Relations seem to be far from close to achieving this objective. Specifically, both codes clearly aim at establishing the positive image of PR as a worthy profession. Moreover, the one issued by the PRCA has the whole section devoted to the profession enhancement. In its turn, the Institute of Public Relations has devoted the whole section to professional standards maintenance. This implies that one of the major concerns in the codes has been the level of professionalism. On the contrary, moral conduct gets minimal attention, as in the PRCA’s code of ethics: “the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest” (PRCA). Overall, the codes do not contain any clearly articulated standards of moral behaviour, fairness, loyalty, or honesty. Therefore, in their present form they appear totally useless and hardly possible to enforce. Neither do they represent the adequate understanding of PR professional’s competence, nor do they provide enough statements to gain public trust and respect. In summary, these codes are mere attempts of ethical approach to PR. They require more work and practical enforcement. More successful attempts to tie the practice of PR professionals to certain moral standards have been made in other countries. Above all, they are based on recognition of the importance of the public interest. Namely, the Canadian Public Relations Society urges that its members should act “in a manner that does not conflict with the public interest”. Also, the International Association of Business Communicators states that professional PR officers should act “in accord with public interest” as fixed in their Code of Ethics. Additionally, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations promotes “honest and responsible regard for the public interest” as the main principle of PR practitioner’s professional conduct (“Public Interest”). In relation to what has been discussed above, the issue of corporate social responsibility comes to the forefront. Under the term “corporate social responsibility” one generally means the theory that in business and corporate world some part of motivation for joining the programs based on capitalism, industrialization, as well as globalization, should be a redress of possible negative effects and willingness to pay debt (in a metaphorical sense) to the society or meet the requirements of social contract. According to L’Etang, the idea of corporate social responsibility has not been considered seriously in PR literature. Instead, the ideas of priority of protection of organization’s reputation and emphasis on its interests have been widely discussed. However, there is a concept that PR professionals are supposed to create some kind of “goodwill health” so that the latter gets accrued and used in the event of a critical situation. PR theorists have viewed this as a remedy that will possibly save the reputation of the organization if the public gets angry or starts protesting (L’Etang 82). While the pragmatic approach dominates understanding of corporate social responsibility as a remedy in the event of crisis, its importance should not be neglected. It seems the tarnished image of the whole PR industry (just remember the words of one high-rank official from Hill & Knowlton, “we’d represent satan if he paid”) will only benefit from enhanced attention to corporate social responsibility. Respectively, emphasis on the latter will be the first step to creation of the adequate reputation not just for those single companies that resort to it, but to the whole industry (Bowen, “Ethics and Public Relations”). The issues of ethics and corporate social responsibility have not been raised within the PR academic field by accident. For decades, the image of PR has been made darker and darker. One of the biggest concerns was not just propaganda, but deceit and lies. In other words, the problem of the PR’s ends and means has been the subject of debate. Ever since the function of PR professional was defined as to persuade (“We are practical men attempting a practical job. There is no mystery. The Doctor treats disease. The Architect designs buildings. The Lawyer is an expert in law. And the Public Relations Officer persuades” ), the ends have become much more important than means (“That Definition” 16). If the client pays, any means seem relevant. This has become the underpinning of many PR firms. For example, Bowden speaks of the scandalous affair by a famous PR company Hill & Knowlton. The latter were accused of creating a fake testimony which was later submitted to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. By this the ‘Citizens for Free Kuwait’ action was allegedly represented. It became known later that the action was sponsored by the government of Kuwait to endorse the States to get involved in the Gulf War back in 1992. This and many other scandals associated with PR firms, PR officers, and PR policies of certain companies provide a good background for reconsideration of the very meaning of PR and greater emphasis on its ethical component. In summary, public relations appear to be a vaguely defined term in contemporary PR research. There is no unanimously accepted understanding and explanation of PR. Neither can there be found a universally accepted definition that would fix the meaning of PR in modern corporate world. While some scholars and practitioners prefer to speak of PR in pragmatic sense as a notion close to propaganda, others support the idealistic view of PR. Yet, today the latter seems to be found only in theory. However, the analysis of the public response to PR practices and PR profession in general reveals the inconsistency of the pragmatic approach. The philosophy of “representing the satan if he paid” by any available means widely adopted by PR firms and PR officers damages their own reputation and the reputation of those companies they represent. Therefore, viewing PR as a one-sided process, in terms of propagandistic approach, is no longer effective. Instead, the new understanding of PR as a practice that equally benefits the company and the general public should be developed. The Code of Ethics, in which the principles of integrity, loyalty and fairness are incorporated, will help enhance the positive image of the PR industry and PR professionals. To enforce the Code, PR professionals should be made liable to sticking to certain regulations developed by the Public Relations. Similarly to nurses or representatives of other professions, PR officers will be deprived of licensure if they violate the ethical principles fixed in the Code. Also, the role of public interest should be reconsidered while re-defining the term public relations. Public interest should be prioritized. This inevitably means that deceptive practices should be avoided and ethics should guide PR practitioners conduct. Besides, corporate social responsibility should be made one of the primary concerns within the industry. This will help the public regain their trust in PR firms and change the stereotypic views that PR is merely about getting material published for free or that PR is a mere propaganda Works Cited Baines, P., Egan, J. & Jefkins, F. Public Relations: Contemporary Issues and Techniques. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004. Print. Bowen, S., Ethics and Public Relations. 2007. Web. 23 January 2013. Brooker, W. & Jermin, D. The Audience Studies Reader. Routledge, 2003. Print. Grunig, J. E., & White, J. “The Effect of Worldviews on Public Relations Theory and Practice.” In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1992. Print. Grunig, J. “Two-way Symmetrical Public Relations: Past, Present, and Future.” In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, R. “The Rhetorical Tradition: Wrangler in the Marketplace” In R.Heath & E.Toth (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. Taylor & Francis, 2009. Print. “How to Get Free Publicity”. Press Release Builder. N.d. Web. 23 January 2013. Krishnamurthy, S. “A Theoretical Framework for Global Public Relations Research and Practice”. In S. Krishnamurtyhy & D.Vercic (eds) The Global Public Relations Handbook. Taylor & Francis, 2012. Print. L’Etang, J. “Public Relations and the Rhetorical Dilemma”. Australian Journal of Communications, 24(2), 1997, 33-53. Print. L’Etang, J. Public Relations: Concepts, Practice, and Critique. SAGE, 2007. Print. Mayhew, L. The New Public: Professional Communication and the Means of Social Influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Miller, D., “Propaganda and the "Terror Threat" in the UK”, Media Education Journal, Issue 34, Autumn: 31-33, 2003. Print. PRCA. PRSA Code of Ethics. N.d. Web. 23 January 2013 “Public Interest”. Ethics in PR. N.d.Web. 23 January 2013, http://ethicsinpr.wikispaces.com/Public+Interest. Tye, L. The Father of Spin: Edward T. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations. New York: Crown, 1998. Print. . Read More