The last day, the last hours of the Theory and Issues in PR module. In fact the classes ended on the 24th of March, but from then and until now we had the opportunity to revise everything we have learned during this course and to continue our blogs.
This is my last post for this class but hopefully not for PR profession. And here I would like to sum up what is written in my blog.
Public Relations is the art and science of establishing relationships between a company and its audience. It plays a key role in creating communication channels between these players and in spreading the message across people. such interaction is supposed to be a two-way mutually beneficial dialogue resulting in particular public actions. This is the good side.
However PR has a doubtful side: propaganda, spinning, fiction, manipulation, ethics and moral issues, "window-dressing" through CSR and NGO, women's discrimination, transparency and authenticity etc.
In addition to this the "bad" side of PR is the loss of people's trust, critique and an undermined reputation.
Truthful and devoted to the profession practitioners still struggle hard to improve and "lift" the face of PR. Using new technologies, new media, new global opportunities, new advocates and new "brains" these fighters are moving towards people's interests, ethically and legislatively regulated activities, charitable and socially responsible deeds and of course towards a good name.
In conclusion I'd like to say that PR is an essential part of our everyday life. Every single person is introducing and promoting him/herself to others, is doing his/her own PR even without realising it. PR professionals help people communicate, have a dialogue, say their opinions, concerns, share their information and experience and so forth. What could happen if PR didn't exist? There would have definitely been an analogue to this profession. Nonetheless people's feedback, evaluation and analysis are crucial for its reputation and existence.
It is not truth that this profession has almost died out - there are plenty of new ways and opportunities for development, it is just important to look attentively around, understand people's needs and create.
Showing posts with label manipulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manipulation. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Ethical PR vs. spin and propaganda
The debate around ethics is based on the understanding of what moral right is and how to distinguish it from wrong.
Key theoretical concepts of ethical issues are in brief discussed by Alison Theaker in The Public Relations Handbook (2008, p.145-149). Main terms characterizing ethics are: “common good”, “rights”, “duty” and “responsibility”.
PR is the core element in corporate communications; consequently, it “plays the major role in managing the moral dimension of corporate conduct” as stated by Pearson (Theaker, 2008, p. 148). This author advocates a significant role to PR similar to what Gruning and Hunt call two-way symmetrical model.
“Ethics, - as Holmes says, - is about the good and about the right” (Theaker, 2008, p. 143) while spin and propaganda are seen as manipulation and lying.
According to O’Malley PR is about “the advocacy and dissemination of the partisan viewpoints of those who engage our services” “to promote the lawfully-pursued, self-defined interests of those we serve” (O’Malley, P. In Praise of Secrecy: The ethical foundations of public relations - 
).
PR practice is regarded as public responsibility as it is stated in the Code of Ethics. However if practiced by government people often associate it with manipulation, spin and lies.
As Edward Bernays wrote in “Propaganda” (1928): “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”(Burton, B. (2007); Inside Spin: The Dark Underbelly of The PR Industry. P. 2). Such an invisible PR is practiced through spin and propaganda techniques and with the help of manufactured stories, pseudo events, skewed survey statistics, overuse of celebrities and non-disclosure of information.
It is not a secret any longer that people are often being fooled and told lies. The question is: “What could be done to regulate the flow of spin and propaganda and to establish more ethical communications?”
It is always of big advantage to establish an official regulatory body to monitor PR and government communications. Alternatively PR associations’ vigilance role could be reinforced by codes of ethics modification, more severe members’ discipline application, stricter penalties and higher entry qualification demands. However individuals also have to be aware of possible misleading messages sent by government through the media and should neglect its intentions. Moreover it is of great importance to provide them with the possibility to get PR education and be able to participate in controlling the flow of spin and manipulation.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Trust Us We're Experts
Good evening to all!
Having recollected in my last post the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber I decided to read one more of their books: Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future (2001, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam).
I expected to find some information on propaganda and political PR, but the book turned out to be about health, food safety, medical and environmental issues in PR. Though from the point of view of case studies in the named questions this book is really well written.
However on the first 30 pages of the book I found some interesting facts:
1. the website of Burson-Marsteller proclaims that "Perceptions are real... They can be managed... to motivate behavior... to create positive business results" (p.2);
2. Lindheim talking about the role of a professional perception manager says that the public is "emotional ans incapable of rational discourse" (p.3);
3. Walter Lippmann in 1921 described a "pseudo-environment" as "the adjustment of man to his environment... through the medium of fictions" (p.25);
4. the Wag the Dog movie (1998) showed the extent to which present media can manufacture false realities by demonstrating how "government advisers created a fictional war on a Hollywood sound stage to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal" (p. 24).
All these points made me think over the role of American people in power in manipulating public's perception of reality. Was such a machine the USA's creation? Why do they speak aloud about the technologically manufactured illusion in modern cinema? Why people trust so easily what they see in news knowing that it is often a fiction?
The only answer that comes to my mind is that PR professionals play on people's emotions and compression while putting a message across, and that it is much easier for people to believe that what is shown is real, rather than think over it, analyze the information and search for truth.
Today virtual reality, "Potemkin villages" (p. 11-17) and made-for-TV fabrications are all around as an undiscovered part of our everyday life.
Having recollected in my last post the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber I decided to read one more of their books: Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future (2001, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam).
I expected to find some information on propaganda and political PR, but the book turned out to be about health, food safety, medical and environmental issues in PR. Though from the point of view of case studies in the named questions this book is really well written.
However on the first 30 pages of the book I found some interesting facts:
1. the website of Burson-Marsteller proclaims that "Perceptions are real... They can be managed... to motivate behavior... to create positive business results" (p.2);
2. Lindheim talking about the role of a professional perception manager says that the public is "emotional ans incapable of rational discourse" (p.3);
3. Walter Lippmann in 1921 described a "pseudo-environment" as "the adjustment of man to his environment... through the medium of fictions" (p.25);
4. the Wag the Dog movie (1998) showed the extent to which present media can manufacture false realities by demonstrating how "government advisers created a fictional war on a Hollywood sound stage to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal" (p. 24).
All these points made me think over the role of American people in power in manipulating public's perception of reality. Was such a machine the USA's creation? Why do they speak aloud about the technologically manufactured illusion in modern cinema? Why people trust so easily what they see in news knowing that it is often a fiction?
The only answer that comes to my mind is that PR professionals play on people's emotions and compression while putting a message across, and that it is much easier for people to believe that what is shown is real, rather than think over it, analyze the information and search for truth.
Today virtual reality, "Potemkin villages" (p. 11-17) and made-for-TV fabrications are all around as an undiscovered part of our everyday life.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
War spin & propaganda
Hello!
I would like to share with you some of the ideas that came to me after having watched a War spin video in class on Wednesday.
I began to question myself whether PR profession is ethical enough. Unfortunately what I've seen in this video was that all those war stories, journalists' reports, news etc. are half fake! It is really shocking how much false information people can hear, watch on TV and believe in it and trust it.
From this perspective PR can be accused of being an immoral profession. Nonetheless ethical issues depend on PR practitioners' moral values. The latter are individual qualities that differ from one person to another but can define the character of actions that people undertake. This suggests that not every PR professional acts unethically. Consequently we cannot blame PR in general of immorality and cannot judge it by results of some group's depraved activities.
However PR can be identified as a really powerful tool to manipulate people, their mind and behavior. It is worrying how easy people are being mislead... Still it is their choice what to believe in, though it is PR's duty to create a wrapping, not forcibly an artificial one, but a story to present an idea in the best possible light.
The two books that I've read recently and that are very relevant to this topic are:
Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy (2nd edition) (London and NY: Routledge) and
Stauber, John S. and Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and Public Relations Industry (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press).
These books are interesting to read and raise very serious issues such as War time PR, Democracy and propaganda. So if you are interested in the question you should have a look at these books.
I would like to share with you some of the ideas that came to me after having watched a War spin video in class on Wednesday.
I began to question myself whether PR profession is ethical enough. Unfortunately what I've seen in this video was that all those war stories, journalists' reports, news etc. are half fake! It is really shocking how much false information people can hear, watch on TV and believe in it and trust it.
From this perspective PR can be accused of being an immoral profession. Nonetheless ethical issues depend on PR practitioners' moral values. The latter are individual qualities that differ from one person to another but can define the character of actions that people undertake. This suggests that not every PR professional acts unethically. Consequently we cannot blame PR in general of immorality and cannot judge it by results of some group's depraved activities.
However PR can be identified as a really powerful tool to manipulate people, their mind and behavior. It is worrying how easy people are being mislead... Still it is their choice what to believe in, though it is PR's duty to create a wrapping, not forcibly an artificial one, but a story to present an idea in the best possible light.
The two books that I've read recently and that are very relevant to this topic are:
Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy (2nd edition) (London and NY: Routledge) and
Stauber, John S. and Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and Public Relations Industry (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press).
These books are interesting to read and raise very serious issues such as War time PR, Democracy and propaganda. So if you are interested in the question you should have a look at these books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
