A newly added link on this blog is entitled Public Relations Society of America, which is “the world's largest organization for public relations professionals.” Based in New York City, the society is comprised of more than 28,000 members, both professional and student. Its members represent clients in all areas, including “business and industry, technology, counseling firms, government, associations, hospitals, schools, professional services firms and nonprofit organizations.” The mission of the society, according to the Web site is to “unify, strengthen and advance the profession of public relations,” in addition to establishing itself as the “pre-eminent organization that builds value, demand and global understanding for public relations.”
The goal of my research paper mirrors the mission statement of PRSA, in that I aim to show the importance and magnitude of public relations in today’s communication-obsessed world. In my last blog, I illustrated the interconnected worlds of public relations and journalism. Public relations people aim to notify the public of new brands, new business ventures and events. In order to do so, they must utilize the media. For example, public relations professionals ensured that you knew when, where and how to purchase the new iPhone through news releases and loads of publicity.
Despite its scope and prevalence, many people cannot define public relations. Prsa.org provides an excellent foundation for the understanding of public relations, its ethical guidelines, its purposes and its goals as a profession.
During my oral presentation, a comment regarding crisis communications came up. The comment insinuated that public relations firms must lie or hide the truth in order to save a company’s image. As a public relations major, this assumption is upsetting, specifically because the practice of public relations is grounded in strict ethical and moral codes of professionalism. Just as a journalist is expected and trusted to report truthfully and responsibly, public relations people follow a code of ethics that shapes the profession.
Multiple articles regarding ethics in public relations can be found here: http://www.prsa.org/aboutUs/ethics/index.html
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Public Relations and Journalism
According to my public relations class’ textbook, Public Relations Writing and Media Techniques by Dennis L. Wilcox, “journalists depend on public relations sources for receiving most of their information” (304). At the same time, public relations practitioners depend on journalists for mass dispersion of their information. Media relations is “the core activity in many public relations jobs.” In fact, a survey of 539 large companies found that “media relations was the #1 job responsibility of their public relations staffs” (304).
While many assume that journalists seek out all of their stories, this supposition is incorrect. Wilcox explains that the reality of modern mass communications is that “reporters and editors spend most of their time processing information, not gathering it” (305). Furthermore, while many journalists might deny this fact, “most of the information that appears in the mass media comes from public relations sources that provide a constant stream of news releases, features, planned events, and tips to the media” (305).
Even Gary Putka, the Boston bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal acknowledges that “a good 50 percent” of the stories in the newspaper come from public relations people (305). In newspaper articles, journalists often refer to public relations people as “spokesman” or “spokeswoman.” The term’s use in publications has increased 81 percent since 1995. This rise shows the growing significance and usage of public relations in journalism and hence, the world.
Although their work intertwines regularly, there are areas of tension between public relations practitioners and journalists. Journalists resent the fact that stories are being fed to them and that public relations people assume they would be interested or willing to cover whatever they are pitching. Peter Himler, the executive vice president of Burson-Marsteller, summarizes that “overt commercialism, hyperbole, artificiality and manipulation are the best ways to turn off a reporter and, in so doing, damage the fragile, but vital relationship between [the] two professions” (307).
To see the magnitude of public relations practitioners’ influence over the press, look at any fashion or lifestyle magazine. The November edition of 944 Magazine is a perfect example. Page 22 is dedicated to the James Perse Boutique, which the magazine has called “944’s Choice.” The boutique was covered in the magazine because the public relations people behind the store sent a successful press release to the magazine, not because the magazine discovered the new boutique on its own.
While many assume that journalists seek out all of their stories, this supposition is incorrect. Wilcox explains that the reality of modern mass communications is that “reporters and editors spend most of their time processing information, not gathering it” (305). Furthermore, while many journalists might deny this fact, “most of the information that appears in the mass media comes from public relations sources that provide a constant stream of news releases, features, planned events, and tips to the media” (305).
Even Gary Putka, the Boston bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal acknowledges that “a good 50 percent” of the stories in the newspaper come from public relations people (305). In newspaper articles, journalists often refer to public relations people as “spokesman” or “spokeswoman.” The term’s use in publications has increased 81 percent since 1995. This rise shows the growing significance and usage of public relations in journalism and hence, the world.
Although their work intertwines regularly, there are areas of tension between public relations practitioners and journalists. Journalists resent the fact that stories are being fed to them and that public relations people assume they would be interested or willing to cover whatever they are pitching. Peter Himler, the executive vice president of Burson-Marsteller, summarizes that “overt commercialism, hyperbole, artificiality and manipulation are the best ways to turn off a reporter and, in so doing, damage the fragile, but vital relationship between [the] two professions” (307).
To see the magnitude of public relations practitioners’ influence over the press, look at any fashion or lifestyle magazine. The November edition of 944 Magazine is a perfect example. Page 22 is dedicated to the James Perse Boutique, which the magazine has called “944’s Choice.” The boutique was covered in the magazine because the public relations people behind the store sent a successful press release to the magazine, not because the magazine discovered the new boutique on its own.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Public Relations does not equate to Propaganda
When the words "public relations" are typed into youtube's search option, the following video is the first link to appear:
The video presents an unfortunately popular and widespread opinion that many people have regarding public relations. Public relations as an entity is characterized as propaganda, which undermines the magnitude and reality of the practice.
Public relations is not propaganda. Propaganda aims to influence a public’s behavior and opinion through emotionally loaded messages, often filled with purposefully inaccurate or altered facts. According to the father of public relations, Edward Bernays, public relations is “a management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interest of an organization followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance." Public relations plans aim to educate, interest, and thus influence. Propaganda hides behind an agenda to influence.
The negative connotations associated with public relations not only lead the public to look down upon the practice, but they also lead businesses to overlook the importance of public relations. Some corporations, like Wal-Mart, do not seek out public relations until a major crisis erupts. The magnitude of public relations is so grand, however, that corporations should regard positive, constant public relations as part of corporate success.
To illustrate the significance and misinterpretation of public relations, a national survey of journalists by a New York public relations firm indicated that “two-thirds of the journalists surveyed said they don’t trust public relations people…” In truth, however, public relations serves as an unparalleled method of communicating with the public. In fact, 81 percent of the journalists surveyed above say “they need [public relations] people anyway.” The aforementioned information comes from Dennis L. Wilcox’s textbook entitled Public Relations Writing and Media Techniques.
The scope of public relations practitioners is broad. Just as journalists need public relations practitioners for story ideas, corporations need public relations even before a crisis hits the company. Continual corporate public relations can prevent crises from occurring and can perpetuate a positive company image. In the end, a corporation is only as successful as the public determines its image to be.
The video presents an unfortunately popular and widespread opinion that many people have regarding public relations. Public relations as an entity is characterized as propaganda, which undermines the magnitude and reality of the practice.
Public relations is not propaganda. Propaganda aims to influence a public’s behavior and opinion through emotionally loaded messages, often filled with purposefully inaccurate or altered facts. According to the father of public relations, Edward Bernays, public relations is “a management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interest of an organization followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance." Public relations plans aim to educate, interest, and thus influence. Propaganda hides behind an agenda to influence.
The negative connotations associated with public relations not only lead the public to look down upon the practice, but they also lead businesses to overlook the importance of public relations. Some corporations, like Wal-Mart, do not seek out public relations until a major crisis erupts. The magnitude of public relations is so grand, however, that corporations should regard positive, constant public relations as part of corporate success.
To illustrate the significance and misinterpretation of public relations, a national survey of journalists by a New York public relations firm indicated that “two-thirds of the journalists surveyed said they don’t trust public relations people…” In truth, however, public relations serves as an unparalleled method of communicating with the public. In fact, 81 percent of the journalists surveyed above say “they need [public relations] people anyway.” The aforementioned information comes from Dennis L. Wilcox’s textbook entitled Public Relations Writing and Media Techniques.
The scope of public relations practitioners is broad. Just as journalists need public relations practitioners for story ideas, corporations need public relations even before a crisis hits the company. Continual corporate public relations can prevent crises from occurring and can perpetuate a positive company image. In the end, a corporation is only as successful as the public determines its image to be.
Monday, November 5, 2007
An Example of a Public Relations Crisis...
On October 26th, 2007, the Federal Emergency Management Committee (FEMA) held a news conference in regards to the recent wildfires in Southern California. The conference, however, was fixed: the “reporters” present at the conference were actually FEMA employees. Real journalists were only given fifteen minutes notice of the conference, which essentially disabled and prevented them from attending. While they were allowed to call into the agency’s conference, they were only allowed to listen and were not allowed to ask any questions.
Instead, FEMA employees posing as journalists tossed “soft-ball” questions at FEMA’s deputy administrator, Harvey Johnson. According to the New York Times, the questions were “decidedly friendly.” The following questions were asked, which all conveniently enabled Johnson’s answers to shine a positive light on FEMA:
“Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?”
“What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?”
Has FEMA not learned its moral lesson in public relations? The staged conference only draws more negative attention to the federal agency, which has been under intense public and media scrutiny since its failure in properly dealing with Hurricane Katrina.
FEMA was criticized during its Katrina response when instead of helping with search and rescue, agency firefighters deployed to the affected areas were evidently “undergoing training on community relations, watching videos, and attending seminars on sexual harassment in a hotel, waiting days, in some cases, to be deployed in a secretarial or public relations position” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/national/nationalspecial/11response.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=fb3d95d685b8f2f4&ex=1284091200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
The most recent FEMA public relations disaster is every group's nightmare, whether it be professional, governmental, or in entertainment. Not only did the fake news conference further taint FEMA’s fragile reputation, but it also infuriated journalists, whose professions were irreversibly disrespected. A huge part of public relations is maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship with the media. FEMA’s fake news conference compromised this essential relationship, which will be difficult to repair.
The following video is a clip from Keith Olbermann’s response to the fake conference. In it, he and a guest mention public relations.
Instead, FEMA employees posing as journalists tossed “soft-ball” questions at FEMA’s deputy administrator, Harvey Johnson. According to the New York Times, the questions were “decidedly friendly.” The following questions were asked, which all conveniently enabled Johnson’s answers to shine a positive light on FEMA:
“Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?”
“What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?”
Has FEMA not learned its moral lesson in public relations? The staged conference only draws more negative attention to the federal agency, which has been under intense public and media scrutiny since its failure in properly dealing with Hurricane Katrina.
FEMA was criticized during its Katrina response when instead of helping with search and rescue, agency firefighters deployed to the affected areas were evidently “undergoing training on community relations, watching videos, and attending seminars on sexual harassment in a hotel, waiting days, in some cases, to be deployed in a secretarial or public relations position” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/national/nationalspecial/11response.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=fb3d95d685b8f2f4&ex=1284091200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
The most recent FEMA public relations disaster is every group's nightmare, whether it be professional, governmental, or in entertainment. Not only did the fake news conference further taint FEMA’s fragile reputation, but it also infuriated journalists, whose professions were irreversibly disrespected. A huge part of public relations is maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship with the media. FEMA’s fake news conference compromised this essential relationship, which will be difficult to repair.
The following video is a clip from Keith Olbermann’s response to the fake conference. In it, he and a guest mention public relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
