One area of my scholarship in public relations is history. About 15 years ago I published an article about how the media portrayed the merging profession of “public relations” in the 1920s. Early practitioners had gone from calling themselves press agents, to publicity men (even though women were engaged in the craft early on), to counselor on public relations.
Historical figures like Edward Bernays, Ivy Lee and Arthur Page were pointing out that they actually rarely did press releases, and instead focused their attention on counseling organizational leaders on how to achieve and maintain positive relationships with customers and other “publics.” It was 100 years ago this year, in 1923, that Edward Bernays published one of his books in this effort to advance and brand the profession: “Crystallizing Pubic Opinion.”
The media was largely fair, although there were some real zingers in calling the practitioners of the new profession everything from flappers (those 1920s young women debutantes all about image) to less savory affectations. In sum, they characterized the profession as deceptive image crafting as opposed to honest communication.
Things haven’t changed much.
I recently read a headline in an online publication in Michigan where I live. It was about the governor starting a new parents council to give input on education policy. The story was a good deep dive into this effort and whether it would accomplish anything or was just part of a re-election strategy. But it was the headline that bothered me: “Public Service or Public Relations?”
The juxtaposition implies that public relations is the antithesis of public service, in other words, not an honest attempt at listening to the public, just a stunt. But of course, any public relations professional with a degree would know that PR is the epitome of public service–building mutual relationships, dialogic communications, two-way symmetry and all the terms you learn in PR 101.
I wrote the reporter, and then offered a commentary.. I heard nothing back. It was when this nonprofit donation-based publication emailed me a renewal reminder that I responded with a pledge and a concern that I got a response from the editor.
It was a good exhange, but at first he defended the headline and said “while I understand the point you’re making, I don’t see how the words used in the headline cast your profession in a pejorative light. I didn’t view the juxtaposition of public service and public relations as being polar opposites, but rather alternative explanations.” He went on to say “In short: Was this about policy or election politics?”
Of course I said “exactly.” This was about policy vs politics, not public relations.
I further explained in our email exchange what may be interesting to readers of this blog:
“Using the conjunction “or” between public service and public relations sets them up as contrasted concepts, with the connotation that public service is good and public relations is bad.
The media and public at large have a stereotype of public relations as just publicity or things done merely for image and not with honest intent. That stereotype is perpetuated by your headline.
I understand what the headline writer was going for, and it is a good article and important to address. But a better headline would have been “public service or just image” or “public service or politics.” As you say, the issue has to do with policy or politics.
Another way to look at this is to consider who are the actors in question. Were they actual public relations professionals, were they politicians? Journalism is about accurate attribution, right? Let’s not attribute deeds to people—or a profession—who did not do them.
Granted, public relations is also an activity, like communications, often done by non-professionals. But it would be honest, objective and a service to readers to make that clear. Some time ago a business editor in Grand Rapids asked me to lunch and complained about the bad behavior and judgment of “all these PR people.” I helped her realize there were a lot of CEOs, marketers, politicians and others doing the “bad behavior” and that the actual PR people she worked with were honest, timely, fair and professional.
For the record, public relations is defined by the industry itself as “the management function that seeks to identify, build, and maintain mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and all the publics on whom its success or failure depends.” Nothing in there about deceptive image crafting.
If I see a grocery store rag or a blog that’s extreme and misinformed I don’t call it “journalism.” I would ask you make the same distinction and courtesy toward the public relations profession.”
The editor responded by saying he saw the point and realized framing it as a ‘political gambit’ would have been more accurate. He thanked me for expanding his perspective and said he would share it with his staff..
So, 100 years on, at least one journalist has expressed a better understanding of public relations. I would hope more would make a distinction between the negative stereotype of a common activity and the actual description of an honest profession. I would encourage other public relations professionals to call out “misinformation” about our profession when you see it in the media. Just this morning I heard twice on cable TV news the term “public relations” used to describe ingenue and deceptive communication. We still have work to do to make the distinction between practitioners and professionals, and between poor communication and the honorable public service known as public relations.
