Category: Uncategorized

The intersection of public relations and Christian faith

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

I read a scholarly article recently that suggested that public relations should be re-defined through the lens of faith. This of course intrigued me as a long-time public relations professional and professor, and as a life-long Christian. 

I realize that many readers of this blog may not be Christians. But you may find this perspective interesting. 

It has occurred to me that both PR and Christianity are misunderstood as being all about image, when in reality they are both about relationship. In the case of public relations it is about organization’s relationships with their various publics or stakeholders. In the case of Christianity it is about each individual’s relationship with Jesus Christ. In both cases, the distinction between image and relationship definitely affects positive outcomes. 

However, I did not agree with everything in the article. The author suggests moving away from organization-centric to one of stewardship, what he called a  ‘caritas’ or agape approach. Caritas in Latin means charity and is one of the seven virtues. Agape is from the Greek and means a type of love that is self-sacrificing. The author summarizes this as a form of covenantal stewardship, and proposes that the “publics” of public relations should include ancestors and animals.

I agree but differ. Animals are not publics but part of creation and we are stewards of the earth. However the Bible also endorses eating animals. As for ancestor worship, that is part of animistic religions, not Christianity. We may remember and revere those who have gone before us, but we can’t consider a relationship with them.

I would say integrating Christianity with public relations starts with relationship with God in the person of Jesus Christ. Our motivation should be gratitude for God’s love for us, humility, and serving others as a way to ultimately serve God. Communication would be symmetrical with others because God knows us all, but asymmetrical with God because He is sovereign.

I was talking to some people recently about Christian nonprofits and their public relations efforts. It occurred to me that the public relations role of advocate is similar to that of apostle, one who is sent, or evangelist, one who shares the good news. Many speak of public relations fundamentally as “getting the word out.” Christians refer to Jesus and the Bible as “the word.” 

The intersection of public relations and faith, or a model for public relations for Christian organizations,  therefore may be defined as: a public effort to lead others, in agape love, to a covenantal relationship with God.

Prescription for Health Communication Post-Covid: Data and Dialogue

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

If there is anything most of us can agree on about the Covid-19 pandemic, it is that it was a singular event for all who lived through it. It is something that people will be talking about for years—what it was like to live through 2020-2022 and the Covid pandemic. 

While many might talk about the medical and personal aspects of the Covid years, as a public relations professor I think there are some important lessons about professional communications that we can consider. Now is a good time to do it, when memories are fresh but the heat of the situation is past.

Focus should be on truth, not anticipated reaction or politics

When the pandemic was first reported, some of the first official messages from the medical/political authorities was that it won’t spread to humans. Then we were told it won’t spread beyond China. When the virus did exactly that quickly, people were already suspect of future statements.

It is also interesting how quickly the messaging around the pandemic became politicized. Some in the U.S. saw yet another opportunity to criticize Trump and veered from fact to do so. I did a scan of the Covid-related headlines in the New York Times in the first three months of 2020 and many articles were proclaiming the very things Trump had said later for which the Times criticized him. Nancy Pelosi went to San Francisco’s Chinatown to virtue signal Chinese people and criticize Trump for banning flights from China, where the virus originated. Later such isolation was universally considered prudent. Kamala Harris, the eventual vice president, said she would not take the vaccine because it was developed by Trump’s ‘Operation Warp Speed” initiative to rapidly develop a Covid vaccine. Assertions that the virus leaked from a lab in China were ruled out and called xenophobic, but recently several independent studies by US government agencies have come to the conclusion that a lab leak was probably or possible. All of this created a chaos of messaging that the public interpreted as more political than prudent and led to growing mistrust.

Statements should be transparent and not get ahead of data

Early public guidance in the pandemic is now fodder for jokes. “Two weeks to stop the spread” was intended to express that a short-term inconvenience of lockdown would lead to achievement of a united goal. But we all know now that lockdowns happened for more than a year and the spread continued regardless.

You don’t need to wear a mask was soon replaced with wear a mask, wear a particular type of mask, wear two masks and more. It was maddening and laughable, and the net result was minimal public safety and significant public annoyance and mistrust. 

The biggest problem was when authorities falsely claimed the vaccines are “safe and effective” when in fact they were not entirely either. The problem here is that the words used are absolute and don’t have important modifiers, such as “mostly” or “largely” or for certain conditions or populations.

I teach a law class and cover the FDA regulations for advertising new drugs. My wife is a stage 4 cancer survivor and we have read many drug information sheets. New drugs must have two independent, long-term trials. There must be disclosure of potential side effects. Any effectiveness claims must have due diligence verifications. The Covid vaccines had none of the above. Most drugs my wife has taken come with several pages of information listing side effects that are ranked likely, possible and rare. We considered all of them, factoring in my wife’s personal medical history, and made judicious decisions. She did not take certain drugs as a result and has been better for that. 

The Covid vaccines were not vaccines. They were shots. A vaccine actually prevents the disease, such as with measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), shingles, or tuberculosis. The covid shot kept requiring repeated boosters. The shots did not work. Many people know other people who had two doses and two boosters and still got Covid. There are subsequent studies that show the vaccinated can still spread the virus.

The Covid shots, which were not just a new drug but a new mRNA technology, had not been out long enough to test. But statements such as “we would know by now” were replete in public messaging about the efficacy and safety of the drugs, all in the effort to encourage people get “vaccinated.” However, there were significant and severe side effects, even deaths. While many in power tried to silence and discredit those who claim vaccine injury, the numbers are significant. A group of patients and doctors have formed the non-profit React19 to share science about Covid vaccine injury where the government and media will not. The fact that they have to do this independently and not jointly with government and media encourages mistrust of future health statements by the government and media.

There is no such thing as “the” science

Among the many dubious statements during covid was that people should follow “the” science. But there is no such thing. What should have been encouraged was to follow the scientific method, which considers all data, acknowledges limitations, and keeps working with dispassionate rigor toward conclusions that are valid and reliable. 

Instead, the public was given a single authoritarian view. Those with honest objections and alarming personal experiences to contradict statements were gaslighted, labeled as misinformation and deplatformed. If this is science, it is mad science. Among those silenced were doctors and researchers with expertise in infectious diseases and vaccines. The reason they were blocked from discourse? They wanted to communicate potential side effects of the covid shots and/or share evidence of effective and efficient early interventions or the benefits of herd immunity versus mandatory vaccines and lockdowns. 

Smart people disagree on all of this. But we should hear from all the smart people. I was at an academic conference two months ago and sat down to hear a young scholar present a paper about communication and “vaccine hesitancy.” My advice to her during discussion is she may have a validity problem. That means she is not studying what she thinks she is studying. What I meant is that vaccine hesitancy is a general term, but many people are only wary of the set of Covid vaccines because it is new technology and not tested long term in multiple trials like other drugs. These same people may well have taken other vaccines, and many opponents to Covid protocols preface their objections by saying they are not “anti-vaxxers” to forestall the bias that would prevent them being fully heard.

After this research session, another researcher came up to me and thanked me for speaking up, and then showed me on his phone a CDC website with current data about deaths from Covid vaccines. Interesting that so many are afraid to speak alternative perspectives because of the unthinking and unscientific climate that has emerged around discussion of Covid pandemic response.

If officials had been honest, transparent, humble and nuanced in communication, they may have been more trusted and effective. Many people resisted lockdowns and vaccines because of the communication coming at them with multiple error adjustments, over-simplified absolute language, lack of transparency, and disregard for their and others views and experiences. The communication would have been more ethical and effective if it were based on all data and respectful dialogue.

As it is, attempts to force people to swallow suspicion, negate bad experiences, ignore other science and blindly comply was bad medicine for the health communications industry. The side effects of mistrust and doubt will be long term. The prescription for recovery is communications characterized by transparency with data and multiple opinions in honest dialogue. 

Thanks for reading Penning Ink. Consider subscribing for more free posts about public relations. Enter your email address in the subscribe box here on WordPress or click the link to the Substack version to subscribe there.

Cookies Can Be Ethical

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

The day after a session in my Advertising and Public Relations Ethics and Law class in which we discussed digital media, one student emailed me a link to a web site. She said it was an unusual example of a company showing an ethical respect for customers by allowing customers and other site visitors to customize their cookies, or the way in which they are tracked.

It wasn’t a major brand that I was aware of before my student shared it with me. It’s Levoit Air Purifiers, and they allow people to accept all, reject all, or select to turn on or off six categories of cookies, from necessary to functional, analytics to performance and more. I’d encourage you to go to the site and see for yourself.

in class we had talked about legal changes with regard to cookies and other aspects of online privacy. But there are still annoying pop-ups that you must disable to see content, and some still only give you the option to accept, not reject. Certainly very few offer this level of customization and control for the user.

Here are just a few reasons why this extreme number of options is ethical:

  • it is a demonstration of a relationship metric called “control mutuality,” in which all parties in a relationship have equal control of topics, opportunity to speak, and in this case digital tracking settings;
  • it demonstrates good discourse ethics, similar to above, meaning that the user is not at the mercy of an organization;
  • it demonstrates a unique form of utilitarianism, not in the classic sense of “greatest good for the greatest number,” but it explains cookies to the user in terms of how they might benefit them and not just the organization;
  • it’s the old fashioned “golden rule”–follks at the air purifier company have considered how they would like to be treated when a customer on someone else’s website.

For these and other reasons, respecting the rights of others and giving them agency over how they are tracked and communicated to is good ethics. It’s also smart for the company in terms of building positive, long-term relationships and reputation.

In other words, as I tell my students all the time: ethics = strategy.

100 Years On, Journalism Starting to Learn What PR Is

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

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.

What Americans want from corporations–what PR provides

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

A recent survey from Just Capital has some very timely findings given the state of society in this turbulent year. It also reflects some lessons and reminders for public relations professionals at the top of their organizations, and the top of their game.

Among the findings from the survey are that most Americans think companies should promote an economy that serves everyone, but only half believe companies actually do this. Another key outcome is that the public increasingly thinks companies should balance the interests of shareholders with customers and employees. Most interesting to me is the ranking of most important issues for 2020 that show a high ranking for things like fair wages and benefits, ethics, environment, diversity and job creation.

This public sentiment about corporate performance is further evidence of my constant emphasis that public relations is a management function. Public relations is about maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with ALL publics. This sometimes means balancing competing interests between two publics, such as shareholders and employees, or customers and community. But the work of PR is to counsel management on policy to actually achieve this balance and not just proclamations to pay lip service to these notions. The publics are watching closely.

We are a century beyond the days of “press agentry” and the notion that PR is a mere tactical exercise to “raise awareness” or “get the word out” or put an organization in a “positive light.” Consider the emergence here in 2020 of terms and concepts that have been at the heart of enlightened public relations practice for years:

  • Stakeholder theory and stakeholder capitalism–the idea as I described above that public relations is concerned with far more than the news media, and more even than customers, to include shareholders, employees, community members and more;
  • ESG–environmental, social, and corporate governance are the integrated concern of companies, and in particular CCOs (chief communications officers) and those who lead the public relations for organizations;
  • Conscious capitalism–the philosophy that economic interests are bound in social interests and ethical practice;
  • Sustainability–many public relations professionals produce sustainability annual reports or include the “triple bottom line” of people, place and profits in their metrics;
  • Purpose—Corporate purpose goes beyond mission to stress not only a company’s interest but its positive impact on the world (what old economists call “positive externalities”).

Once again, what the public says it wants of companies and all the associated trendy management buzz words are what good public relations has done and is poised to do now. Listen to publics. Learn what they want. Creatively and ethically devise ways to balance organizational interests with those of all publics. It sounds trite, but work together for common good.

The intersection of normative theory and actual practice in public relations is upon us. I just hope that future surveys will show that people and executives will realize that this movement is something long called “public relations.”