Book Connects Theory to Strategic Practice for Public Relations Professionals and Students

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

The result of more than a year of work, my new book “Public Relations Theory in Practice: Strategic Applications for Professionals” will be published June 2, 2025. It is available now for pre-order at Amazon (in both paperback or Kindle versions) or the Business Expert Press publisher’s website.

I had worked as a public relations professional before transitioning into a career as a full-time professor. I learned quickly that theory and practice are not disconnected as some assume, but are realistically connected. In my 25 years as an academic I worked to connect academic concepts with everyday practice both in class and when speaking to professionals.

I grew weary over time of the expression “that sounds good in theory, but here in the REAL world….” The fact is, professionals’ experiences are the subject of research, which in turn develops theory. If practice informs theory, it only makes sense that theory would inform practice.

The key benefit to a robust understanding of theory can be summed up in one word: strategy. Public relations professionals speak often of the need to be strategic, a common part of a PR campaign plan is the articulation of strategy. Well, theory is fuel for strategy.

As I note in the book’s introduction, today’s public relations professionals need to account to management and clients for whether they have caused stakeholders to make meaningful changes in their attitudes and behaviors that match organizational objectives. This requires strategy based on established theory that is well-reasoned and tested, not just informed guesses and clever tactics based on individual perspective.

The book is divided into six parts, beginning with a simple explanation of what theories really are, how they are derived, different types of theories, and why they are practical and not mere abstractions. The following parts explain communication theory generally (interpersonal, small group, and organizational), mass media, persuasion, ethics, and theories specific to public relations practice. Each part ends with a series of summative strategic statements that professionals can apply to daily practice.

In keeping with the theme of connecting academics to professional practice, I am grateful to have received testimonials from a respected academic and professional:

“In Public Relations Theory in Practice, Penning does an excellent job providing an overview of the major theories applicable to public relations in easy-to-understand language I am impressed with the breadth of theories that are addressed. The book would be a valuable resource for an undergraduate theory course or as a resource for graduate students when they are seeking theories for a specific study. It would also be a good resource for practitioners preparing for the accreditation exam (APR).”

Marlene S. Neill, PhD,APR, Fellow PRSA 

Professor & Graduate Program Director

Senior Research Fellow, Arthur W. Page Center

Baylor University Department of Journalism, Public Relations & New Media

Public Relations Theory in Practice bridges the gap between academic theory and real-world application, equipping professionals with the knowledge to move beyond instinct and guesswork. Penning delves into communication, media, and persuasion and ethical theories, demonstrating how they can be strategically applied to every aspect of public relations. From understanding audiences to evaluating results, you’ll learn to craft campaigns with a theoretical foundation, ensuring effectiveness and achieving organizational goals. This book is a valuable source of insight and guidance for communicators at all levels.”

Eliot Mizrachi, VP, Strategy and Content, Arthur W. Page Society

Whether you are a public relations professional, student or professor, I hope you’ll find the book interesting and useful.

Has the AP Lost its Role as Standard for Writing?

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

It used to be called the “bible” of journalism, and as such was widely respected by those in public relations who wrote news releases and other items sent to reporters.

But the Associated Press Style Guide has gone from an annual spiral bound book to an online subscription site with email updates to something potentially irrelevant. The Associated Press (AP) has gone from covering news and guiding how news should be covered to making news of its own. It has gone from promoting an objective style to pushing subjective and partisan framing.

This came to a head when the Trump administration banned the AP from the White House briefing room after the organization refused to acknowledge a name change from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. However, a variety of sources have reported that there is more to it than that, including the Wall Street Journal, Daily Signal, and Axios. Other reporting revealed that the AP receives funding from the far-left Omidyar Network. It has also been noticed that the AP never covered the fact that more than 400 reporters had their press pass revoked by the Biden administration. 

Apart from the Gulf of America naming issue, criticism of the AP’s drift into leftist partisanship has been growing over time. Examples include their guidance to capitalized Black but not white when referring to a subject’s race. Or their “Transgender Topical Coverage Guide” that warns not to include comments from experts that are contrary to the approved narrative—an example that shows a taking of sides and censorship of voices that is far removed from non-partisan objectivity on which the AP built its reputation.

I have heard that many PR firms and corporate communication offices are eschewing the AP in favor of their own house style. I also see in many actual newspapers a style that is different than that of the AP (this could be negligence more than protest, but the case remains). Of course the emergence of blogs and independent journalism means much writing has gone from 3rd person to first person voice and other deviations from standard AP style. I have decided to not let my AP subscription auto-renew, and will explain all this to future classes and let the adoption of the AP guide be optional.

Meanwhile, since the AP thinks it does not have to respond to formal name changes, I have seen some change the name of the AP from Associated Press to other options. These include American Pravda, Aggregated Propaganda, or Associated Partisanship. Its notable that some of the alternatives seem more accurate and objective.

Diversity is at the Heart of ‘Pushback’ Against DEI

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

In recent months, there has been lots of movement on the topic of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). Some companies, such as Target, have reduced their DEI efforts. Others, like Costco, have announced a recommitment to DEI. 

The Trump administration has moved to eliminate DEI in federal agencies and any organizations that receive federal funding. Universities have reacted to this with concern.

Meanwhile, professional associations in the public relations industry have also weighed in. For example, the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) has a panel in the next few weeks addressing DEI “pushback.” Recently, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) released a position affirming its own commitment to DEI. The position was discussed at a Member Monday session, in which PRSA 2025 Chair Ray Day insulted those with alternative views to DEI as “being confused.” But leaders like him have not bothered to eliminate their own confusion about the pushback to DEI. Much of it is well-reasoned.

All of the above turmoil about DEI is evidence of diversity. That is to say, there is a diversity of opinions about diversity. 

Diversity, as well as equity and inclusion, are general concepts for which there is a large majority of people in favor. But DEI as it manifests itself in some cases as a specific program to achieve diversity is where there are legitimate differences on the nature of the problem, the causes of the problem, the scope of the problem, and its attendant solutions. DEI, as a set of assertions, attributions, assumptions, programs and policies, in many organizations violates the very principles of diversity, equity and inclusion. This is why many people—including many persons from what would be called minority groups (examples listed below)—object to DEI even as they endorse diversity.

I heard from several veteran PRSA members who were upset about PRSA’s statement. It assumes there should be one perspective on DEI, and that all members do or should share it. It expects compliance. Comments on PRSA’s social sites showed that there are differing opinions on the many nuances of DEI. But the responses showed that  other PRSA members violated the premise of diversity—as well as PRSA’s previous statements on ethics and civility—by descending into gaslighting, stereotyping, ad hominem attack and other emotional and childish rhetoric that showed no consideration given to inclusion of multiple opinions and equity of expression. 

I have experienced the same form of hypocrisy from PRSA when leadership denied me a seat on the national board saying I had violated its diversity policy when I expressed my Christian worldview on my personal blog. Read more about that episode here. 

So what are the objections to DEI? Not all DEI programs manifest themselves in the same way. But many do claim to champion diversity even as they stifle it. Here’s a list or problems:

  • It is based on anti-American values, namely critical race theory, which stems from critical theory, which emerged from the Frankfort School populated by Marxist philosophers. DEI’s roots are in the philosophy of Herbert Mercuse and his student Angela Davis, who basically claimed that dividing people by social class didn’t work so they would need to try division by race and gender. The whole point is division to gain power. Independent journalist Christopher Rufo does an excellent and objective summary of this—in which you can take Mercuse, Davis and others at their word—in his book “America’s Cultural Revolution.” 
  • The insistence on the false dichotomy of seeing the world as if everyone is ether an oppressor or a victim. Another socialist philosopher, Paulo Freire, wrote a book called “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” to indoctrinate the next generation through school curriculum. Paradoxically, this curriculum was tried and was rejected in socialist nations yet has its advocates in the United States, more of a “land of opportunity” than many countries around the world. Many of the people who reject the false “oppressor-victim” perspective are the very people DEI oppressively insists are victims. Take for example Blexit, a grassroots organization of Black Americans who are taking a “Black exit” from the victim mentality. 70% of its members are formerly of the far left. Or look at the rampant rise in anti-Semitism on college campuses—the sad outcome of this false perspective.
  • It favors category over individuality. Not only does DEI place everyone on a scale of either oppressor or victim, it maintains an unethical stereotypical categorization of people by race or “identity.” As such it does not acknowledge significant variation based on individual experience, condition, values and other individual attributes. In other words, it violates the central aspect of diversity. 
  • It favors representation over competence. For this reason, some have proposed MEI—merit, excellence, intelligence—as an alternative to DEI. Professor Victor Davis Hanson elaborates on the 10 problems with DEI. 
  • It makes unempirical assertions. Stemming from the above flaw, critical theory, unlike empirical theory, is based on speculative reasoning and not evidence. Thus, we have critical race theorists and others in DEI propagating false notions of universal “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “unconscious bias” and other fabrications. It would be insulting and preposterous to say all Africans are the same. Even in a single country like Nigeria, there are more than 300 languages spoken with associated tribes and cultures. It would be similarly preposterous to claim that all Asians are the same, all Hispanics are the same and so on. In the country from which my mother immigrated there are significant differences among provinces. Yet DEI insists on being prejudicial towards persons of a Caucasian heritage or white skin, without regard to actual experience, values, thoughts, behavior and other variables academics would study before making generalizable claims. 
  • It seeks equity over equality. This is another result of the socialist roots of DEI. It seeks the same outcome, as opposed to the same opportunity for all. This is the hallmark of socialist central planning, which has worked exactly never wherever it has been tried. The lessons of Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” have been ignored here. The fallacy of equity (not equality) produces disincentive, loss of industry, disappearance of innovation, and a personal loss of any sense of accomplishment including for the people DEI programs claim to champion. 
  • It yields division, not unity. Numerous examples from diversity training show that the outcome often does not meet the objective. Employees or other members of a group come away divided, angry, silent, resentful, and offended. 
  • It favors certain perspectives over others. In the case of sex and gender, DEI seeks to affirm and promote one perspective, that of the LGBTQ and transgender communities, over those whose worldview of sex and gender is different and based not on culture but on faith or science. Such differing worldviews can coexist in an attitude of mutual understanding. That would exemplify actual diversity. But compelling all to accept one singular worldview is the antithesis of diversity.

These and other complaints are borne out in scholarship and other research. The Heritage Foundation has pointed this out in a commentary on its website that also was published in the Washington Times: “Research has already shown that (1) diversity training programs have failed to improve attitudes and behaviors for years, and (2) attempts to reduce bias through measuring just how much each of us has stored away in the recesses of our mind have been a spectacular bust. Anthropology Now reports that “hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that anti-bias training doesn’t reduce bias.” The National Association of Scholars has determined that ‘implicit bias’ training hijacks justice.

Hal Arkes, an emeritus professor of psychology at Ohio State University, points out in an op-ed that typical DEI “training” has tests for “implicit bias” that fail tests of validity and reliability that any academic would consider. These trainings also do not accomplish more than awareness of flawed concepts because  the companies that do and profit from such “trainings” never measure to see if there were changes in racial attitudes, an elimination of so-called “implicit bias,” or tangible result of any kind. What really happens is a perpetuation of an unproven myth that America is systemically racist. Studies have found that DEI training causes people to find racism where none exists.

The negative effects of DEI seeping into scholarship are also documented in the book ‘Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody‘ by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. They blame the postmodern principles embedded in DEI orthodoxy, including knowledge (radical skepticism of objective truth) and politics (society is formed by systems of power hierarchies). In addition, DEI has damaged American higher education’s purpose and practice with its four themes of blurring boundaries, asserting the power of language, creating cultural relativism, and encouraging the loss of the individual perspective and universal truth.

As noted previously, many people in minority categories whom DEI would claim to support have started speaking out to resist the advance of a DEI system that is singular in focus and damaging to the very nature of diversity. They offer their own alternative perspectives and prescriptions, based on experience and evidence. Here are summaries of a the work and perspectives of some of them:

  • Candace Owens, “Blackout”—In this book, Owens, a Black woman who grew up in poverty, argues with evidence how the liberal policies intended to help Black Americans actually works against them, how the left ignores the importance of faith in the Black community, and how fathers in the home is the key to Black Americans rising out of the cycle of poverty.
  • Carol Swain, “The Adversity of Diversity” — Swain is a prominent Black political science professor, recently retired (and plagiarized by Harvard President Claudine Gay), who speaks against the billion dollar DEI industry that, in her words, “has become an aggressive force that takes organizations away from their core missions and often transforms them into divisive and disruptive institutions that openly violate the rights of members of disfavored groups.” Swain’s recommended alternative of Real Unity Training Solutions entails a return to core American principles that embrace nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in a meritocratic system that recognizes individual effort rather than group rights.
  • Teresa Manning, policy director for the National Association of Scholars, strongly insists from an academic perspective that DEI is a ‘false religion that will destroy America’:
  • Thomas Sowell, “Social Justice Fallacies” — The prolific Black Stanford Professor and economist’s most recent book points to the fact that “many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed. However attractive the social justice vision , the crucial question is whether the social justice agenda will get us to the fulfillment of that vision. History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.” 
  • John McWhorter’s book “Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America” details how “claims to “dismantle racist structures” is actually harming his fellow Black Americans by infantilizing Black people, setting Black students up for failure, and passing policies that disproportionately damage Black communities. What is called “antiracism” actually features a “racial essentialism that’s barely distinguishable from racist arguments of the past.”
  • Shelby Steele, a Black New York Times columnist, argues in his book “The Content of Our Character” (invoking MLK’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech) that our culture has been trapped in putting color before character, or considering only racial categories and not individual attributes.  (Also see his son Eli Steele’s Substack newsletter ‘Man of Steele’)
  • Coleman Hughes, a young Black intellectual wrote “The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America.” Hughes argues for a return to the ideals that inspired the American Civil Rights movement, showing how our departure from the colorblind ideal has ushered in a new era of fear, paranoia, and resentment marked by draconian interpersonal etiquette, failed corporate diversity and inclusion efforts, and poisonous race-based policies that hurt the very people they intend to help. 
  • Robert Woodson, a contemporary of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement, founded the Woodson Center to help underserved communities fight crime and violence and restore families by applying the principles of market economy, faith, and personal responsibility. Woodson also edited the book “Red, White and Black: Rescuing American History from Revisionists and Race Hustlers” which features prominent Black scholars telling the story of Black people “living the grand American experience, however bumpy the road may be  along the way.”
  • Bari Weiss, a Jewish woman who left the New York Times to start her own media company The Free Press, writes how DEI is a movement focused not on diversity but power in her poignant article “End DEI.”

It should be obvious that when it comes to diversity, there is a diversity of perspectives. Yet certain people, and companies or organizations like PRSA, are unwelcoming to alternative perspectives. I have asked diversity officers about the concept of including and welcoming a diversity of perspectives and they get visibly upset. Sadly, people who bristle at consideration of diversity of perspective reveal that they are not about diversity—they are about conformity. They are not about equality—they are about power. And they are not about inclusion—they are about control.  

Diversity programs should stress non-discrimination, and at the same time be non-celebratory. Individuals and organizations should not double down on oppressive persuasion, but work  toward common understanding of legitimate differences, including perspectives on diversity. PR is based on communication, and the root of communication is “common.” Creating environments where people can disagree on particulars but nevertheless work toward common general goals would be productive. This would be good, ethical and civil public relations. It is also a picture of true diversity.

Does Advertising Adjacency Affect Corporate Reputation?

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

(Note: I have been on a sort of hiatus from blogging as I was on a sabbatical during the fall of 2024 to write a book on public relations theory. Then, based on previous academic articles I have published, I was asked by a book editor to contribute a chapter on corporate reputation. With the book in production and the chapter awaiting my presentation at a conference for feedback, I hope to pick up the pace on the blog again. More about both books when their publication dates near).

Public relations professionals use all forms of tactics, including paid advertising. Public relations professionals also are strategically concerned with the reputations of the organizations they represent. So an article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription may be required) about advertisers concerned with Meta’s allowing free speech being a threat to ‘brand safety’ caught my eye.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s president, gained lots of attention for recently saying Meta would back off on censorship and allow more free speech on Facebook and the company’s other platforms. There had been complaints that there was a noted bias against conservatives when some posts were given a lower push by an algorithm or accounts blocked entirely. There was even evidence that some of this was done in cooperation with federal government agencies. 

Of course, what is censorship to some is responsible monitoring of misinformation and hate speech. But there again, those are subjective judgements. A difference of opinions and values is not necessarily hate. And many comments labeled misinformation have borne out to be true, from Covid origins to the involvement of Russia in previous elections. 

I’ll leave that debate there.

But the WSJ article pointed out that advertisers are concerned that with the filters off, their digital ads could be adjacent to questionable content. I have wondered about this concept long before there was such a thing as digital advertising.

Brands have placed ads in newspapers and magazines for years, not exactly knowing what editorial or other ad content would appear on the same or adjacent page. If the ad is near content some reasonable people could see as objectionable, would those readers see it as associated with the brand?

Granted, in broadcast media, and magazines with a specific content and tone, ads are also considered sponsorship. There is a reputational factor to consider there.

But in print, and largely in social media advertising, I doubt that many viewers see an ad in their stream as an endorsement or sponsorship of other content in their stream. This is especially true because users can choose who to follow and select their own feeds (unless they just scroll “for you” posts). In other words, users have more agency over what they see than advertisers do.

Are users not savvy enough to realize that advertisers are there to reach them, not to promote others? I would venture to say that they are. 

Also, if professionals are worried about brand safety, what reputation impact would there be if the brand is known to be  encouraging subjective censorship? 

This might be something for brands to do their own research on. Do their key publics—from employees, to customers, to investors and more—factor in they content near corporate branding when they form their own view of the company, ie it’s reputation in their minds? An academic study on this would also be fascinating. 

Or perhaps Meta could use its resources to find an answer to this question. It may be in their own interest to do so.

We May Have Voted for a New Media Landscape

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

After every election there is a lot of punditry. We are not in short supply about why the winner won and the loser lost. Polls are taken, strategies are evaluated, and plans are set for the next campaign season. 

But there is something happening now in post-election 2024 that seems to a tipping point with significant change in the media landscape and public relations practice. It is on the order of FDR’s fireside chats on radio or the televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon. 

There have been many articles about the role of media and changing media platform preferences of campaigns and voters in the last election cycle. This article in the Wall Street Journal reports significant viewership declines on election night and during the campaigns compared to four years ago. The conclusion is that legacy media have lost viewership, relevance and their traditional gatekeeping function. Candidates have found new gates, or even simply broken down the fence and the gate along with it to extend that theoretical metaphor. 

This is a non-partisan phenomenon. You saw one or both candidates eschew debates, abandon press conferences, move toward appearances with entertainers, and most significantly in my view sit down for interviews with podcasters, most famously the “Call Her Daddy” podcast with Kamala Harris and the Joe Rogan Experience podcast interview with Donald Trump. These are the number 1 (Rogan) and 2 (Call Her Daddy) podcasts on Spotify in terms of views, and drew a large and specific audience that exceeded the numbers of Saturday Night Live, CNN, Fox or any of the networks.

Unlike political pundits, I am not going to make specific predictions. But I do have a list of questions that will be interesting to watch going forward. We may find in 2028 and beyond that 2024 was our generation’s Kennedy-Nixon debate in terms of change to media landscape and resulting communication strategy.

  1. Who is in WH briefing room? Will podcasters and independent journalists get passes to be part of the White House press pool, given their impact on public attention and opinion? Will there even be a press briefing given the avoidance of press conferences and PIOs avoidance of details? It may be the White House and other political agencies post statements to their web site. This has been happening on the White House Briefing Room websitefor several presidencies and may be enough. Interested citizens can use an RSS feed to read these directly and avoid the media filter. This could be the case in both campaign and governance mode.
  2. What is the role of the White House press secretary? Will there even be a press secretary if changes in number one happen. Maybe they will be engaging new media outlets one on one, or focused on writing internal tactics and worried less if at all about taking the podium.
  3. Will media availability shift to podcasters and independent journalists as the norm? As noted above, will interview availability of politicians and their staff follow the audience and we’ll see more on socials and podcasts and Substack outlets than traditional media? I anticipate we will see more of that, but it may be the case that traditional media are an afterthought to a podcast in a reversal from today.
  4. Will media relations continue to be less of a priority in exchange for paid media and in-house tactics? Early PR practitioners from Edward Bernard to Arthur Page started saying 100 years ago that the profession was far more than news releases. Some still perceive of and practice public relations as if the term PR stands for press release. That may finally erode as professionals are buying ads and sponsored articles and posts or generating their own digital assets from blogs to podcasts to socials. This is happening already and may increase exponentially.
  5. Will media targeting be increasingly ideological vs demographic? Media theorists always argue about whether the media affect public opinion or respond to it. Regardless, we have long had a partisan media (even back in the 1700s if you study your history). The question is, going forward will there be more targeting of media on ideology than geography or demographics? Some of this targeting could be to enter “hostile” territory to not just encourage a base of like-minded but attempt to do some old fashioned persuasion. 
  6. Will we see a return of long-form interviews? The Kamala Harris interview on “Call Her Daddy” was 44 minutes. Trump sat with Joe Rogan for three hours. Both are longer than typical network TV or national radio interviews. It leads to another question….
  7. Will content strategy favor authenticity vs spin? Some reports and polls indicate that people responded favorably to details and rationale based on policy as opposed to vague and emotional performative statements. Perhaps political communication professionals will craft speaking points that get into depth and making a case as opposed to creating an image and maintaining a narrative. It would be refreshing. 
  8. Will the changes in media and public relations strategy extend from just politics to the business and nonprofit sectors? My background before becoming a full-time professor was public relations in the non profit and higher education sector. Such organizations have always had a media mix, but the balance may tilt even more away from media relations to other tactics and strategies. This is due not just to public media habits but the sad reality of a shrinking news room for local media who do not have the capacity to do as many interviews or stories as in the past. 

Shortly after the founding of our republic, the First Amendment was passed, granting a set of special freedoms to citizens. The most famous of them was “freedom of the press.” But this was never about journalism. It was a response to censorship via the Stamp Act, and afforded freedom to produce and distribute information to anyone who happened to own a literal printing press. They happened to be printers, who in addition to handbills and other documents printed a new form of media called a newspaper.

Today the means of production for information is ubiquitous. That freedom is embraced by many. And the public has freedom as well in terms of to what they will attend to. The public relations professionals guiding politicians, not to mention businesses and nonprofit organizations, are smart. They will respond to changes afoot. I am excited to watch how.