Public Relations In Media Research Paper

It was the establishment of universal suffrage that gave the biggest fillip to the spread of modern day public relations activity in the public sphere. For, just as the newly enfranchised citizens began to seek information about their country’s power bases—over which they could now exercise some control—their opinions began to assume an impact that they did not have before. Public opinion became worth swaying by those who needed popular support. This coincided with increasing literacy that initially promoted the spread of newspapers and subsequently the development of the broadcast media, all of which were hungry for news items.

In early definitions of the role of the professional source, Bernays—one of the profession’s founding fathers—commented that the job of those brought in to court this newly influential public opinion was to isolate ideas and develop them into events that could be used as news items by the media (1923, p. 171). Writing in 1922, Lippmann, observed that a new age of opinion management had arrived and the creation of consent among the governed had begun to develop beyond anything seen before in the political organization of human affairs. Public relations thus emerged in the early decades of the twentieth century particularly to link the political actor as a source of news with the media who would produce it, in a relationship that met the needs of both (McNair 1998, p. 146).

The role of public relations in swaying public opinion has since been regarded as crucial to those seeking to gain or maintain political power. Consequently, as an instrument in manipulating a powerful public opinion consensus, the professional source operating within the political arenas of liberal democratic states has attracted increasing attention.

1. Source–Media Relations

News that influences public opinion is heavily affected by the nature of the relationship between source and media. Throughout the 1970s and for much of the 1980s, two contrasting sociopolitical paradigms prevailed. One was the Marxist view, which argued that media content was governed by elite sources representing the dominant classes of society with the result that their ideology permeated the media to the virtual exclusion of alternative views. This dominance was achieved with the compliance of journalists who readily accepted, and often sought, their input because these elite sources were perceived as authoritative and even objective. Furthermore, the dominant class learnt to deliver stories that conformed to the criteria of newsworthiness and the regularity of their news supply could be relied upon by the news media. In contrast, the pluralist view maintained that there was a wealth of groups and interests all competing for influence. The media were thus acting as a marketplace of ideas, none predominating to the exclusion of others.

However, recent research on public relations has delved into the question of access and the degree of openness and closure of the communications system, revealing a more complex picture than either of these early paradigms suggested. To what extent does the dominant class, characterized by the corporate and state elite, control the media agenda through direct access to the detriment of non-institutional and poorly resourced groups? This new research on news sources and promotional culture (see Wernick 1991), concentrates on the public relations activities of corporate and institutional sources in the public sphere and also on the strategies of opposition and resource-poor groups as they seek to gain access to the media.

The political economy perspective, with its emphasis on economic power and media ownership, argues that corporate and institutional state sources have huge resource advantages that enable them to dictate the current of news by restricting or enabling information flows (Glasgow Media Group 1976, Herman and Chomsky 1988, Gandy 1982). Similar to this position is Hall et al.’s (1978) radical structural culturalist approach which concentrates on identifying the legitimacy conferred on state and corporate sources by journalists. Media statements are grounded in objective and authoritative statements from sources accredited by virtue of their institutional power and position. News production inevitably leads to a systematically structured over accessing to the media of those in powerful and privileged institutional positions. The result of structured preference conferred by journalists to the views of these elites is that they become the primary definers of topics and the primary interpreters of all subsequent debate on the issues.

Challenges to this account of source-journalist behavior as being overly deterministic come from the recently termed radical pluralist. Whilst acknowledging the structuralist view that elite sources hold strategic advantages and wield substantial economic and political power over the news agenda, Schlesinger and Tumber point out that ‘because the conception of primary definition resolves the question of source power on the basis of structuralist assumptions, it closes off any engagement with the dynamic processes of contestation in a given field of discourse’ (1994, p. 21). The concept of primary definition ignores: the conflict between elite sources therefore presenting the media with more than one message; the role of ‘leaks’ and off-the record briefings by non attributable sources; the non-retention of access over time as new forces and their representatives emerge; the vulnerability and possible discreditation of ‘accredited’ sources; and finally, journalists’ challenges to official sources (1994, pp. 18–20). In this formulation primary definers are therefore not structurally predetermined, but earn this role by providing journalists with regular, reliable, and authoritative story leads.

These considerations have rethought the behavior of sources and led to the introduction of new methodologies in conducting empirical studies. Instead of relying solely on internalist accounts that rely on either journalists’ descriptions of their relationships with sources or a reading of media content, recent research has expanded externalist or source centered approaches by examining the media strategies and tactics of news sources (see Ericson et al. 1989, Deacon and Golding 1994, Hallin 1994, Schlesinger and Tumber 1994, Miller 1994, Anderson 1997). All these studies with their various approaches emphasize the way all groups, official and nonofficial, whether state, corporate, voluntary, or pressure need to foster favorable public opinion through the establishment and protection of identity and image. New pluralist accounts offer the view that ‘public relations is less capital dependent than other forms of public communication and non-official sources can employ strategies that require little institutional legitimacy’ (Davis 2000, p. 51) thereby conferring on them the potential for gaining access to the media that traditional radical accounts did not acknowledge.

2. The Growth Of Public Relations In The Media

As a business activity, public relations began to gain in importance from the end of World War I particularly in the USA and later in Europe. Corporate identity work grew up in the early 1960s and, as a professional practice, gained wider acceptance in the following decade during which there was an upsurge in acquisitions, mergers, and divestitures. In commercial climates such as these, both predatory companies and their corporate prey have found that it has paid to heighten their image. And, as they have merged, both nationally and internationally, there has been a need to establish and maintain a single identity by which the corporate whole can be recognized (Meech 1996, pp. 65–6). Privatization programs through which previously state-owned companies seek shareholders from among the general public, also boosts the need for the companies involved to seek regular, favorable coverage in the media. This is generated through public relations professionals, both in-house and from hired agencies, whose specialisms now include media relations, public affairs, issues management, and lobbying. The lead shown by the corporate world has been enthusiastically embraced by both political parties and politicians.

2.1 Proactive Public Relations

The work of these public relations professionals can be described in two broad categories. First, there are proactive public relations through which, in particular, ‘pseudo events’ are used to create news that will be attractive to journalists (Boorstin 1962). These artificially created ‘happenings’—such as press conferences and photo opportunities—are staged purely to present journalists with material that is tailored to their needs. But their lack of authenticity and rationality has been criticized for promoting style over substance, and performance over policy, thereby turning news into a promotional form for politics and business.

Public relations, particularly lobbying on behalf of corporate and other sectional interests, has risen in importance. The size and development of the public relations industry in the United States and the United Kingdom mean that British and American firms dominate the market in most member states of the European Union, and their actions are increasing in scope and intensity. Public relations specialists and lobbyists are also diversifying by targeting not just the national and regional governments in the member states, but also the EU institutions, along with trade associations, corporations, and interest groups (Miller and Schlesinger 1999).

2.2 Reactive Public Relations

The second category can be described as reactive public relations. Sometimes called crisis management, this form of news manipulation springs into action to counter real news events that are potentially damaging. For politicians the rise in scandal news has led to a preoccupation with new strategies and tactics to counter negative images. Within the corporate world, as globalization has developed, multinational companies, face problems arising in one small part of their global operation turning into an international crisis within minutes thanks to ever-faster and more ubiquitous electronic links and the consequent speed with which media agencies can flash news around the world. During the 1980s and 1990s, a spate of corporate public relations offensives was launched to refute criticisms over safety procedures and corporate responsibility in response to a number of well-publicized disasters and accidents. Swift action was also deemed necessary in the wake of takeover and other financial scandals, and to allay public fears about the real or potential dangers of contaminated or faulty products. High profile cases illustrate that an efficient crisis management plan, with an emphasis on skilful news management, can be effective in lessening the damage such catastrophes can wreak on a company. Indeed, those that have managed crises well in public relations terms have even managed to benefit from them. They have achieved this by attracting public sympathy in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, and then by winning people’s trust and respect for the way in which it has been subsequently handled. In contrast, a corporate crisis that is badly handled in public relations terms can cause irreparable damage leading to board resignations, a plunge in share value, and even corporate takeover.

The message that even the largest companies ignore at their peril is that no organization or individual is immune to negative media coverage, especially now that effective public relations techniques are being increasingly understood and adopted by campaigning organizations. These relatively small bodies have found that lack of resources need not prevent them, too, from manipulating the news and, as a result, they have scored a number of public relations successes at the expense of government and big business. Since the 1960s, there has been a significant increase in organized lobbying with the emergence of several single-issue pressure groups particularly within the green and consumer movements. These organizations have pioneered new ways to harness media coverage to coincide with campaigns in a way that has compelled politicians and other powerful groups to take them seriously. Thus, through the creation of pseudo events, the targeting of specialist correspondents, and other techniques to meet journalists’ need for an endless flow of new material, these pressure groups indicate that non-official and resource poor organizations can also make significant interventions in media discourses despite lacking definitional power and cultural capital (see Bourdieu 1979). The ability of resource poor groups to gain access to the media, though, requires favorable conditions and the requirement to establish credibility and maintain reliability. Occasional entry into the public arena is possible but not secure in the long term (Goldenberg 1975).

3. Impact On Democracy

Public relations has emerged as a key specialism in the conduct and management of national and international political affairs and also corporate image. But its impact on democracy has often been viewed with alarm. For instance, the rise of the spin-doctor on the political scene has led to accusations of distorting news to an undesirable extent. The argument is that if the electorate requires objective information, then the aim of professional sources to manage this information represents a threat to democracy. This concern has been heightened by changes in the working conditions of journalists, which have increased their reliance on the input of sources. As many media organizations have evolved into businesses whose prime concern is the bottom line, cost cutting has been a focus. Thus, at the same time as external organizations are investing growing amounts in public relations activity, media companies are reducing editorial budgets, compelling journalists to produce more for less. With less time and money to produce their own stories, journalists are obliged to rely more heavily on information subsidies supplied to them by sources. Consequently, now that journalists frequently have little time to check facts or to mount any independent investigation, professional sources have assumed more power in placing their stories in the media, complete with their particular spin. And as a result, the journalist’s role, both as gatekeeper and as watchdog, is diminished.

Despite a reformulation of source media relations and public relations activity there is general acknowledgment that source access is still far from equal. Although non-institutional and resource poor organizations have become skilled at manipulating the news media, they are still at a disadvantages lacking the cultural capital of corporate and state sources in the ability to limit or enable access to information and, neither possessing the political, legal, and financial power to apply pressure to journalists. Furthermore, despite conflict between elite sources, these still have an automatic legitimacy that other sources have to earn.

Powerful institutions, ‘driven by the promotional dynamic to attain new heights of sophistication in trying to manage the news’ (Schlesinger and Tumber 1994, p. 275) are, therefore, likely to remain the most common suppliers of material to journalists, with elite sources continuing to invest heavily in activities to sway public opinion in their favor. And, whatever concerns it might provoke, public relations is now seen as a necessary element of both the modern political process and of corporate management.

Bibliography:

1. Anderson A 1997 Media, Culture and the Environment. UCL Press, London
2. Bernays E 1923 Crystallizing Public Opinion. Boni & Liveright, New York
3. Boorstin D 1962 The Image or What Happened to the American Dream. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London
4. Bourdieu P 1979 Distinction. Routledge, London
5. Ericson R V, Baranek P M, Chan J B L 1989 Negotiating Control: A Study of News Sources. Open University Press, University of Toronto Press, Toronto
6. Davis A 2000 Public relations, new production and changing patterns of source access in the British national media. Media Culture and Society 22: 39–60
7. Deacon D, Golding P 1994 Taxation and Representation. John Libby, London
8. Gandy O H Jr 1982 Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy. Ablex, Norwood, NJ
9. Glasgow University Media Group 1976 Bad News. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
10. Goldenberg E 1975 Making the Papers: The Access of Resourcepoor Groups to the Metropolitan Press. Lexington Press, Lexington, MA
11. Hall S, Crichter C, Jefferson T, Clarke J, Roberts B 1978 Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and order. Macmillan, London
12. Hallin D C 1994 We Keep America on Top of the World: Television Journalism and the Public Sphere. Routledge, London
13. Herman E S, Chomsky N 1988 Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon, New York
14. Lippmann W 1922 Public Opinion. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York
15. McNair B 1998 The Sociology of Journalism. Arnold, London
16. Meech P 1996 Corporate identity and corporate image. In: L’Etang J, Pieczka M (eds.) Critical Perspectives in Public Relations. International Thomson Business Press, London
17. Miller D 1994 Don’t Mention the War: Northern Ireland, Propaganda and the Media. Pluto Press, London
18. Miller D, Schlesinger P 1999 The changing shape of public relations in the European Union. In: Heath R (ed.) The Handbook of Public Relations. Sage, London
19. Schlesinger P, Tumber H 1994 Reporting Crime: The Media Politics of Criminal Justice. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK
20. Wernick A 1991 Promotional Culture: Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Impression. Sage, London