Pr Essential History And Theory

=== c8b7ba6eb3653ce38b7a97cd0a249bcbc4aa3be4_540276_1 ===

PR-Essential History and Theory

Student: Adelina Sinca

PR-Essential History and Theory

Introduction

Too many journalists are passively or actively accepting colonisation by PR. Discuss and critically evaluate. (Kevin Moloney, Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance, Routledge, 2000, p. 122)

In 2010, a group of Romanian journalists paid a visit to New Zealand, to see an open-pit, cyanide-based exploitation of gold. The visit, organized by the PR firm hired by a Canadian-Australian company (Rosia Montana Gold Corporation – RMGC), might have passed unnoticed if one independent journalist did not have the courage to publish a short story on “deep background” sources (Obae, 2010). The news was out very quickly, and attracted strong criticism from the part of the public. While these journalists – important opinion leaders, managers of national news rooms and respected figures of Romanian media – were having a great time in New Zealand, an important part of the Romanian society was openly against RMCG and the project of exploiting gold using cyanide technologies, in a historical and green area of Western Romania – Rosia Montana (Avadani, 2016, p. 29, Bucurenci, 2010). Between 2008 and 2015, tens of thousands of people protested against RMGC on the streets, on different occasions. The protests – held under the slogan “United we save Rosia Montana” – outburst with every political decision in the favour of that controversial company. The protests became a turning point for the Romanian society, and they determined the government to cancel the contract with RMGC in 2015. Currently, RMGC sues the Romanian government at an international court of law (Ciobanu, 2016).

Journalism’s colonization by PR

The story of the PR trip offered to Romanian journalists is not singular, neither in Romania, nor in the rest of the world. It brings evidence of a situation described by Kevin Moloney, in his book Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance (2000). Moloney explains:

“Too many journalists are passively – or actively accepting colonisation by PR. They are so content to accept ‘newszak’, news designed for a market and delivered in small bits for easy consumption, from their PR suppliers. For journalism as public gossip and as entertainment, this colonisation is entrenched. (…) PR colonisation, however, is immediately destructive of journalism as scrutiny…” (Moloney, 2000, p. 122).

In what consists of this phenomenon coined as “PR colonisation”? According to Moloney, it refers to several situations such as: (1) PR practitioners deliver press releases (news) to media outlets on a daily basis, and these press releases are published by media without professional scrutiny. These news items are most of the time pseudo-events, and yet journalists accept them because they do not have enough time to document other stories, more important for the public interest. (2) PR firms offer journalists small gifts, object for loan, or trips – the so-called “freebies”. Journalists accept them in many cases, at the expense of objective information of their readers and viewers on companies, products or services. (3) Journalists get involved in PR practitioners’ training. They train the PR practitioners and they teach them how to “beat” the journalistic vigilance or prudence (4). Spinning is an increasing phenomenon among reputed journalists. They get involved in electoral campaign, or they support political figures in their efforts to distort the truth about their actions (Clinton’s case). (5) Tabloidization of media is encouraged by PR content that focus on celebrity news. (Moloney, 2000, pp. 122-129).
This study has gone from Moloney's negative theories just to bring in this critical study the opposite positive opinions of other specialists in the field. For example, L'Etang (2008) suggests that persuasion is a dangerous weapon in the hands of those authorized, but this does not prevent their duty to present the truth without damaging its basic meaning. Thinking divergently can help our creativity is a facility much prized in public relations by forcing the pathways in our brains to work in unusual ways. Public relations students need to be curious and intellectually brave, not just clever'. There is a danger that public relations academics and students can be too introspective or 'navelgazing', working convergent within rigid railway grooves rather than wandering freely and creatively in search of useful insights. Working in different areas is challenging, hard but rewarding. (L'Etang, 2013).

Moloney (2000, p. 129) thinks that the answer to this tricky situation is to separate journalism and PR as “two distinct communication practices”. He argues the possibility to reconceptualise PR as a separate media system alongside with the others: print media, audio-visual media, and advertising. This separation is necessary in the context of PR transforming from a service activity to journalism into a pervasive commercial communication, as Moloney (2000) explains “PR is partisan, persuasive communications. This partisan characteristic marks off it from uncolonised journalism which transforms PR material by its scrutiny. Such journalism is persuasive in assessment of the validity of interests by its scrutiny and is not a priori committed to an interest. Where journalism is partisan to a media owner or a political owner, it diminishes itself. The intensely persuasive quality of PR is hidden when the PR media system works vicariously through journalistic forms without the latter declaring or amending that quality”, argues Moloney (2000, p. 130) and explains that journalists have their share of blame in this situation, too.

Moloney acknowledges the difficult financial status of media outlets and journalists in the last decades, status that opened the “gates” of news rooms to soft news, and PR-driven stories, but underlines that journalists have been also “complicit” to the PR colonization of journalism. Journalists should have treated PR practitioners with scepticism and, even, hostility, explains Moloney (2000, p. 131).

PR&Journalism – a PR perspective

In Moloney’s term, public relations and journalism have a “love-hate relationship” (Moloney, 2000, p. 121), in which the definition of persuasion is important. For public relations, persuasion (understood as: “responsible advocacy”, Bivins, 2006) is a legitimate course of action, when used in the benefit of the company and of the public, at the same time (“it involves a dialogue where an organization and its various publics (…) listen to each other”, Gregory, 2015, p. 5). For journalists, persuasion is a negative trait of public communication, although they make use of it when starting press campaigns, when publishing op/ed., or when declaring their support for a political candidate (as it is the case in US).

“Used correctly, media is an invaluable tool for the public relations practitioner”, argues Bland, Theaker&Wragg (2005, p. 139). Indeed, media audience is still very important for public relations, even in the era of digital revolution. Classic and contemporary books and textbooks on PR emphasize the role of media in PR campaigns (Gregory, 2015, L’Etang, 2008, Morris & Goldsworthy, 2012). PR practitioners need media because journalistic pieces of news seem unbiased for the audience: “Editorial coverage caries an implicit endorsement of information and is consequently held to more believable than advertising, which is paid for and expected to be biased. By using media relations effectively, public relations practitioners will not only enhance the reputation of their clients or employers, but also themselves, and establish good working relationships with the journalists that will serve them well in the future” (Bland, Theaker&Wragg (2005, p. 1-2).Gregory also signals the need for an audit in public relations campaigns. It is a third part of the communication process and contrary to Moloney's trusts, it shows that there is a solution to the danger of being subjective, after a love pattern. A communication audit identifies those publics vital to an organization's success. It investigates the scope of communication to determine whether all existing or potential publics are being covered, appraises critically the nature and quality of the communication between the organization and its publics, looking carefully at the content that is being relayed to sec if it is what is required, its frequency and the techniques that are used to transmit it, as well as the effectiveness of the communication, examines their current attitudes and behaviours to assess whether or not work is required to confirm or change them and what other engagement is required. In the same way, it identifies communication gaps and unexplotted opportunities, as well as the information needs of all the key publics. It also looks ahead by ‘’examining future information requirements and new methods of communication that should he used’’ (Gregory, 2015). At least in PR theory there are solutions to the danger of being influential and to make hasty and wrong decisions at the same time.Morris & Goldsworthy also shows that no matter how organized the PR methods, there may be a doubt in their application in practice.Outsiders, including media scholars, have paid surprisingly little attention to the role of the PR industry, but for those seeking insights into the important role PR plays in contemporary society, it is PR's role in relation to the media which offers the richest pickings although it tends to be downplayed even within PR's own academic literature. This further isolates the discipline within academia and does not strike a chord with the industry. The truth is that PR is not dominated by theoretical models and that practitioners – including the most senior ones – are instead heavily reliant on practical experience. Alongside the four models of PR and the Grunig-inspired Excellence model, there are other approaches to public relations. As we can see, the dominant theoretical models within academic PR may be wellmeaning but are seriously flawed (Morris & Goldsworthy, 2011) The public tend to trust the media for documenting and writing the stories in a professional way. Therefore, it is the PR’s aim to reach the media and journalists with well-written messages about the companies, products or services. The most important tools of PR practitioners are press releases, VNRs, press conferences, mediating interviews, press trips etc. The professional codes of PR practitioners advocate for a fair and balanced relationship between PR practitioners and journalists, for the mutual respect and for cooperation (see for example, Wright, 2006, p. 186). But where do the risks lie? What have triggered the present situation of an unbalanced relationship between PR and journalism? Also, the importance of trust in PR is also noted by other authors. For example, Theaker suggests that´´ Trust is of great importance, as organisations doing business together are likely to have mutual interests and risks, particularly those working on long-term contracts.´´(Theaker, 2014). Therefore it is important to be able to demonstrate a reputation for performance, a strong customer portfolio, credible endorsements.

Analysing the situation of the public relations industry in US and its ethical implication, Carolyn Bronstein (2006) observes the economic divide between the PR industry and journalism industry in the last decades. She underlines that the PR industry grows steadily while the journalism industry decreases at an unprecedented pace: “the balance of power between journalists and public relations professionals has shifted, leaving many understaffed and financially strapped newspapers, radio and television stations, and Internet news and entertainment sites dependent on low-cost public relations materials” (Bronstein, 2006, 74). Therefore, Bronstein (2006, p. 75) explains that the advantage of public relations practitioners over journalists is even bigger that thought or anticipated before.

These situations should trigger ethical concerns for public relations practitioners and teachers. As Bronstein writes, the journalists need more editorial content easy to produce, ready on time, and foremost cheap. The PR practitioners are tempted to take advantage of this opportunity by producing more content (text, images, and videos) about the companies they represent. This content produced by PR was, according to the figures presented by Bronstein (2006, p. 76), between 25% and 40% of a daily newspaper of a TV news bulletin.

Even the PR practitioners who work for non-profit organization, and that were in past insignificant for journalists, manage to take advantage of poor condition of journalists and media. In the condition of a low public trust on important companies, these practitioners had been considered by journalists to be “less self-interested” and “candid” (Bronstein, 2006, p. 77) and that also led to dangers and ethical slips, too.

To solve this delicate problem, Bronstein (2006) argues for PR practices that encourage fair reporting, truth respecting and responsible advocacy. In this context, I think it is still important to underline that it is not the public relations firms, companies or practitioners’ fault for the poor economic condition of journalism (decreasing number of journalism jobs, closure of newspapers, radio and TV outlets, decline in advertising revenues).

PR vs. Journalism – The journalists’ perspective

In 1971, Jeremy Tunstall published a book, Journalists at Work that will turn out to be a cornerstone on research on journalists in UK and globally. Turnstall did the research on 200 specialists newsgathering journalists, employed by 23 national news organizations from UK (Tunstall, 1971, p. 1). Tunstall analysed the journalists from a sociological point of view and his intention was to explain what the characteristics of the newsgathering activity. Among other themes, Tunstall (1971) also addressed the relationship between journalists and PR practitioners.

Back in 1970s, the journalists showed a great concern on their relation with public relations industry. Tunstall explained that journalists were reluctant to accept information from the PR departments of companies, although these departments were reliable sources of information for media. The form of PR least respected by journalists was that organized by intermediaries (PR or advertising firms), because, as Tunstall (1971, pp. 175-176) explained one person handled the accounts of various clients, and this was considered to be “bizarre”. The most accepted PR was this one conducted by non-commercial and non-government organization. But, as Tunstall argues, journalists preferred to work with companies that had an active PR department and that employed practitioners with journalism experience.

When it comes to PR content, Tunstall wrote that journalists considered the public relations material as “junk” (Tunstall, 1971, p. 181). Out of 15 or 20 materials delivered by only one or two were used as “a basis for a story” (Tunstall, 1971, p. 181). If we compare these figures with the ones presented by Bronstein (2000, 76), and above-mentioned in this paper, 25%-40% of the present-day media content rely on PR, then we get a serious question mark related to the PR-journalism relationship.

What were the conditions for this disastrous situation for journalism? Tunstall wrote back in 1971: “By helping specialists to cover ‘all’ the news, to work at speed, to meet deadlines, and to present lively material briefly, public relations has much success. However, with every success there goes an element of failure. Although specialists use much public relations material, they tend to see anything that emerges in this form as devalued; moreover the speed and efficiency of public relations activity allows specialists time to continue looking for other stories” (Tunstall, 1971, p. 181). It looks like journalism and PR figured out a way of living together, and doing their duty to the public. PR practitioners prepared press releases or press conference, while journalists decided to use them as source of information if they identified the newsworthiness. The relationship was not an easy one, but it proved to be productive for both sides: journalists got information on companies or products very fast and PR people had a chance to promote in media the good image of the company and its products.

In 2009, a well-know journalist, Nick Davies, also conducted a research on British journalists, in which he also analysed the relationship between journalists and PR practitioners. His book, which is not a sociological research, but a journalistic account, demonizes PR. “Most PR activity does not involve outright falsehood”, underlines Davies (2009, p. 121), but distortion of truth and manipulation of reporters. Davies (2009, pp. 122) explains how the PR practitioners know very well how the news reporters work and how subject are chosen. PR people make good use of this knowledge by distributing information or even ready-made stories. On the other hand, Davies (2009, p. 126) explains that “Journalists in search of quick, easy stories are vulnerable to (…) pseudo-news, contrived by specialists who understand the rules of production in the news factory”. Davies (2000, p. 130-131) also speaks of pseudo-events, pseudo-experts, pseudo-evidence, pseudo-leaks, pseudo-illnesses, pseudo-world, all created by PR. It looks like PR managed to colonise the journalists who are unable to counter-attack this industry. It looks like the innocent face of PR from the professional codes of ethics and the devious face of PR from accounts like Davies’ are far from being entirely correct.

Conclusions

I presented in the introduction paragraph of this paper the case of Romanian journalists who accepted a press trip in New Zealand. The value of this press trip was 10.000 euros/person (Avadani, 2016, p. 29). The journalists were important media figures, and we may assume that they knew exactly how much a press trip cost, what the implication of accepting such a gift from a company were, and how the public distrusted the company RMGC. A report on corruption in Romania concluded that the whole Romanian media system acted as a “corrupted actor and a collaboration in a corruption act” (Avadani, 2016, pp. 29-30) in dealing with RMGC. It is also true that in the effort of attracting public’s approval on open-pit, cyanide-based gold exploitation at Rosia Montana, RMGC used all the PR tools. It also invested 12 million Euro in advertising, between 2007 and 2010, in the Romanian media; it became one of the major advertising players in a difficult period of economic crisis (Avadani, 2016, p. 26). Nevertheless, media chose to be colonised the PR practitioners that designed that campaign. This colonisation implied press trips (apparently there were several press trip, not just one), positive coverage, silencing of the critics, partial reporting etc. (for the full description, see Avadani, 2016, p. 27-28).

This example and the opinions of the academics or journalists above-presented lead to the argument of accepting “Journalism’s colonisation by PR” as a trend of the nowadays public communication. However, several accents should be inserted. This colonisation is not a forced or imposed one. It is, as argue the cited authors, accepted by journalists. This acceptance is driven by economic reasons, for which, as I said before, PR cannot be blamed. The decreasing number of journalism jobs, the closure of newspapers, radio and TV outlets, or the decline in advertising revenues for media are triggered by economic and societal factors, and these events have a negative influence on the PR industry, too. The PR industry is still very tightly closed of journalism industry.

To diminish the PR’s negative influence on journalistic scrutiny, Moloney (2000) argues that PR should define itself as a persuasive media system, doing commercial communication. However, Moloney (2000) does not touch the issue of ethics in PR. From this point of view, I think that the contribution of Bronstein (2006) about the responsible advocacy offers a better answer to the problem of journalism’s colonisation of PR. Both PR and journalism industry should strengthen their codes of practice, and should apply the professional ethics more carefully. This “love-hate” relationship should transform into a mature and normal one, taking into consideration that the public is at stake, and also the good image of two communication professions: journalism and public relations. Contrary to this theory, as Thekler &Yaxley say, ´´ psychologists, therefore, study the formation of attitudes (learned evaluations), beliefs (subjective expectations) and values (guiding principles) and their relationship to behaviour.´´ Social learning theories suggest that people acquire mental rules relating to positive or negative outcomes which reinforce behavioural responses. These and other relevant cognitive aspects can be researched within the PR planning process(Theaker & Yaxley, 2012). In conclusion, current practices recognizethat PR practitioners face significant challenges from fragmented audiences, greater access to uncontrolled media, a more aggressive media, frequent challenges to government policies and to the principles active. People of integrity are most highly regarded; it is one of the keys to having a good reputation. ´´For an individual of reputation to be in charge of an organisation's most precious asset the relationships on which its own reputation .´´ (Tench & Yeomans, 2017).

References

AVADANI, Ioana (2016, Aug. 31) Case studies on corruption involving journalists: Romania. EU Grant Agreement number: 290529, Project acronym: ANTICORRP, Project title: Anti-Corruption Policies Revisited, Work Package: WP 6 Media and corruption. Retrived from: http://anticorrp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/D6.2_Romania.pdf

BIVINS, Thomas H. (2006) Responsibility and Accountability. In: Kathy Fitzpatrick & Carolyn Bronstein (eds.), Ethics in Public Relations. Responsible Advocay (pp.19-38). Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 19-38.

BRONSTEIN, Carolyn (2006) Responsible Advocacy for Nonprofit Organizations. In: Kathy Fitzpatrick & Carolyn Bronstein (eds.), Ethics in Public Relations. Responsible Advocay (pp.71-89). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

BUCURENCI, Dragoș (2010, Aug. 24) Excursia, aurul și academicienii. bucurenci.ro [blog post]. Retrived from: http://bucurenci.ro/2010/08/24/excursia-aurul-si-academicienii/

CIOBANU, Claudia (2016, Oct. 7) Cum luptă statul român pentru Roșia Montană? digi24.ro. Retrived from: https://www.digi24.ro/opinii/cum-lupta-statul-roman-pentru-rosia-montana-583059

DAVIES, Nick (2009) Flat Earth News, an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media. London: Vintage.

HENDRIX, Jerry A.&HAYES, Darrell C. (2007) Public Relations Cases, 7th edition. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

GREGORY, Anne (2015) Planning and managing public relations campaigns a strategic approach, 4th edition. London: Kogan Page.

L’ETANG, Jacquie (2008) Public Relations – Concepts, Practice and Critique. London: Sage.

L'ETANG, J. (2013). Public relations in Britain (p. 79). London: Routledge.

MORRIS, Trevor & GOLDSWORTHY Simon (2012) PR Today – the authoritative guide to public relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

MORRIS, T., & GOLDSWORTHY, S. (2011). The Authoritative Guide to Public Relations (p. 230). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

OBAE, Petrisor (2010, Aug. 20) Roșia Montana duce șefii din presă în Noua Zeelandă, paginademedia.ro. Retrived from https://www.paginademedia.ro/2010/08/ro%c8%99ia-montana-duce-%c8%99efii-din-presa-in-noua-zeelanda

PERLOFF, Richard M (2014) The Dynamics of Persuasion – communication and attitudes in the 21st century. Abingdon: Routledge.

SMITH, Craig S (2007, Jan. 3) Fighting Over Gold in the Land of Dracula. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/business/worldbusiness/03gold.html?referer=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/

THEAKER, A. (2014). The public relations handbook (5th ed., p. 89). New York: Routledge.

THEAKER, A., & YAXLEY, H. (2012). The public relations handbook (p. 103). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

TUNSTALL, Jeremy (1971) Journalists at Work. Specialist correspondents: their news organizations, news sources, and competitor-colleagues. London: Constable.

TENCH, R., & YEOMANS, L. (2017). Exploring public relations (p. 197). Harlow: Pearson.

WRIGHT, Donald K. (2006) Advocacy across Borders. In: Kathy Fitzpatrick & Carolyn Bronstein (eds.), Ethics in Public Relations. Responsible Advocay (pp. 171-190). Thousand Oaks: Sage.