Propaganda and Publicity: The Evils of PR?

Up until recently, I must admit, I thought of Public Relations in much the same way as many other ignorant folk out there. I have, however, come to realise that the myth of the ‘spin-doctor’ is exactly that, a myth. Many people in the world today fail to think beyond the pages of their magazines or the shelves of their supermarkets and therefore never question how a product ends up in their convenient, arms-length reach. A crucial factor in the public buying a product is educating the public that the product exists. This is PR.

The readings this week touched on the issue of terminology that is commonly used to describe Public Relations. Jane Johnston, Clara Zawawi and Jeff Brand noted that “sometimes the phrase ‘public relations’ is avoided in job titles because…the term is synonymous with ‘spin’ or ‘spin-doctoring’, which have negative connotations of putting a slant on a subject or disguising or hiding information in order to have something appear in a favourable light” (Johnston et. al. 2009, p. 4). This view of ‘spin-doctoring’ is, unfortunately, one held by many, however, with the event of PR personnel becoming less mysterious through means of growing technology and social media people are able to see that the role of PR is not to simply make a product appear good but to build a reputation for their client. In today’s tech-savvy, fast-paced world this reputation cannot be based on lies and ‘spin’ as secrets reach the public too fast to cover any tracks.

This conception of ‘spin-doctoring’ links in many ways to the view that PR is propaganda, which is partly true in the fact that the so-called ‘father of modern public relations’ Edward Bernays favoured the propaganda theory of PR. This is shown in his 1928 book, Propaganda, when he states that “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society” (Johnston et. al. 2009, p. 49). However, this analysis of PR quickly became unpopular after the conflict with Germany in World War II due to the use of propaganda by the Nazis. But the question still remains, is PR ‘weak propaganda’ like Kevin Moloney suggests or is propaganda a historical manifestation of PR? The latter would suggest that we have progressed to a more ethical and acceptable practice, but do practitioners today still fall into the ‘evil’ trap of propaganda?

Another point that was made in the readings this week was that PR has a history of publicity stunts beginning with Phineas T. Barnum, an American who used stunts to gain press coverage for his circus. This was followed up in Australia by a man in Roman dress riding a chariot from Sydney to Melbourne to promote the film Ben Hur in the early decades of the 20^th century. This is no longer the only way for products and causes to gain press coverage, however, that does not mean that manifestations of the publicity stunt no longer exist. Many PR practitioners utilize this tool to kick start media coverage, for example, Bark in the Park (a concert and gathering for dogs and dog-lovers in Sydney and Melbourne) is a great example of this. It provides elements such as music, competitions and celebrity hosts in order to attract crowds and press coverage. However, many seen today are slightly more watered down from Edward Bernays’ ‘Torches or Freedom’ used in the 1920s to promote cigarettes to women.

This week’s readings truly show the ways in which PR has changed through the decades and the issues associated with defining it. However, no matter how you look at PR one thing is certain: it is essential to our consumer-driven economies and our want-driven cultures.

Au revoir,

Kobe.

Readings:  Johnston et. al. 2009. Public Relations: Theory and Practice (3rd Edition). Chapters 1-3.