- Email: [email protected]
The image of public relations in mass comm texts
C a r o l ~ Cline
The Image Of Public Relations In Mass C o m m Texts The information supplied to freshman and sophomores about public relations leaves a lot to be desired from the practitioner's standpoint, according to this author, who compared PR sections in 12 introductory mass communication texts. Sire identified a general confusion about tire tasks of advertising and public relations, a lack of consistent historical backgrounding and an insidious bias that characterizes public relations practitioners as journalists who have "sold out.'" In light of tlre increasing mlmber of students enrolling in public relations sequences, this problem deserves study and action, slze says. Carolyn Cline is an assistant professor in the Department of Jourszalism at tlre University of Texas, Austin.
1 lpR is dangerous. Publicists do not often lie, but telling half the truth .a. is an integral part of their business, and stretching the truth is not uncommon. Moreover, they do it in secret; their work does not carry the unspoken caveat emptor of paid advertising. ''~ "Many turn to the PR specialists whose prime function is obtaining that space free of charge. (An extreme example of free media coverage happens when fringe political groups kidnap or assassinate well-known people just to focus media attention on their concerns.) ''2 "Idealistic journalists look down .their noses at people who 'prostitute' their media skills in the interest of a client, rather than use them for the public good. ''3 "The very term 'public relations counselor' suggests the status-seeking that led undertakers to call themselves morticians, janitors to call themselves maintenance engineers, and garbage collectors to call themselves sanitary haulers. ''~ The above quotes are from textbooks in introductory mass communications. All but one have been published since 1978. They are, sadly, representative of the misunderstanding, bias and ignorance about public relations that permeates most of the textbooks in the field.
Public Relations
Relqe,,"
This study of 12 introductory books shows a confusion about the relationship of advertising and public relations, a lack of historical backgrounding, and a fierce anti-public relations stance hardly off-set by some grudging acknowledgement of the existence of PRSA, codes of ethics and a few honest practitioners. While there are a few exceptions, students in the introductory mass media courses which use these texts are receiving a negative introduction to public relations. Paul Peterson's 1980 study of career goals of journalism majors revealed that "the largest percentage, 20.8 percent, envision themselves working in the field of public relations. ''5 Yet their educational exposure to public relations may be weak. This new majority, according to a 1981 AEJ panel, is enrolled in programs "still dominated by faculty with news/editorial orientation."4 Albert Walker's 1981 study reported that "practically all teachers of public relations could say they 'never had a course in public relations. '''7 Likewise, the mass communication textbooks are dominated by writers with a news/editorial background who have not done their homework. These authors are assigning to public relations the role .of the bastard stepchild of communications--the role one adopts in order to sell out and become a flack if one doesn't like the low wages in journalism. Methodology F.or this study, the author analyzed nine textbooks in mass communication: John Bittner, Mass Communication: An Introduction (Prentice-Hall, 1980) Charlene Brown, Trevor R. Brown and William Rivers, The Media and tlre People (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978) Mary B. Cassata and Malefi K. Asante, Mass Communication: Principles and Practices (Macmillan, 1979) Melvin DeFleur and Everette Dennis, Understanding Mass Communication (Houghton Mifflin, 1981) Fred Fedler, An Introduction to tlreMass Media (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978) Ray Eldon Hiebert, Donald Ungurait and Thomas Bohn, Mass Media II (Longman, 1979) Don R. Pember, Mass Media in America (SRA, 1981) Peter M. Sandman, David Rubin and David B. Sachsman, Media: An Introductory Analysis of American Mass Communications (Prentice-Hall, 1976) Edward Jay Whetmore, Mediaamerica: Form, Content and Consequence of Mass Communication (Wadsworth, 1979) In addition, three books of selected readings in introductory mass communications were analyzed: Robert Atway, Barry Orton and Willian Vesterman, eds., American Mass Media: Industries and Issues (Random House, 1978) 64
M~s Comm Tex~ Michael Emery and Ted Curtis Smythe, Readings in Mass Communication: Concepts and Issues in the Mass Media (William C. Brown, Co., 1980) Alan Wells, Mass Media and Society (Mayfield, 1979) Three major areas were explored: 1. The relationship between advertising and public relations, both in terms of allocation of space and in terms of the author's perception of the relationship between the two fields; 2. The coverage of public relations history, trends, and major issues; 3. The expressed attitude toward public relations. Advertising and Public Relations Public relations and advertising are inexorably linked. Bittner: "Public relations is directly related to advertising. In fact, there is only a fine line distinguishing them. Whereas advertising is concerned with selling a product, public relations is concerned with creating a favorable image. ''s Brown, et al.: PR and advertising have "basic aims so alike they are often linked. "'9 Sandman, et al.: "Advertising and public relations are so often intertwined that it is hard to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. '''~ Likewise, the chapters on advertising and public relations are most often intertwined. Only Hiebert, et al., gives public relations a chapter separate from advertising. In most books, public relations is tacked on to a chapter called."The Persuaders" or "Advertising and Public Relations." Generally, advertising gets the most space. Public relations generally comes out rather low. Of course, the link of public relations to advertising is not confined to mass communication texts. The AEJ panel, even while considering the two disciplines as "the new majority," stressed that "in some schools PR and advertising are combined into one sequence, causing some confusion. ''H Walker reported that 8 percent of the program in his study had such a combination and four out of five public relations programs required their students to take at least one advertising course? 2 Yet, advertising and public relations are separate fields and deserve acknowledgement as such. The AEJ panel reported that "PR as a career and as an academic discipline has "gained new respect.' 'A distinct body of knowledge' has developed for public relations, and journalism education 'should reject its mere token recognition of PR as a distinct disciplilne. "''~3 But how well do the authors cover this body of knowledge? Coverage of History, Trends and Major Issues An admittedly subjective checklist was drawn up to quantify coverage of basic fundamentals of public relations; the author theorized that an introductory chapter should cover the following: 9 The history of public relations, especially with reference to the long history of persuasive communications, and such pioneers as Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays, with a nod toward P.T. Barnum; 65
Public Relations
Review
\ %
mNN
% ,el
% % %
66
~
m~
M a s s C o m m Tex~ts
9 A brief description of the functions and duties of a public relations practitioner; 9 An examination of the organization and structure of public relations, i.e., internal and external communication, agencies, and various fields of public relations, such as non-profit, corporate, etc.; 9 Mention of professional organizations, such as PRSA, and trends in accreditation; " 9 A look at a few examples, or case studies, in public relations. Only Hiebert, et al., met all the criteria; Pember was close, but somehow made accreditation "mandatory" for PRSA members. Other authors were very sketchy in what they chose to cover: For one text, the practice of public relations began in 1889 when Westinghouse hired two counselors to promote alternating current." For another, history stopped with the Harvard fund-raising trip in 1641, since PR "techniques had already been established before the American Revolution. ''~ But for DeFleur and Dennis, "Public relations is a rather new field. It began just a few decades ago with publicity campaigns designed to persuade the public to a particular point of view. ''~6 Whetmore is entranced with Barnum, "the acknowledged king of PR pioneers. ''~7 He dismisses Lee and Bernays as just some of the "ex-newspapermen who became famous for successful publicity campaigns for railroads, steel corporations and others. ''~8 Most of the authors who grappled with where and how public relations began, or how it grew out of press agentry, cite Cutlip and Center as their major source; yet, Cutlip and Center explain that the roots of persuasive communication "go back to antiquity" and warn against "simply saying that it grew out of press agentry. ''~9 In short, the roots of public relations go back to either antiquity or the mid-20th century. A few writers, such as-Hiebert, detail public relations history from the printing press until the 1970s, but most center around a few prominent great men, and give short shrift to the development of the field. Only four of the texts deal with the functions and duties of the PR practitioner. DeFleur and Dennis turn to Cutlip and Center for the four basic steps in a PR program, and Hiebert lists eight PR functions from the PRSA guide, Careers in Public Relations. In Fedler's book, corporate PR activities are discussed, while Pember offers a description of PR functions by Carl Byoir and Associates. For others, public relations is either a shrouded activity or the mere generation of publicity. Brown, et. al., is particularly vague, writing first that "A few advertising and PR people have confessed in their memoirs that they did work they detested for money they didn't earn to buy things they didn't need to impress people they didn't like. ''2~ Later, the text quotes Martin Mayer, author of Madison Avenue, U.S.A.: Public relations works behind the scenes; ocasionally the hand of the PR man can be seen shifting some bulky fact out of sight, but 67
Public Relations
Review
\
t~
%
68
M a s s C o m m Tex~ts
usually the public relations practitioner stands at the other end of a long rope which winds around several pulleys before it reaches the object of his invisible tugging. 21 When he comes out from the shadows, the PR practitioner's job, for most authors, is "to supply the media with one-sided information that masquerades as objective news. '':2 PR is publicity, pure and simple. Sandman, et al., goes so far as to reprint the "Guide for Publicity Heads" provided by a suburban New Jersey weekly, including the deadline for all copy (Monday noon) and the office number (11) of the newspaper. 23 The role of public relations in opinion research, corporate planning, internal communication, public affairs, and so forth, is not usually mentioned. Only Hiebert, et al., lists the top public relations firms; only three other books deal with the way PR functions. DeFleur and Dennis takes a solid look at six forms of PR organization, Fedler offers a rather confused look at PR, chiefly in the corporate structure, and Whetmore skims over the topics of corporate and agency public relations. Only two texts, Hiebert, et al., and DeFleur and Dennis, mention PRSA and get the issue of accreditation right; Cassatta and Asante prints the Code of Ethics for PRSA. Two other texts mention accreditation, but have made it "mandatory" for all PRSA members. Most of the books use examples of public relations--some stressing products, other community action programs--but most emphasize publicity. The most bizarre example of "PR" has to be DeFleur and Dennis's analysis of the Ayatollah Khomeini's power struggle against the Shah, "'a public relations program that worked even without the mass media. ''24 The less negative authors seem to see the trends as being toward increased professionalism and increased reliance upon modern research and communication tools. The issues, generally, center around ethics and the reputation of public practitioners. An article reprinted from Business Week in Emery and Smythe uses interviews and data to examine the role of public relations in current corporate structure. The majority of books express a fear of the growing power of public relations in corporate America and a concern that journalists are heeding the siren song of news releases. Says Brown, et al.: "It is a measure of the importance of PR in the modern economy that public relations specialists are holding scores of corporate vice presidencies and that many are serving as company directors. The atmosphere has proved so heady that PR people speak increasingly of their 'profession' and its fast-developing ' p r e s t i g e ' . . . . There is reason to doubt this sweeping role and even more reason to question some of the methods of modern PR. ''zs However, only six pages later, there is this: "The journalist's professed disdain for PR is, for the most part, no more than hypocritical posturing. 69
Public Relations Review Most journalists acknowledge that the honest practice of PR . . . is an invaluable service. ''26 Whether the complaints of journalists are "'hypocritical posturing" or not, echoing through the texts is the resentment of reporters for their former colleagues who have "sold out" to the higher-paying public relations jobs. Whetmore states that "competent reporters who leave journalism for PR can expect an immediate salary increase of 25 percent or so. ''2r No source is given for the figure. Brown states that "Today, journalists, from whose ranks many public relations specialists are recruited, tend to look down on [PR practitioners]--perhaps a little out of envy of their higher salaries, perhaps much more in disdain of their 'selling out to higher interests. '''2s Sometimes, the disdain is from a feeling of manipulation by skilled racks. Whetmore even provides the AP managing editor's guidelines to define a "'rack," debates whether PR's relationship with the media is "parasitic" or merely "symbiotic," relates that "some contend that those in PR are 'hype artists' who will stop at nothing to get their cllents favorable publicity," and dismisses public relations practitioners' complaints against journalists as "a matter of debate. ''29 Sandman, et al., as earlier quoted, worries about the half-truth, and the stretching of the truth, which are integral parts of PR, and the fact that the government has yet to regulate the industry. With a nearly audible sigh, he concludes that "advertising and public relations have been around too long to be eliminated now. ''3~ Most of these quotes have been negative; this study concluded that this negative bias predominates in the majority of the books. The books of readings were the hardest to judge: Emery and Smythe's pieces were strongly pro-PR (one was a defense of public relations reprinted from PR Journal), while Wells and Atway, et al., ignored public relations completely. A ranking of the remaining books in terms of "objectivity" is impossible using this methodology. An evaluative assertion analysis could reveal more precise attitudes, but for now, a more subjective evaluation will have to suffice. A minority of books take a balanced view, notably Hiebert, et. al., and DeFleur and Dennis. Neither ignores valid complaints against the unethical practitioner, while offering a view of an emerging professionalism and responsibility. Most books castigate the journalist who falls into the trap of the PR rack, and some excuse him, for "the reporter is as much a victim [of PR skills] as the rest of us. ''31 Others "balance" their treatment of public relations by citing a few good examples, followed by Nixon's Watergate "PR problem," other examples of deceptive product publicity, or descriptions of situations where the ethics were questionable. Pember sums up the problem best: "The profession is being judged unfairly, the 'true' public relations practitioner argues. The newspapers and magazine press as a whole 70
Mass Comm Texts
is not judged by the standards of The National Enquirer or The Police Gazette. Public relations practitioners argue that their field should not be evaluated by the behavior of gaudy publicists. ''3: Yet that is precisely what most of these authors have done. Students studying the mass media are given information that says public relations is a prostitute's profession, one which includes terrorists, the Ayatollah Khomeini and the first U.S. president to resign his office. They are shown the PR practitioner as a posturing flack, deceiving, pushing, and employing techniques which "run the gamut from handouts to junkets, from press conferences to bribes, ''33 with one ultimate goal: "to control the content of the media.":" Conclusion Why such a bad image? Authors, traditionally schooled as journalists, perhaps inherited the anti-PR bias, and equated public relations with publicity and press agentry. The sources most frequently cited were Cutlip and Center, along with Bernays" Crystallizing Public Opinion, Simon's Public Relations and Newsom and Scott's This Is PR: The Realities of Public Relations. Still, with dismal regularity, the bias came through. Although it is anguish for a PR instructor to read these texts, the problem rests in the potential impact upon the student. With one-fifth of the journalism students planning on a career in public relations, but with only 11 percent of them in a PR major in 198035, a substantial number of students may go through a news-editorial sequence and feel they have "sold out" to go into public relations. Moreover, such textbooks may perpetuate the antagonism between reporters and practitioners. If these authors represent what is being taught in mass communications courses, are the schools accurately representing public relations? Most public relations instructors can relate incidents of bias from other communicators; one of m y own advisers (a journalist) still wants to know "What the hell is there to teach in PR?" Nearly half of the public relations sequences are in journalism or mass communication programs; only 13.5 percent stand alone or with advertising. 3* If public relations educators are willing to allow the propaganda to go unchecked, we must resign ourselves to another generation which views public relations as less ethical, less professional--but better-paying--than journalism, the profession responsible for "Jimmy's World" and the Washington Post's "Ear." It's time public relations cleaned up its image in the textbooks. References ~Peter M. Sandman, David M. Rubin, David B. Sachsman, Media: An Introductory Analysis of American Mass Communications (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976), p. 367. 2Edward Jay Whetmore, Mediaamerica: Form, Content and Consequence of Mass Communication (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1979), p. 265. 3Whetmore, p. 266.
71
Public Relations Rel~ew 4Charlene Brown, Trevor R. Brown, William Rivers, The Media and the People (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978), p. 384. SPaul V. Peterson, "Enrollments are tiigher--But How Much Higher?" Journalism Educator, January 1981, p. 7. 6WilliamJ. Roepke, "Educators Ponder Shifts in Student Career Goals," Journalism Educator, October 1981, p. 7. 7Albert J. Walker, Status and Trends in Public Relations Education in U.S. Senior Colleges and Universities 1981 (New York: Foundation for Public Relations Research and Education, 1981), p. 10. SJohn R. Bittner, Mass Communication: An Introduction (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hail, 1980) p. 256. 9Brown, p. 379. ~~ p. 362. "Roepke, p. 7. 12Walker, p. 6. ~3Roepke, p. 7. ~Michael Emery and Ted Curtis Smythe, Readings in Mass Comm,mication: Concepts and Issues in the Mass Media (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, 1980), p. 395. ~sSandman, p. 362. ~Melvin L. DeFleur and Everette E. Dennis, Understanding Mass Communication (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981) p. 471. ~zWhetmore, p. 264. ISlbid. 'gScott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center, Effective Public Relations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978) p. 66. 2~ pp. 378-9. 211bid., p. 379. Z~Sandman, p. 367. Z~lbid., p. 364. ~4DeFleur, p. 472. 25Brown, p. 386. ~Brown, p. 392. 2zWhetmore, p. 265. ~Brown, p. 384. 2~Whetmore, p. 266. 3~ p. 367. 311bid., p. 365. 32Don R. Pember, Mass Media in America (Chicago: SRA, 1981) p. 281. ~Sandman, p. 363. ~Ibid. ~Peterson, p. 6. ~Walker, p. 1.
72
The Image Of Public Relations In Mass C o m m Texts The information supplied to freshman and sophomores about public relations leaves a lot to be desired from the practitioner's standpoint, according to this author, who compared PR sections in 12 introductory mass communication texts. Sire identified a general confusion about tire tasks of advertising and public relations, a lack of consistent historical backgrounding and an insidious bias that characterizes public relations practitioners as journalists who have "sold out.'" In light of tlre increasing mlmber of students enrolling in public relations sequences, this problem deserves study and action, slze says. Carolyn Cline is an assistant professor in the Department of Jourszalism at tlre University of Texas, Austin.
1 lpR is dangerous. Publicists do not often lie, but telling half the truth .a. is an integral part of their business, and stretching the truth is not uncommon. Moreover, they do it in secret; their work does not carry the unspoken caveat emptor of paid advertising. ''~ "Many turn to the PR specialists whose prime function is obtaining that space free of charge. (An extreme example of free media coverage happens when fringe political groups kidnap or assassinate well-known people just to focus media attention on their concerns.) ''2 "Idealistic journalists look down .their noses at people who 'prostitute' their media skills in the interest of a client, rather than use them for the public good. ''3 "The very term 'public relations counselor' suggests the status-seeking that led undertakers to call themselves morticians, janitors to call themselves maintenance engineers, and garbage collectors to call themselves sanitary haulers. ''~ The above quotes are from textbooks in introductory mass communications. All but one have been published since 1978. They are, sadly, representative of the misunderstanding, bias and ignorance about public relations that permeates most of the textbooks in the field.
Public Relations
Relqe,,"
This study of 12 introductory books shows a confusion about the relationship of advertising and public relations, a lack of historical backgrounding, and a fierce anti-public relations stance hardly off-set by some grudging acknowledgement of the existence of PRSA, codes of ethics and a few honest practitioners. While there are a few exceptions, students in the introductory mass media courses which use these texts are receiving a negative introduction to public relations. Paul Peterson's 1980 study of career goals of journalism majors revealed that "the largest percentage, 20.8 percent, envision themselves working in the field of public relations. ''5 Yet their educational exposure to public relations may be weak. This new majority, according to a 1981 AEJ panel, is enrolled in programs "still dominated by faculty with news/editorial orientation."4 Albert Walker's 1981 study reported that "practically all teachers of public relations could say they 'never had a course in public relations. '''7 Likewise, the mass communication textbooks are dominated by writers with a news/editorial background who have not done their homework. These authors are assigning to public relations the role .of the bastard stepchild of communications--the role one adopts in order to sell out and become a flack if one doesn't like the low wages in journalism. Methodology F.or this study, the author analyzed nine textbooks in mass communication: John Bittner, Mass Communication: An Introduction (Prentice-Hall, 1980) Charlene Brown, Trevor R. Brown and William Rivers, The Media and tlre People (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978) Mary B. Cassata and Malefi K. Asante, Mass Communication: Principles and Practices (Macmillan, 1979) Melvin DeFleur and Everette Dennis, Understanding Mass Communication (Houghton Mifflin, 1981) Fred Fedler, An Introduction to tlreMass Media (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978) Ray Eldon Hiebert, Donald Ungurait and Thomas Bohn, Mass Media II (Longman, 1979) Don R. Pember, Mass Media in America (SRA, 1981) Peter M. Sandman, David Rubin and David B. Sachsman, Media: An Introductory Analysis of American Mass Communications (Prentice-Hall, 1976) Edward Jay Whetmore, Mediaamerica: Form, Content and Consequence of Mass Communication (Wadsworth, 1979) In addition, three books of selected readings in introductory mass communications were analyzed: Robert Atway, Barry Orton and Willian Vesterman, eds., American Mass Media: Industries and Issues (Random House, 1978) 64
M~s Comm Tex~ Michael Emery and Ted Curtis Smythe, Readings in Mass Communication: Concepts and Issues in the Mass Media (William C. Brown, Co., 1980) Alan Wells, Mass Media and Society (Mayfield, 1979) Three major areas were explored: 1. The relationship between advertising and public relations, both in terms of allocation of space and in terms of the author's perception of the relationship between the two fields; 2. The coverage of public relations history, trends, and major issues; 3. The expressed attitude toward public relations. Advertising and Public Relations Public relations and advertising are inexorably linked. Bittner: "Public relations is directly related to advertising. In fact, there is only a fine line distinguishing them. Whereas advertising is concerned with selling a product, public relations is concerned with creating a favorable image. ''s Brown, et al.: PR and advertising have "basic aims so alike they are often linked. "'9 Sandman, et al.: "Advertising and public relations are so often intertwined that it is hard to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. '''~ Likewise, the chapters on advertising and public relations are most often intertwined. Only Hiebert, et al., gives public relations a chapter separate from advertising. In most books, public relations is tacked on to a chapter called."The Persuaders" or "Advertising and Public Relations." Generally, advertising gets the most space. Public relations generally comes out rather low. Of course, the link of public relations to advertising is not confined to mass communication texts. The AEJ panel, even while considering the two disciplines as "the new majority," stressed that "in some schools PR and advertising are combined into one sequence, causing some confusion. ''H Walker reported that 8 percent of the program in his study had such a combination and four out of five public relations programs required their students to take at least one advertising course? 2 Yet, advertising and public relations are separate fields and deserve acknowledgement as such. The AEJ panel reported that "PR as a career and as an academic discipline has "gained new respect.' 'A distinct body of knowledge' has developed for public relations, and journalism education 'should reject its mere token recognition of PR as a distinct disciplilne. "''~3 But how well do the authors cover this body of knowledge? Coverage of History, Trends and Major Issues An admittedly subjective checklist was drawn up to quantify coverage of basic fundamentals of public relations; the author theorized that an introductory chapter should cover the following: 9 The history of public relations, especially with reference to the long history of persuasive communications, and such pioneers as Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays, with a nod toward P.T. Barnum; 65
Public Relations
Review
\ %
mNN
% ,el
% % %
66
~
m~
M a s s C o m m Tex~ts
9 A brief description of the functions and duties of a public relations practitioner; 9 An examination of the organization and structure of public relations, i.e., internal and external communication, agencies, and various fields of public relations, such as non-profit, corporate, etc.; 9 Mention of professional organizations, such as PRSA, and trends in accreditation; " 9 A look at a few examples, or case studies, in public relations. Only Hiebert, et al., met all the criteria; Pember was close, but somehow made accreditation "mandatory" for PRSA members. Other authors were very sketchy in what they chose to cover: For one text, the practice of public relations began in 1889 when Westinghouse hired two counselors to promote alternating current." For another, history stopped with the Harvard fund-raising trip in 1641, since PR "techniques had already been established before the American Revolution. ''~ But for DeFleur and Dennis, "Public relations is a rather new field. It began just a few decades ago with publicity campaigns designed to persuade the public to a particular point of view. ''~6 Whetmore is entranced with Barnum, "the acknowledged king of PR pioneers. ''~7 He dismisses Lee and Bernays as just some of the "ex-newspapermen who became famous for successful publicity campaigns for railroads, steel corporations and others. ''~8 Most of the authors who grappled with where and how public relations began, or how it grew out of press agentry, cite Cutlip and Center as their major source; yet, Cutlip and Center explain that the roots of persuasive communication "go back to antiquity" and warn against "simply saying that it grew out of press agentry. ''~9 In short, the roots of public relations go back to either antiquity or the mid-20th century. A few writers, such as-Hiebert, detail public relations history from the printing press until the 1970s, but most center around a few prominent great men, and give short shrift to the development of the field. Only four of the texts deal with the functions and duties of the PR practitioner. DeFleur and Dennis turn to Cutlip and Center for the four basic steps in a PR program, and Hiebert lists eight PR functions from the PRSA guide, Careers in Public Relations. In Fedler's book, corporate PR activities are discussed, while Pember offers a description of PR functions by Carl Byoir and Associates. For others, public relations is either a shrouded activity or the mere generation of publicity. Brown, et. al., is particularly vague, writing first that "A few advertising and PR people have confessed in their memoirs that they did work they detested for money they didn't earn to buy things they didn't need to impress people they didn't like. ''2~ Later, the text quotes Martin Mayer, author of Madison Avenue, U.S.A.: Public relations works behind the scenes; ocasionally the hand of the PR man can be seen shifting some bulky fact out of sight, but 67
Public Relations
Review
\
t~
%
68
M a s s C o m m Tex~ts
usually the public relations practitioner stands at the other end of a long rope which winds around several pulleys before it reaches the object of his invisible tugging. 21 When he comes out from the shadows, the PR practitioner's job, for most authors, is "to supply the media with one-sided information that masquerades as objective news. '':2 PR is publicity, pure and simple. Sandman, et al., goes so far as to reprint the "Guide for Publicity Heads" provided by a suburban New Jersey weekly, including the deadline for all copy (Monday noon) and the office number (11) of the newspaper. 23 The role of public relations in opinion research, corporate planning, internal communication, public affairs, and so forth, is not usually mentioned. Only Hiebert, et al., lists the top public relations firms; only three other books deal with the way PR functions. DeFleur and Dennis takes a solid look at six forms of PR organization, Fedler offers a rather confused look at PR, chiefly in the corporate structure, and Whetmore skims over the topics of corporate and agency public relations. Only two texts, Hiebert, et al., and DeFleur and Dennis, mention PRSA and get the issue of accreditation right; Cassatta and Asante prints the Code of Ethics for PRSA. Two other texts mention accreditation, but have made it "mandatory" for all PRSA members. Most of the books use examples of public relations--some stressing products, other community action programs--but most emphasize publicity. The most bizarre example of "PR" has to be DeFleur and Dennis's analysis of the Ayatollah Khomeini's power struggle against the Shah, "'a public relations program that worked even without the mass media. ''24 The less negative authors seem to see the trends as being toward increased professionalism and increased reliance upon modern research and communication tools. The issues, generally, center around ethics and the reputation of public practitioners. An article reprinted from Business Week in Emery and Smythe uses interviews and data to examine the role of public relations in current corporate structure. The majority of books express a fear of the growing power of public relations in corporate America and a concern that journalists are heeding the siren song of news releases. Says Brown, et al.: "It is a measure of the importance of PR in the modern economy that public relations specialists are holding scores of corporate vice presidencies and that many are serving as company directors. The atmosphere has proved so heady that PR people speak increasingly of their 'profession' and its fast-developing ' p r e s t i g e ' . . . . There is reason to doubt this sweeping role and even more reason to question some of the methods of modern PR. ''zs However, only six pages later, there is this: "The journalist's professed disdain for PR is, for the most part, no more than hypocritical posturing. 69
Public Relations Review Most journalists acknowledge that the honest practice of PR . . . is an invaluable service. ''26 Whether the complaints of journalists are "'hypocritical posturing" or not, echoing through the texts is the resentment of reporters for their former colleagues who have "sold out" to the higher-paying public relations jobs. Whetmore states that "competent reporters who leave journalism for PR can expect an immediate salary increase of 25 percent or so. ''2r No source is given for the figure. Brown states that "Today, journalists, from whose ranks many public relations specialists are recruited, tend to look down on [PR practitioners]--perhaps a little out of envy of their higher salaries, perhaps much more in disdain of their 'selling out to higher interests. '''2s Sometimes, the disdain is from a feeling of manipulation by skilled racks. Whetmore even provides the AP managing editor's guidelines to define a "'rack," debates whether PR's relationship with the media is "parasitic" or merely "symbiotic," relates that "some contend that those in PR are 'hype artists' who will stop at nothing to get their cllents favorable publicity," and dismisses public relations practitioners' complaints against journalists as "a matter of debate. ''29 Sandman, et al., as earlier quoted, worries about the half-truth, and the stretching of the truth, which are integral parts of PR, and the fact that the government has yet to regulate the industry. With a nearly audible sigh, he concludes that "advertising and public relations have been around too long to be eliminated now. ''3~ Most of these quotes have been negative; this study concluded that this negative bias predominates in the majority of the books. The books of readings were the hardest to judge: Emery and Smythe's pieces were strongly pro-PR (one was a defense of public relations reprinted from PR Journal), while Wells and Atway, et al., ignored public relations completely. A ranking of the remaining books in terms of "objectivity" is impossible using this methodology. An evaluative assertion analysis could reveal more precise attitudes, but for now, a more subjective evaluation will have to suffice. A minority of books take a balanced view, notably Hiebert, et. al., and DeFleur and Dennis. Neither ignores valid complaints against the unethical practitioner, while offering a view of an emerging professionalism and responsibility. Most books castigate the journalist who falls into the trap of the PR rack, and some excuse him, for "the reporter is as much a victim [of PR skills] as the rest of us. ''31 Others "balance" their treatment of public relations by citing a few good examples, followed by Nixon's Watergate "PR problem," other examples of deceptive product publicity, or descriptions of situations where the ethics were questionable. Pember sums up the problem best: "The profession is being judged unfairly, the 'true' public relations practitioner argues. The newspapers and magazine press as a whole 70
Mass Comm Texts
is not judged by the standards of The National Enquirer or The Police Gazette. Public relations practitioners argue that their field should not be evaluated by the behavior of gaudy publicists. ''3: Yet that is precisely what most of these authors have done. Students studying the mass media are given information that says public relations is a prostitute's profession, one which includes terrorists, the Ayatollah Khomeini and the first U.S. president to resign his office. They are shown the PR practitioner as a posturing flack, deceiving, pushing, and employing techniques which "run the gamut from handouts to junkets, from press conferences to bribes, ''33 with one ultimate goal: "to control the content of the media.":" Conclusion Why such a bad image? Authors, traditionally schooled as journalists, perhaps inherited the anti-PR bias, and equated public relations with publicity and press agentry. The sources most frequently cited were Cutlip and Center, along with Bernays" Crystallizing Public Opinion, Simon's Public Relations and Newsom and Scott's This Is PR: The Realities of Public Relations. Still, with dismal regularity, the bias came through. Although it is anguish for a PR instructor to read these texts, the problem rests in the potential impact upon the student. With one-fifth of the journalism students planning on a career in public relations, but with only 11 percent of them in a PR major in 198035, a substantial number of students may go through a news-editorial sequence and feel they have "sold out" to go into public relations. Moreover, such textbooks may perpetuate the antagonism between reporters and practitioners. If these authors represent what is being taught in mass communications courses, are the schools accurately representing public relations? Most public relations instructors can relate incidents of bias from other communicators; one of m y own advisers (a journalist) still wants to know "What the hell is there to teach in PR?" Nearly half of the public relations sequences are in journalism or mass communication programs; only 13.5 percent stand alone or with advertising. 3* If public relations educators are willing to allow the propaganda to go unchecked, we must resign ourselves to another generation which views public relations as less ethical, less professional--but better-paying--than journalism, the profession responsible for "Jimmy's World" and the Washington Post's "Ear." It's time public relations cleaned up its image in the textbooks. References ~Peter M. Sandman, David M. Rubin, David B. Sachsman, Media: An Introductory Analysis of American Mass Communications (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976), p. 367. 2Edward Jay Whetmore, Mediaamerica: Form, Content and Consequence of Mass Communication (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1979), p. 265. 3Whetmore, p. 266.
71
Public Relations Rel~ew 4Charlene Brown, Trevor R. Brown, William Rivers, The Media and the People (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978), p. 384. SPaul V. Peterson, "Enrollments are tiigher--But How Much Higher?" Journalism Educator, January 1981, p. 7. 6WilliamJ. Roepke, "Educators Ponder Shifts in Student Career Goals," Journalism Educator, October 1981, p. 7. 7Albert J. Walker, Status and Trends in Public Relations Education in U.S. Senior Colleges and Universities 1981 (New York: Foundation for Public Relations Research and Education, 1981), p. 10. SJohn R. Bittner, Mass Communication: An Introduction (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hail, 1980) p. 256. 9Brown, p. 379. ~~ p. 362. "Roepke, p. 7. 12Walker, p. 6. ~3Roepke, p. 7. ~Michael Emery and Ted Curtis Smythe, Readings in Mass Comm,mication: Concepts and Issues in the Mass Media (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, 1980), p. 395. ~sSandman, p. 362. ~Melvin L. DeFleur and Everette E. Dennis, Understanding Mass Communication (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981) p. 471. ~zWhetmore, p. 264. ISlbid. 'gScott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center, Effective Public Relations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978) p. 66. 2~ pp. 378-9. 211bid., p. 379. Z~Sandman, p. 367. Z~lbid., p. 364. ~4DeFleur, p. 472. 25Brown, p. 386. ~Brown, p. 392. 2zWhetmore, p. 265. ~Brown, p. 384. 2~Whetmore, p. 266. 3~ p. 367. 311bid., p. 365. 32Don R. Pember, Mass Media in America (Chicago: SRA, 1981) p. 281. ~Sandman, p. 363. ~Ibid. ~Peterson, p. 6. ~Walker, p. 1.
72