|
In: Current Library
Public Relations and Propoganda – Values Compared (1988)
 Gold Paper No: 6
Public Relations And Propaganda
1 - Introduction
This paper seeks to explore, as a precursor to discussion at the World Public Relation Congress in Melbourne, Australia, on April 28, 1998, the comparative values implicit in the terms ‘ Public Relation ‘ and ‘ Propaganda ‘. Further contributions to the debate are invited over the coming months from national associations and academics, from practitioners and interested individuals.
It would seem to this researcher that the terms ‘ Public Relations ‘ and ‘ Propaganda ‘ are used sometimes explicitly and sometimes loosely; sometimes academically and sometimes pragmatically; sometimes professionally and sometimes popularly. The immediate aim of the Foundation is to consult, at this point in time of our professional development, our colleagues and other interested individuals worldwide in regard to this topic. We seek their participation in a structured fashion in the task of arriving at acceptable descriptions, if not adequate definitions. An understanding of the issues involved and problems presented if not agreement as to solutions.
A review of current literature, statements, references and published thinking undertaken over the past twelve months by your Trustees and their advisers, has convinced us of the need to embark upon this consultative and participatory exercise. For what is perceived as propaganda by some is labelled public relation by others. Some commentators see no distinctions between the two as to purpose or practice. Others argue that in this connection the social, indeed political, cultural and religious ends, justify the communications means. Propaganda can be a weapon in the armoury of public relations or public relations can be employed as an instrument of propaganda. To this observer there would seem to be marked differences of understanding of the terms between practitioners and academics, between the nationals of one country and another, between the citizens living in one cultural environment and another, between community leaders and the general public, between specialist and general usage of the world. These differences need to be more closely identified and understood. Some critical commentators have expressed the view that behind every public relations executive there lurks a propagandist and that the louder the protest to the contrary in reality the greater the possibilities of propaganda in the pejorative sense of the term, being practised exist.
My trustee colleagues are strongly of the opinion that there is an urgent need for the profession to determine and declare its position, its ideals even, in this matter lest our chosen calling and its contribution in modern society continues to be at best publicly misunderstood and at worst selectively misrepresented. Even putting moral and ethical considerations aside – which I do not propose to do – the subject demands debate for strictly pragmatic reasons. Dr Ralph White, writing in Public Opinion Quarterly in 1952, 36 years ago, put it this way: ‘ The world is more or less tired of propaganda. This is a fundamental, all embracing fact that must be faced, the implications of which must be recognised. Psychological resistance of a sceptical propaganda weary world must be respected and intelligently taken into account; they be simply battered down ‘.
Writing only last year the Precedent of this Foundation, Professor Anne Van der Meiden wrote: ‘ Propaganda is everywhere. Nobody escapes from propaganda. Much communication can be regarded as propaganda. Propaganda, communication and public relations are closely interwoven and we do not recognise it. We must realise that in all our communications activities in the public relations or information field we are always, and we will always, be confronted with elements of propaganda. Propaganda can be either the horse pulling the carriage of angels or the beast dragging the wagon of devils ‘. He would, I believe, take the view that from the academic standpoint propaganda should first and mainly be considered as a ‘ terminus technicus ‘ ; propaganda being, like public relations and advertising, specifically in turn being only a subsection of propaganda generally.
He describes our task this way: ‘ Since the term propaganda can be used in both a negative and positive sense we must ask ourselves: is the term even when now used positively an obsolete equivalent for the term public relations? Some professionals in some countries would agree with this statement. Others in other countries would – for cultural, political and historical reasons – never accept that the term propaganda could ever be used in a positive sense seeing only the negative values currently applied to the activity’.
What we as professionals must face is that we should realise what propaganda is. We should be able to recognise it. We should it or disclaim it for what it is, based on what we and others believe it to be. So it is essential that the clearest possible distinction should be arrived at within our profession between public relations and propaganda. A consensus view needs to be formulated and promulgated. This monograph is intented to promote discussion towards that end.
2 - Definitions Of Propaganda
But what is it?
Words have a history all their own and generally when this history is reviewed then the meaning of the word at a point of time becomes clear. Dictionary entries over the years provide clues to the changing values of the noun ‘ propaganda ‘ and the distinct if loosely related verb ‘ propagate ‘. It is quite clear that in early times emphasis was placed upon the unquestioned ‘ rightness ‘ of the doctrine being propagated ( ‘ Meat to be propagated ‘ ) and the concomitant necessity to mankind or society of the belief being accepted by its members without question. And Belief without Question indicates Faith; and Faith is the Truth. Down the years this unswerving belief in the rightness of their particular brand of truth distinguishes the instigator of propaganda.
With its Greek and Latin roots the terms ‘ propagation ‘ and ‘ propaganda ‘ have been used over the ages to describe the evangelistic activities of the various religions, the vote winning campaigns of political factions, and the external support and assistance seeking programs of warring government. Poets, authors, composers, artists and actors have merged their efforts with those of statesmen, politicians, generals, bishops, revolutionaries and agitators in the support of rival causes. Propagandist were heavily at work on both sides during the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, The American Civil War, the Franco – Prussion War, the Boer War , and the Great War. Propaganda in World War II, and its derivative activity psychological warfare, have been the subjects of numerous studies and publications. Against this historical background what we must now consider is the employment and the meaning of the term propaganda in the contemporary sense; as we and others with whom we have to work see and define it.
In 1940 in ‘ Political Propaganda ‘ Bartlett wrote: ‘ Practically everybody agrees that propaganda must be defined by reference to its aims in an attempt to influence opinion and conduct….in such a manner that the persons who adopt the opinion and behaviour indicated do so without themselves making any definite search for reasons. Education stimulates persons to seek and understand for themselves….propaganda is designed to fix forever people at its own level’.
Victoria O’Donnell and Garth Jowett in their book ‘ Persuasion and Propaganda ‘ ( 1986 ) hold that: ‘ Propaganda is a deliberate and systematic attempt to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist…. an attempt at directive communications with an established objective ‘.
Michael Choukas lists a number of definitions in his book ‘ Propaganda Comes of Age ‘. Ed Martins: ‘ Propaganda proffers ready made opinions for the unthinking herd’, or Charles Siepmans’ ‘ Propaganda is organised persuasion’.
Professor Harold Laswell: ‘ There is need for a word which means the making of deliberately one-sided statements to a mass audience. Let us use ‘ propaganda ‘ as such a word ‘. And Professor Frederick Lumley: ‘ Propaganda is promotion which is veiled in one way or another to 1: Its origins or source, 2: the interests involved, 3: the methods employed, 4: the content spread and 5: the results accruing to the victims. Edward L. Bernays, accredited with being the farther of modern public relations, defines propaganda thus: ‘ A consistent, enduring to an enterprise, idea or group ‘.
O’Donnell and Jowett go on to discuss two aspects of propaganda worthy of brief mention here. Firstly, the authors describe a propaganda purpose model built around the simple and classic situation. A communicates to B about X. Or A communicates to B via C about X ( Westley and Maclean, 1977 ). If A communicates using ‘ information ‘ (shared ideas, explanations, instructions) then the purpose is to promote mutual understanding for A and B. If A communicates employing ‘persuasion ‘ (response shaping, reinforcing, chancing) then the purpose is to promote an interactive dependency for A and B. If both ‘ information ‘ and ‘ persuasion ‘ are used in such a fashion that the information flow is controlled, public opinion is managed and behaviour patterns manipulated, then that constitutes propaganda where the purpose is to promote the objectives of A but not necessarily in the best interests of B.
Secondly, O’Donnell and Jowett define three categories of propaganda: white, grey and black. White propaganda is when the sources are identified correctly and the information in the message tends to be accurate. Grey is when the source may or may not be correctly identified and the accuracy of information is uncertain. Black is when a false source is given and lies and fabrications and deceptions are spread; this is the 'big lie' including all types of creative deceit. The current term for this latter type of activity is sometimes now ‘ disinformation ‘.
Dr: Laswell, of Harvard, believes that propaganda is the making of deliberately one-sided statements to a mass audience. An act of advocacy in mass communications distinguished from such closely allied uses of communications as instruction, information and inquiry, because it involves editorialisation, and a selection of the content of channels of communications with the deliberate purpose of influencing attitudes and controversial issues. He sees the choices open to the technician as to disseminate, to withhold or to modify, to use, omit or block a channel; to select or reject an intermediary or a person in the process.
I personally recall one of this Foundation’s present Trustees, Alan Eden – Green, delivering his presidential address to the ( British ) Institute of Public Relations in 1961. He introduced the self- same subject and quoted Joseph Goebbels ‘ theories in this connection, as later did Leo Bogart in ‘ Polls and the Awareness of a Public Opinion ‘ ( 1985 )
Goebbels said: ‘ It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion. The function of propaganda is not to convert, rather it is to attract followers and keep them in line….the task is to blanket every area of human activity so that the environment of the individual is changed….simplifying thoughts and reducing them to a primitive pattern and presenting the complex process of political and economic life in the simplest terms, carrying them into the street and hammering them into the brain of the little man.
Leonard Doobs’ ‘ Goebbels, Principles of Propaganda ‘ analyses at length this particular case in our contemporary history and it should be required reading for the professional. Dr. Herbert Bloomer in ‘New Outlines in the Principles of Sociology‘ reiterates this theme. As he sees it the ‘Peculiarity‘ of propaganda is that in seeking to obtain its end ( bringing people to accept a given view, sentiment or value ) it does not give fair consideration to opposing views: ‘The end is dominant and the means subservient to this end….a primary characteristic in the effort to gain the acceptance of a view not on the basis of the merits of that view but instead by appealing to other motives….it operated to end discussion and reflection instead to implant a given conviction’.
Time and again writes on the subject of propaganda in modern times have referred to the social and economic pressures which tend to detach people from the influence of their families, of their local group setting and of their local cultures. Or describe political system which force such a state of affairs and thus provide the environment within which propaganda can be at its most effective. Jameson in ‘Communication and Persuasion‘ ( 1985 ) sums up this condition: ‘ One of the most potent means of propaganda is the utilisation of the social need for affiliation with others. Messages are often couched in terms of appealing to aspirations as represented by group norms‘.
Bernard Haring in ‘ The Ethics of Manipulation ‘ ( 1975 ) comments: ‘Manipulation can be a primary instrument for preserving the domination and unjuct privileges of the few. The very means to allow the people to participate in a broad dialogue can become a means of manipulating them…..with the decline of the older cultures and traditions, a paternalistic way of telling people what they have to believe, to think and to do is usually resented, hence the powerful and over-privileged react more to direct manipulation than to preservation of the status quo’. And in conclusion of this section, this is the comment of George Gordon in ‘ Persuasion Theory and the Practice of Manipulative Communications’. The word propaganda has today a pejorative tone that it did not possess generations ago advances in technology and methods of so called psychological warfare have also lately given it new connotations’.
3 - Definition of Public Relations
In the early years at a time when our craft was emerging from the work of the press agent or publicist, the term ‘propaganda ‘ was often used even by our pioneers interchangeably with ‘ public relations ‘. To this day the media when it wishes to disparage the practice of public relations labels it ‘ propaganda ‘ implying it is a black art.
What is much more revealing, however, is the vision that some of the legendary figures had for their work. Edward L. Bernays, quoted earlier in regard to ’propaganda‘, wrote of ‘public relations‘: ‘Ideally it is a constructive force bringing to the public facts and figures resulting often in accelerated interest in matters of value and importance, to the social, economic and political life of the community‘.
‘The most important aspect of any institution‘, wrote Ivy Lee, ‘is not so much what it says about itself, or what is said about it, but what it does‘. John Hill put it this way: ‘Public relations is the outgrowth of a society in which the ideal of an enlightened and rational public opinion is brought even closer as understanding increases in groups and individuals‘. Pendelton Dudley put his personal philosophy with refreshing bluntness: ‘We have learned that via propaganda whitewash soon turns black….and the expectation of sensationalism at the expense of accuracy is not only unethical but impractical‘. Dick Forman, probably Britain’s first public relations counsellor stated simply: ‘If you always tell the truth you will be trusted’.
A study of the Code of Athens (authored by Lucien Matrat and adopted by the European Public Relations Federation and the International Public Relations Association in 1965) and the various definitions developed by numerous public relations associations throughout the world, reveals that the visions of those early pioneers have been substantially reflected in the form of words currently now in use. The same theme-the mutuality of understanding between the institution and the public – is repeated time and time again. As the Dutch Association puts it: ‘Public relations is the systematic promotion of mutual understanding between an organisation and its public‘. Or, as the British express it: ‘Public relations is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its public’. A number of associations, including the Public Relations Society of America, have laid even greater emphasis on this matter of mutual understanding by stressing in their Code of Conduct that the protection of truth consideration of public interest in public relations practice are the cornerstones of achieving the ultimate objective of mutual understanding. The Canadian Public Relations Society stresses that public relations ‘ ….plans and executives a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance’.
4 - Definitions Compared
So quite simply would appear that propaganda is viewed by most contemporary observers as a one – way process wherein the public (or a particular section of it) is a nominated target and the objectives is to change public thinking or prompt public responsive action. It would also seem that the interests of the target public are not necessary a matter of moment and if truth has to be sacrificed to meet the desired aim, so be it.
(A few of the many practitioners with whom this matter has been discussed, whilst recognising that in recent times the term ‘propaganda‘ is most generally used, as mentioned earlier, in a pejorative sense nevertheless hold that propaganda, in its older connotation, is practised on occasions by public relations executives. Further examination of this view invariably establishes, however, that in each instance cited the cause served is a socially worthy one (ie, immunisation against diphtheria) and before embarking on the activity a consensus as to the social benefits likely to occur has provided the mandate for the practitioner).
Public relations on the other hand is positioned by its practitioners as essentially a servant both to the public and to the client or employer attempting to achieve mutual understanding and working to balance the interests of the various parties involved in a particular situation. Truth according to the leaders of organised public relations profession, should never be suborned either by omission or commission.
One writer has warned that the search for titles, terms and definitions in regard to propaganda and public relations ‘has motivated on the one hand an understandable desire to avoid explicitness which could create confusion of disagreement. And on the other a search for clarity and crystallisation. Both are irreconcilable, hence the antiquated usage of the umbrella term propaganda to cover all forms of communication, information, and publicity activity. And conversely the employment of the term public relations to describe activities which on further examination are at best information and at worst unadulterated propaganda’.
Jamieson, however, remarked in ‘Communications and Persuasion’: ‘There have been numerous definitions (of propaganda) proposed and in each case the definition put forward reflects, as one would expect the backround of the proposer’. Kecskemeti (1973) made a similar observation: ‘Value criteria has its pitfalls. It is only too apt to give the theoretical discussion of propaganda a propagandistic tinge’.
Despite these storm signals, or more accurately because of them, I believe it necessary to attempt to examine the comparative values of public relations and propaganda – admittedly as viewed through the eyes of a practitioner and to discuss the matter of reality. I am encouraged to do so because over recent years many distinguished practitioners have written to me on this very matter, for example: Odd Medboe of Norway: ‘We are witnessing a battle between public relations and propaganda’. Frank Jefkins of the United Kingdom: ’The popular belief that public relations is a form of propaganda nullifies its purpose and destroy its credibility’. D’Artillac Brill of the Netherlands: ‘Public relations is different to propaganda. We must see these distinctions are understood by all’.
5 - Values Compared
Dr. Jon White of Cranfield holds that public relations makes use of information to develop an identified public’s views of the world in which certain courses of action will seem reasonable and from which certain courses of action will follow. He argues – as did Pimlott (1951) before him - that propaganda and public relations activities are essentially the same in nature and in their use of information and that both can be misused. He believes that in trying to understand the role of public relations it is important not be be idealistic, citing the ‘vaguely benevolent role in society‘ which some of the published definitions (and some of the pioneers) accord to public relations. White considers that propaganda and public relations both have the same overall aim. Professor Van der Meiden similarly comments: ’We can never say that public relations has nothing to do with propaganda, just has the propagandist can never say that he does not from time to time practise public relations’. Both agree, however, that the motivations of those initiating either propaganda or public relations activities decree whether or not they cease to be neutral and become socially bad or potentially harmful.
Robert Merton in ‘Mass Persuasion’ asserts that there are moral issues which the practitioner in mass opinion as a means of social control cannot escape. (I later unashamedly argue there are human values and moral dimensions implicit in public relations practice that are not and can never be present in the propagandists approach). Truth, dialogue and the public interest lie at the heart of the matter and should ideally be our guiding principles as most, if not all, our definitions and national codes of conduct presently suggest.
Professor Van der Meiden makes these distinctions. The objective of public relations is achievement of consent; of propaganda to build a movement. The intention of public relations is to achieve true dialogue; not so with propaganda. The methods of public relations involve complete openness; propaganda if needs be obscures the facts. Public relations strives for understanding; propaganda for a following.
Truth and the public interest are interdependent. Rivers, Schram and Christians in ‘Responsibility in Mass Communication’ hold that ‘the basic responsibility of mass communication is to turn out the highest quality of a fair and truthful product it can, which requires that it develops an awareness in depth and breadth of the public’s needs and interests’. Walter Lippmann defines the public interests as ‘what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently’. The guiding framework within which they would see and act Lippman called ‘Public Philosophy’. Today we might refer to it as ‘Social Conscience’ or just perhaps ‘conscience’. John Phelan in ‘Meaning and Morality in the Media’ makes the case that ‘language is the only framework within which meaning can exist and truth has a change….truth is valued for its place in the public philosophy. Telling the truth is therefore - in the public interest’.
Public relations practitioners are morally committed to ensure that truthful information is the currency of contact with the targets of their advocacy - the public. Further there should be recognition that discussion, debate and even controversy are the price that has to be paid if the genuine dialogue we aspire to is to be achieved. This form of communication is a two - way affair and out of the relationship so created modifications of positions and views, policies and practices, emerge from both sides.
In his ‘Ethics of Manipulation’ Bernard Haring voices his fears that resulting from an over - reliance on mass communications ‘the very means that could allow the people to participate in a broad dialogue can become the means of manipulating them….a sense of helplessness on the part of the public is a potent ally of manipulation’. As he sees it, the only way to remedy this threat to human freedom and dignity is the liberation of dialogue where in general public opinion arises through ‘the mutual enrichment game, listening to each other and exchanging ideas….considering everyone as an equal partner from whom much can be learned’.
6 - Truth, Dialogue, The Public Interest
Truth
The Code of Athens, amongst others, is quite clear in this regard. The truth must not be subordinated to other requirements. Information which is not based upon established and ascertainable fact must not be circulated. Manipulative methods must not be employed. Language likely to lead to ambiguity or misunderstanding must be avoided. Practices tending to corrupt the integrity of the channels of public communications must not be engaged in. False or misleading information must not be disseminated and practitioners ‘shall at all times seek to give a faithful representation of the organisation which they serve’. The British spell it out more fully. A practitioner ‘has a positive duty at all times to respect the truth and in this regard not to disseminate false or misleading information knowingly or recklessly and to use proper care to avoid doing so inadvertently’.
Knowledge as such is not an end in end in itself but ‘Truth’ is, despite the fact that according to the philosophers, truth is indefinable, unattainable. One can always stumble on truth without knowledge, but knowledge can make the road towards truth that much easier and increase the possibility of getting nearer to it. The role of the public relations practitioner is to impart knowledge and aid the search for truth remembering that ‘Truth has many enemies but two are preeminent-over-exposure and over-statement’.
The social philosophers Berger and Luckman (1966) assert that what we accept as ‘reality’ is socially constructed. Jon White (1987) in his paper ‘Public Relations in the Social Construction of Reality’ goes further. He argues that since what we regard as reality is arrived at partly by negotiation with other people, therefore, public relations has a role play beyond that of the simple provision of information.
Dialogue
One of the features distinguishing public relations from propaganda is the extent to which dialogue has been established between the subject institution and the public or section of the public; the degree to which public consultation is undertaken and public participation practised. For this reason it is worth examining what the Code of Athens says in this regard. The Code explains that because of the very nature of our profession, practitioners should observe the principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding the dignity and worth of the human person: ‘Recognising, inter alia, the right of each individual to judge for himself’. We are specifically to recognise that human beings have not only a physical and material need, but also intellectual and social needs and that we can substantially help to satisfy them. We are enjoined to seek, to achieve the moral and cultural conditions which enable human beings to reach their full stature and to establish communications patterns and channels which by fostering the free flow of essential information will make each member of the society in which he lives feel that he is being kept informed, will give him an awareness of this own personal involvement and responsibility. We are distinctly charged to encourage the moral, psychological and intellectual conditions for dialogue in its true sense, and to recognise the right of the parties involved to state their case and expose their views.
Furthermore we are instructed ‘to actin all circumstances in such a manner as to take account of the respective interests of the parties involved: both the interests of the organisation which (we) serve and the interests of the publics concerned’.
Increasingly but arguably not speedily enough practitioners and interested academics are coming to realise that the future of the craft lies in fully understanding what is implicit in the above statement of intent since it provides the social justification for our existence as a valuable group. Thinking through the likely impact of proposed corporate actions upon society in general or upon specific sections of society (the Interdependence Theory) and endeavouring to reconcile the often conflicting interests of the various stakeholders or players in a situation (the Balance Philosophy), has in today’s complex society become a task for professionals.
Nowhere in the published treatises on propaganda is it suggested that, other than for cosmetic reasons, the public should be consulted and genuine dialogue created. Dialogue would imply acceptance by the principal actors of the possibility of changes in policies and practices emerging. Nowhere is there mention of the need to consider social impact or to achieve consensus.
On the other hand, Jim Grunig and Todd Hunt in a text published in 1984 ‘Managing Public Relations’ outlined four models of public relations practice and stated clearly ‘Modern Public Relations, aimed at mutual understanding and adaptation, is a two-way symmetric practice. Organisations practising public relations is this manner aim to influence publics, but also allow for the possibility of being influenced and changed by feedback from their publics’.
If dialogue is one of the features, possibly after truth the main feature distinguishing public relations from propaganda, then the question must be asked: ’In reality how many practitioners actually practice in this way?’ Sadly Grunig’s research in the USA seems to indicate that only a small percentage of practitioners (15 per cent) currently work according to this professional commitment. One has no reason to believe that the finding would be any different anywhere else in the world. A situation that on the face of it calls for further immediate research to establish the exact position if not the immediate corrective action necessary in defence of our stated tenets.
The Public Interest
Comparatively little has been written in the literature of public relations in other than general terms about the public interest and little has been laid down in the various definitions and codes. The Code of Athens simply states ‘a member shall conduct his professional activities with a respect of public interest’. The 1978 ‘Mexican Statement’, the product of a conference of over 30 public relations associations, talks about the implementation’s of ‘planned programmes of action which will serve both the organisation’s and the public interest’. Jon White reports that in the USA and in Canada according to the definitions espoused ‘public relations must be practised with the public interest in mind’. For instance ‘the Canadian Society’s principles and standards are firm, that the obligation of the public trust is inherent in the practice of public relations’. The CPRS definition demands that the policies and procedures of an organisation must be ‘identified with the public interest’ after an ‘evaluation of public attitudes’.
The British Institute in a recently redrafted code of proffessional conduct only goes as far as to say that a member ‘has a personal responsibility at all times to deal fairly, honestly….above all else with the public’.
The Public Relations Society of America in its ‘Official Statement on Public Relations’ (1982) holds that public relations ‘serves to bring private and public policies into harmony’ and in its ‘Code of Professional Standards’ (last revision 1983) enjoins that a member ‘conduct his or her professional life in accord with the public interest’. More revealingly the PRSA ‘Report of the Task Force on Stature and Role of Public Relations’ (1980) states: ‘ Public relations is a means for the public to have its desires and interests felt by the institutions in our society. It interprets and speaks for the public to otherwise unresponsive organisations, as well as speaking for those organisations to the public….(it) is a means to achieve mutual adjustment between institutions and groups establishing smoother relationships that benefit the public’.
It could be argued that possibly the ideal way to obtain a true judgment of the public interest in any particular situation would be to consult the public or their natural, actual or elected leaders. If, as has been suggested earlier, truth and the public interest are interdependent then dialogue provides the practical link.
A number of practitioners have expressed the view that where truth exist and dialogue is practised then the public interest is served. Others look upon their role as being professional, if not neutral, advocates, (using such phrases as ‘ everyone is entitled to be represented; all are entitled to their day in court’) and are therefore relaxed in socially arguable situations where the ‘ adversaries’ are also represented. Jon White comments: ‘It is not at all clear how the public interest shall be defined or even recognised or what special skills or techniques the public relations practitioner is able to claim which will enable him or her to recognise and respond to the public interest’. White seems to be calling for us to define public interest in this context. Perhaps there should be such a definition and we should respond.
The group of practitioners referred to earlier who see themselves as neutral advocates, would seem to pass the buck, to put the onus on the principals in such a situation, upon the opponent holding the contrary views, upon society itself. But is this good enough? Sometimes in a situation the sophistication, the funds and the advisers are just not available to mount an effective counter balancing programme. Even when this is so, does this approach mean that where an effective opposition exists then a public relations practitioner should feel content and free to represent an anti-social cause? ’Anti-social’ in whose view that is? Is this not the sort of situation where Lippmann’s guiding framework which he calls ‘Public Philosophy’ comes into play?
On many occasions in the public relations literature, claims have been made that the public relations proffessional should be the social conscience of his employers or clients. On an equal number of occasions realists have commented ‘yes, but how many will accept them in that role or listen if they attempted so to be’? Where a practitioner is acting for a democratically elected group, explaining their policies and canvassing support for their programme, he has some comfort in regard to his decision to act; as he is in a situation where the opposing view or views are being eloquently and effectively presented, thus creating public debate in an environment wherein lies from either side can be quickly exposed. The problem arises in situations where of necessity the practitioner is both judge and jury at the bar of public opinion.
Public relations practitioners who cite lawyer - defending and prosecuting-as their model forget perhaps, that lawyers work within the codified framework of the law; laws which for the most part already posses public support. And even in legal circles, there is increasing concern about there being one law for the rich, the vested interests, and another for the poor, the special interest. Big fees buy big talent, research and assistance in both the law and public relations.
So, whilst presently we have to rely on ‘ individual conscience’ in such matters, is this enough? The First Book issued by our Dutch colleagues at the time of the last World Congress, touched on the continuing clash between the forces of respectability and the forces of commercialism: ‘Fast changes in morals and ethics in our world will exert increasing pressure on the management of organisations (moral aspects of decisions, double morality) on accepted moral standards of public relations practise (reliability of codes and standards) and on the individual moral standards of public relation practitioners (moral conflicts with management)’
Proffesor Van der Meiden, Dr Jon White and Proffessor Tom Stonier all recognise this area as presenting the major public relations issue for public relations and all three point us in the same direction.
7 - Reality and Realism
In Gold Paper No 5 ‘The Communicative Society’, Stonier wrote: ‘All this emphasises the importance of codes of conduct. The danger of unethical behaviour is that the general public condemns the practitioner as a person who is not concerned with disseminating information but with manipulating it’. According to Jon White the important question is: ‘if propaganda and public relations can be use to cause social harm, how can society, the general public and individuals be proctected from their misuse?’
His answer to his own question can be summed up as follows:
1 – Practitioners should become fully aware of the possible uses and misuses of the techniques they have at their disposal.
2 – Since codes depend on the concepts of mutual understanding and of public interest, the exiting published codes need amplification and clarification.
3 – Practitioners must take what they are doing seriously and resist demands that may be made upon them to misuse their skills and techniques.
4 – Codes of conduct and the proffessional associations which underwrite them need to be able to protect both the public and the practitioners who resist unethical demands upon them.
5 – The punishment of expulsion from membership should somehow extend to curtailment of the individual’s ability to practise.
6 – The public needs to be educated in ‘social literacy’ which develops an understanding of the techniques used by interest groups in society.
7 – Individual members of the public should be brought to the point where they can analyse critically the information presented.
So the situation would appear to be that the term ‘propaganda’ is associated in the public mind with the practice of misleading the public, some practitioners continue to use the term in its generic ‘arguably out – moded’ sense and see distinctions between propaganda which is informative and propaganda which seeks support; between propaganda which is evil or biased and propaganda which is well intentioned. That ‘public relations’ in the view of its practitioners, if not in the opinion of all outside critics, commentators and observers, is concerned with earning understanding and is sensitive to truth and real dialogue and the public interest. The reality of the situation, however, is that the proffesion is not advocating or practising true dialogue to a high degree and has not discussed in depth, let alone defined, public interest or legislated substantially against, let alone acted against, misuse and bad practise (expect in a very few isolated cases).
There has been much talk in some countries about the possibilities of individual practitioners seeking state registration. Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of this move (whilst in the short – term such a condition could provide commercial comfort for practitioners, in the long – term it might bring dangers in regard to their independent status) one thing is certain, comprehensive codes covering the topics discussed would need to be incorporated in the basic agreement with the proper authorities. And they would need to be codes with teeth. As an alternative to full state registration perhaps a middle course, one of voluntary control, should be investigated. This would bring advantages and benefits to both practitioners and the public. Where a proper, well run national association exists, a practitioner, if he wishes to practise, would be obliged by the State to join it and if he offend against the code and is expelled then he could no longer legally practise.
8 – Personal Statement
In the foregoing review I have tried honestly to record the various, sometimes contrasting views expressed. It would , I believe, be out of character if I did not briefly present my personal concerns. We have discussed these matters mostly on the professional and community level. My concerns are on the global and the individual planes.
Exactly 40 years ago 54 governments met in Geneva to discuss and adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the draft stated that Freedom of Information is a fundamental right of the people; the right to gather, transmit and disseminate news anywhere and everywhere without fetter. It accepted that this freedom depends for its validity upon the availability to the people of a diversity of sources of news and opinion, and recognised that such freedom depends upon the willingness of the agencies of information to employ the privileges derived from the people without abuse and accept and comply with the obligation to seek the facts without prejudice and to spread knowledge without malicious intent. It resolves that everyone should have the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas by any means and regardless of frontiers.
Articles of the Declaration and of the subsequent covenant of civil and political rights dealing with the same subject have not been supported by a significant minority of those countries subscribing to the overall United Nations concept. This is a significant fact in any discussion comparing ‘Public Relations’ and ‘Propaganda’ since although the right to information is essentially an individual right and its subject is the individual citizen or member of society efforts to reach agreement have failed, because of the clash of rival ideologies which have forced nations to take irreconcilable positions. Under one ideology, every citizen has the right to know the facts and a corresponding obligation, duty, is placed upon the state and the media to inform. Under the other, the state has priority in this regard over the individual and reserves the right to release to the public only such information as it deems necessary, desirable or timely and effectively controls the content of the media denying that the state has any obligation to inform them individual.
It would be quite wrong to sweepingly judge the first to be in accord with the concept of ‘public relations’ and to label the second ‘propaganda’. It would also be a misjudgement not to accept at least the sincerity of the belief that some systems and nations in the interest of the state should at this stage in their evolution take priority over the individual citizen. Reasons for this are generally rooted in their history and their economic situation, rather than on internal political consideration.
Ratification or not, I believe that the ‘Communicative Society’ Tom Stonier talks about will in the medium rather than the longer term serve to iron out today’s ideological distinctions in this regard. What should be much more concern to us as professionals is the splitting of the world into the ‘information haves’ and the ‘information have nots’ which he describes. Education and information have complementary roles in the prevention of such a chasm appearing. It is understandable that the Third World countries who are in a less strong position economically increasingly resent the impact on their image internationally, and their citizens domestically, of the news and views transmitted by the media of the North American and Western European nations. Hence the call for a ‘New International Information and Communication Order’.
Dr Ali Oussaid of the Institute for Mass Communications of Utrecht State University has studied the international impact of the western media over recent years and has noted a swing in the content away from the political to the cultural, the economic and the religious. His worry is that little information is flowing in the other direction and than in any event the investment and the means of dissemination is beyond the purse of the poorer nations. Thus is the resentment compounded. Here is a situation where the content of the information could not on analysis be said to be necessarily propaganda but where the sheer dominance of the media and weight of the information transmitted arguably places it into the same category of activity.
So much for the global. On the individual plane I am conscious that men use language in four ways. One is cognitive in that it describes what is fact. Another is emotive in that it expresses feeling. The third is persuasive in that it seeks to influence thought and the fourth is imperative in that if effects conduct. When communicators, and educators for that matter, misuse or confuse these uses then they need to consider the ethics of their chosen proffession in order to help straighten out their thinking.
The ‘crunch’ questions as the young would say are: do we as proffessionals primarily serve and try to preserve those interests we represent in the belief that by so doing we serve the individual? Or do we set out to serve the individual in the conviction that in so doing we help to preserve and protect the interests we represent?
To me the answer is clear. Within the context of information activity I see my responsibility in very personal terms as being primarily to the cause of the individual. But it would be a very foolish man who would predict how he would react if such worthy intentions were ever put to the test. Consider the position of a teacher who woke up one morning to find that he had become a political agent or the public relations practitioner who woke up to discover that in reality he was a propagandist.
Of course, I do not know what exactly I would do in such circumstances but I realise that corporate conscience provides no substitute for personal conscience. I only know, however, that I would know clearly what was being demanded of me. I trust and hope that in the event my conscience would dictate that I act to the greatest benefit of the most people.
9 – Tribute
If this paper is judged to have any merit in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding in regard to this subject I would ask that it be accepted by the reader as a tribute to the life and work of Sir Tom Fife – Clark, CBE one of the Founders of the International Public Relations Association and its first President (1955 – 57).
As his memorial service in 1985 tribute was paid to his belief that it was ‘ the duty of practitioners to provide people with the unvarnished facts about policies as quickly and as fully as possible so that in the light of these the public could make up its own mind about public issues, develop its own assessment and arrive at its own decision. He had faith in the general public and respect for his critical abilities. He consistently and vigorously drew attention publicly to the moral and actual differences between political propaganda on the one hand the public information on the other. It was this belief that gave some point to his work, purpose to the public relations profession and dignity to the individual member of the public he lived to serve. It is a purpose he has given to us to hold in trust; to protect’. I know that Lucien Matrat, IPRA Member Emeritus and author of the Code of Athens, who himself has contributed so much to the moral philosophy of our craft would support this sentiment.
|
Top
Back
Print