Are Propaganda and PR different and how do they relate to PR?

Propaganda and Public Relations are linked very closely however I believe there is a subtle difference. Does PR and society use them both for the same objectives? I believe they are both very successful at creating relationships whether this is with a company and its stakeholders or with the public and an idea. Both propaganda and PR regularly create and influence gossip, rumour and speculation so do we believe they have honest intentions?

In my opinion propaganda is more an autocratic service whereas PR verges on the democratic. Cutlip [2000] et al said ‘in a very real sense, the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations’. Propaganda itself is based on ‘the big lie’ where it was used for the persecution of Jews by Natzi Germany. Do you think this origin affects people’s perception of it? Propaganda has been used for one’s own individual gain rather than the general public’s interest. If we look at the Natzi Germany example it is argued that this autocratic propaganda was successful in influencing the masses as the Jews became ostracised from the community. This example shows honesty and fairness was not a factor in the successful campaign and that propaganda was an autocratic process with the Jews having no chance to publically counter the Natzi’s argument.

If we look at both propaganda and PR it is about image it is trying to create. If propaganda is trying to influence the masses through coercion rather than persuasion methods it doesn’t reflect well on a democratic approach. PR I believe has to be more aware than propaganda of the negative consequences any untrustworthy behaviour may have. PR can’t afford to lose relations with its stakeholders and so has to be conscious to be seen to be honest which can be done by keeping an effective communication system going between all stakeholders. Do you agree that propaganda’s approach is to put out a negative message through any means?

If we look at Laswell’s communication model where the message comes from and how it is delivered has a huge effect on its impact. If it is delivered from an untrustworthy source it is less likely to be believed. Social marketing aids the positive impact a message can have. As Kolter and Zaltman quoted in Andreasen [2001, page.71] ‘social marketing is the design and implementation of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas’. For example the NHS uses social marketing to promote safe sex. The fact the message is coming from a credible and knowledgeable source and is delivered in a serious way helps the impact it has. In my opinion this example shows the impact the honesty of the message can have for PR. In your view if this amount of honest can impact well in social marketing should it spread to other areas?

The NHS safe sex example shows both sides of the argument i.e. what will happen if you do and what will happen if you don’t. Propaganda is focused on showing one side of the argument which immediately means you are not showing the whole truth – do you agree and you have any examples of propaganda which focuses both sides of the argument?

Overall I believe both PR and Propaganda are designed to encourage rumour and speculation; however the motives and ways of doing it differ. This is why areas such as social marketing are effective in the way the image is presented and how it is perceived. It could be argued however Propaganda is a good form of PR as it is still publicity – do you agree or in your opinion is propaganda is always bad?

Thank you for reading and what are your opinions.

References

 Andreason, A. R. [2001] Ethics in Social Marketing. Georgetown University Press

Cutlip, S. et al. (2000) Effective Public Relations, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Values, Ethics and Trust relating to PR

In the forthcoming posts i aim to give my views and open debate on the following statement

'In a society that has been shown to enjoy gossip fed by rumour and speculation, discuss honesty and fairness as they relate to the successful practice of public relations'

How important is values, ethics and trust? In our society isn’t it the blueprint for laws and allows guidelines for how we operate? As we know however laws are broken, people are sent to jail and people are often not treated as equals. Therefore is it safe to assume that honesty and fairness is not always at the forefront of how society operates? If we compare this to Public Relations is every PR campaign focused around the centre of the truth?

Parsons and Parsons [2008, page.15] quoted ‘members in the institute in public relations must agree to deal honestly and fairly in business with employers, employees, clients, fellow professionals and the public’. This in theory indicates very strongly the truth in PR however in a quote from the same book it is said ‘the public are always sceptical of the truth’ which shows society enjoys gossip and that telling the truth isn’t always effective.

One of the main roles of PR is to at least maintain or improve a companies or brands reputation. This doesn’t always happen with the honest truth being told as The Pillars of PR ethics would like you to do [the first pillar is Veracity]. One example of where veracity isn’t at the forefront is politics and the use of spin doctors. Probably the most famous example is Alastair Campbell who worked for Tony Blair between 1997 – 2003 under the title director of communications and strategy. With the releases of the September and Iraq dossiers Campbell exaggerated the truth in relation to the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction with the aim of gaining favour to invade which eventually happened. This shows that in my opinion honesty and fairness were not of the most importance as rumour and speculation helped this successful practice of PR.

 The power of the media has heavily influenced how PR is practiced. With the media ever growing through such rises as social media sites Facebook and Twitter it exposes a company to a wider audience. Having a wider audience naturally means more channels for which we can interact with companies whilst also giving greater opportunity for gossip, rumour and speculation to spread. So with the rise of media in one sense honesty and fairness in PR is very important as it easier for all the stakeholders to incorporate two way communication and the relationship becomes more transparent.

How PR is practiced shows the level of professionalism, the way this image of professionalism is created is through a companies code of conduct which is influenced by their attitudes, values and beliefs. With this in mind does the greater access of media make it easier for PR to influence how it is perceived through rumour and speculation? Or does this mean any misdemeanours are more easily exposed through the lack of control PR has over social media meaning advocating honesty is an integral part to the successful practice of PR? What do you think?

With society having such a powerful influence over PR through the growing celebrity culture that we live in the debate of interest to the public compared to public interest arises. The customer is king phrase is appropriate as it puts more pressure on PR to appeal to the customers desire. This can lead to concealing certain details from the public to keep the public interest rather than telling the whole truth of the matter which is most in the public’s interest

After reading this and in your own opinion can PR be successful telling the truth the whole time or is the very nature of PR to promote a certain image through rumour and speculation?

Thank you for reading and I would welcome any feedback.

References

P, J. Parsons and P, H. Parsons [2008] Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice. Kogan Page Limited