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