The relationship between public relations and journalism
is, and always has been, a symbiotic marriage of convenience, with each discipline depending on, and harboring a
healthy suspicion of the other. Editors and reporters depend
on public relations professionals for information that would
be difficult to uncover independently, and public relations
people need journalists as part of their repertoire in getting information on behalf of their clients to the public and
opinion leaders.
This relationship starts for many in the academic world.
Public relations professionals frequently matriculate in journalism schools, and at the very least, take journalistic writing courses. The skills required for each profession are very
much the same. The University of Wisconsin, for example,
includes public relations as part of their journalism school,
while that university’s business school also offers courses
in public relations.
Journalists and public relations specialists each provide
information to the public, but the manner in which that
information is generated makes all the difference. In the
case of journalists, the process is often as follows: 1) Determine whether a topic is worthy of exploration. 2) Seek out
reliable sources of information. 3) Corroborate the information gained by finding other sources to substantiate it. 4)
Find contradicting information from other sources to provide balance. 5) Write or produce the news piece. 6) Submit
to an editor for evaluation and editing. 7) Re-write the story
for publication.
This process involves reaching out and seeking information in order to inform the public. It includes much research
and verification of facts, and often includes opposing points
of view.
Public relations professionals, on the other hand, normally are not involved in the investigative process of seeking information, other than fact-finding within their clients’
organizations to tell the story accurately. Their fact checking and research are with sources friendly to the client, and
not inclined to offering opposing points of view. And, while
journalists pull information from around them, public relations people are more prone to push information out to the
public—often through willing journalists.
The public relations process can be demonstrated as follows: 1) Work with the client to determine issues of importance to communicate, and become educated on those
issues. 2) Determine which elements of the public need that
information, i.e., legislators, regulators, constituent groups,
or the general public. 3) Produce either background information or fully written press releases to present the information in the desired light, targeted to the desired audience.
4) Select media outlets to help disseminate the information.
This may be accomplished via purchased advertising space,
events, demonstrations, or through journalists. 5) Measure
the effectiveness of the communication.
Journalists often appropriately question the motivations
of PR professionals, and certainly the objectivity of the
information they receive from PR departments. But, they
also realize that without press releases on topics ranging
from politicians’ positions to recalls on faulty products, they
would never be able to collect all the information they need
to report. In addition, in an increasingly complex world,
the level of technical and intellectual expertise required of
journalists and their reading, viewing, and listening publics
is very great, and growing daily. Journalists rely in expert
testimony, so to speak, from companies and organizations
that can put highly complex issues and concepts into terms
that laypeople can more easily understand.
In addition, the work loads of radio, television, and newspaper reporters are often overwhelming, so a well written
press release that is not overtly promotional, and which
addresses both pros and cons of a given issue or event, is
often seen as a Godsend to editors and reporters who are
unable to do the needed research.
In small town newspapers across America, and in some
larger market outlets, press releases from chemical companies, university extension departments, and teachers’ unions
are printed verbatim, because the editor, reporter, and business manager at those newspapers are often all the same
person, and investigative journalism takes a back seat to the
challenging logistics of putting out a paper every week.
Many small town newspapers, such as the Cambridge
News and Deerfi eld Independent in southern Wisconsin,
rely on press releases from companies, health agencies,
government departments, and non-profits. With a small
staff of maybe three people, including the ad salesperson,
the ability to seek out information in a journalistic way just
is not realistic. In terms of press releases from political
campaigns, such newspapers usually use press releases, but
often attempt equal treatment, and by supplementing the
releases with individual interviews where the editor has the
opportunity to probe more deeply
Public relations professionals and journalists do have
mutual interests at heart, but there are negotiations that
take place for both to achieve satisfactory conditions for
the exchange of information. One key element can be the
promise of exclusivity on a given story being offered by the
PR person. The negotiations which take place can include assurances of certain wording in exchange for making sure
the story is the exclusive property of the newspaper, TV, or
radio station in question.
Hence, an interview with the American president, or
perhaps with a famous or infamous celebrity, will have
journalistic limitations accepted under the condition of
exclusivity. While failing somewhat in journalistic standards
of thorough investigation and openness, these arrangements
acknowledge that some information is better than none, and
that journalism is in itself a business operating in a marketplace, with competition for stories resulting in decisions
that are partly economic in their nature.
The rise of public relations as a profession and as an area
for serious research has a long history. Prior to World War
I, the field was often associated with press agentry. Willard G. Blyer, who was instrumental in starting journalism
education at the University of Wisconsin, believed it was
important to understand the close connection between journalism and PR, and to teach people who would work in one
or both fields, high professional standards. In addition to his
teaching duties, Bleyer himself worked in public relations
for the University of Wisconsin for several years, editing its
Press Bulletin.
During World War I, the United States government
began using mass communication systematically for propaganda. Edward L. Bernays, called by some the father
of public relations, worked in government propaganda
during the war and considered it a laboratory where he
learned how modern communication could be used to
make appeals to the public. A nephew (by marriage) of
Sigmund Freud, Bernays thought that a knowledge of
psychology could contribute to more effective publicity.
During the 1920s, he wrote about “crystallizing” and
“manipulating” public opinion. He utilized the media of
the early, mid, and late 20th Century to sell ideas, politicians, and products ranging from an appreciation of
ballet to hiring returning servicemen after World War
I. He worked on behalf of the American Tobacco Company starting in 1928, but during the 1960s, worked to
communicate the dangers of smoking, expressing regret
for his previous efforts.
In an interview late in his life, Bernays observed
that the public relations function was not just “pressagentry, flackery, and publicity,” but should be a “two
way street, advising the client on attitudes and actions
to win over the public…” and then “educating, informing, and persuading the public to accept these social
goods, ideas, concepts, or whatever.” The media were
necessary to communicate these goals.
Following the end of World War II in 1945, public relations continued to expand and became incorporated into
university curricula. With this growth came efforts improve
standards of professionalism and ethics. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), was chartered in 1947.
In 2007, it was the world’s largest association of PR professionals with some twenty thousand members and more
than one hundred chapters. Within its code of ethics was
a statement of professional values which was germane to
those interested the relationship between public relations
practitioners and the news media: “We serve the public
interest by acting as advocates for those we represent. We
provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate…. We acquire, and
responsibly use, specialized knowledge and experience. We
build mutual understanding, credibility, and relationships
among a wide array of institutions and audiences.” The key
phrases spoke of aiding informed public debate, and using
specialized knowledge to build mutual understanding.
If the PRSA had ethical intentions, other critics
and organizations have had long-standing and serious
doubts about public relations. In 1922, columnist Walter
Lippmann in Public Opinion warned about the power
of publicity to prevent citizens from understanding
the real world. In 1961, the historian Daniel Boorstin
wrote an influential book entitled The Image in which
he examined how modern mass media made it possible
for public relations and advertising to create “pseudo
events” and a celebrity culture. Scott Cutlip, who did
much to bring the study of public relations into university curricula and who also wrote one of the most comprehensive histories of the field, entitled his book The
Unseen Power (1994). In 2006, the Center for Media
and Democracy’s PR Watch (http://www.prwatch.org/
cmd/index.html) included the following on their web
site: “Unlike advertising, public relations is often hard to
recognize. ‘The best PR is invisible,’ say industry insiders.
To spin the news in favor of their clients, PR firms specialize in setting up phony citizens’ groups and scientific
‘experts’ who spin out contrived research.” PR Watch went
on to explained that it exposed “the hidden activities of
secretive, little-known…firms… the invisible men who
control our political debates and public opinion, twisting reality and protecting the powerful from scrutiny.”
The defenders of public relations have argued that
in any controversial campaign, people who were on
opposite sides of an argument were quick to identify
public relations operatives as the people behind their
opponents’ attack ads, policy decisions, and much of
the political process. But still, journalists at best are
too often left to face a murky world where they are
confronted with a barrage of conflicting “facts” from
opposing sides, and must—or at least should—do the
hard work of verifying or debunking the information
they are provided.
It is understandable, then, why many people have
viewed public relations with suspicion. Certainly, the
conventional view of a PR person trying to put a positive spin on a difficult situation has been a view that
occurred often within the profession. Crisis control was
generally the most public face worn by the public relations profession, in part because nothing caused news
coverage like a crisis.
Even in attempting to manage the public relations
damage of a crisis situation, PR professionals do provide important information to journalists, but in such
situations their credibility has often been deeply questioned by members of the news media, and usually with
good reason. Whether it has a White House press secretary, a spokesperson for the once powerful but now
discredited corporation Enron, or the representative of
a coal mine company after a disastrous collapse, the
news media become adversarial in their role in crisis
situations, and take little of the information provided as
credible until they can investigate further.
Responsible public relations professionals have long
understood the importance of being truthful. As one
authority on strategic communication, branding, and public relations wisely observed: “Public and private sector
organizations alike… are reluctant to proactively report
anything but ‘good news,’ and address bad news only when
they think they must. It is as if reporting good news… automatically creates a good impression of the organization,
whereas even acknowledging bad news does the opposite.”
However, organizations should focus on transparency, no
matter if the news is good or bad. “By telling the truth, even
when the truth looks bad, an organization builds credibility
with its stakeholders.”
As the world of “new media” grows and changes, the
ability of public relations professionals to influence the
highly fractured and multiplying daily news sources
becomes smaller every day. Blogs, special interest sites,
and e-magazines have become a source of information to
millions of people worldwide. These sources, while often
not journalistic in nature, in terms of corroborating information and parsing stories for accuracy, are seen by many
as sources of facts. While a PR professional might influence
known journalistic news sources, having in impact on thousands of bloggers or other new media sources has become
impossible. This developing trend serves as a frustration for
both conventional media journalists, and for the public relations professionals with whom they have worked for many
generations.
According to research by Nielsen Net Ratings in 2006,
only one in three Internet users in the United States used
newspaper web sites, but it was unclear where the other
two-thirds got their news, or if the one-third who did go to
newspaper sites found other news sources that they considered more credible.
As the news media, and communications as a whole,
evolved in the twenty-first century, the public relations and
journalism industries also faced the need to evolve. Each
represented old media, in many ways, and each attempted
to incorporate new models of information dissemination.
It remained to be seen if their cooperative/adversarial relationship would also change.
Further Reading
Bernays, Edward L. Crystallizing Public Opinion. New York,
Boni and Liveright [1923].
——. Biography of an Idea: Memoirs of Public Relations Counsel, Edward L. Bernays. New York : Simon and Schuster
1965.
Peter G. Wallace