Introduction
Over the last three decades, a lot of scholarly research has been accomplished in the field of public relations. The framework under which the early researches were based on has, however, in the modern day, faced a lot of criticism with the majority of the critics claiming that the PR model of communication presents a two way communication, which stands out as utterly symmetrical (Karla 177).
Early scholars set subtle grounds for the subsequent researches. In their natures, these foundations have taken rigid dominance in the theorization of the public relations’ scholarly researches. This dominance has served to give rise to pros and cons of the initial and hence the traditional theories of public relations.
One specified pro of the theories stems from the fact that, over the years such theories have undergone numerous tests, with most of the scholars confirming their claims. Consequently, the theories have remained in force and viable within a wider public spectra. In line with this argument, Karla claims that, “dominant research theories are furthered and new theories emerge” (178).
If, an organization has to excel in its public relations endeavours, a prerequisite is placed on it to change its behaviours and approaches to the discipline so as to become part and parcel of the organization’s “dominant coalition or decision making body” (Karla 179). In this context, therefore, a magnificent endeavour of the early, PR theorist was to enhance professionalization of the PR (Grunig 29).
Conflicting roles of the PR professional have also been registered with some scholars claiming that, PR managers have, at times, concentrated in execution of duties, which could have otherwise been delegated to the technical PR staff. As a repercussion, the PR concerns may be argued as a represented differently in theory and actual practice.
More recently a lot of enthusiasm has emerged especially in attempts to scrutinize the position of PR in an organization as part of the management function.
According to Curtin and Gaither, there exists four main criticisms of the paradigm of the public relations: “the definition of public relations as a management function; the reliance on functional, transmission models of communication; the emphasis on organizational-level theory; and the failure to recognize the primacy of power in relationships” (110).
The emerging perspectives about the new media have given rise to lots of enthusiasm in some quarters. This paper seeks to scrutinize whether the existing enthusiasm to the new media is justifiable, explore the various implications, on the one hand, public relations practice relating to traditional media and on the other for, long term future of those media.
However, to explore this topic, endeavours are made to unveil whether, if anything is distinctive about new media technologies from a PR practitioner’s perspective and what benefits to PR practice they bring. The critics of the PR are also essential to be given a glance especially those which attribute it to profit making endeavours.
New media technologies from a PR practitioner’s perspective and the benefits they bring to PR practice
From a wider perspective, there exist no broad distinctions between traditional media and the new media (social media) in terms of relations. In case of traditional media, “practitioners identify reporters and editors and build relationships with them in order to get client news disseminated” (Horton 5).
On the other hand, in the social media, the main objective of the practitioner is to identify likely influential participants and the rest of the approach is just like in the traditional media: build relationships for the purposes enhancing communication.
Opposed to the old media technologies such as the newspaper, radio or television, the emerging technologies such as face book or twitter are more essentially social based. Horton posits that, “newspapers are withering; net work television has watched audiences decline, radio is splintered and magazines are shrinking” (1). On the other hand, more human traffic in social networks is on the rise.
Consequently, with this form of trends in communication, PR practitioners have no choice other than shifting to new media means of communication, particularly with the number of the reporters of the traditional medial escaping from their traditional occupations. Despite incredible call for change with time, the new media pose lots of challenges especially in terms of effectiveness and efficacy in communication.
One evident challenge is that, the initial attempts to departmentalize communication have altogether been eroded. In fact, “ the public and the universal nature of social media means that all the audiences can read communication intended for any one communication” (Horton 1). As a way of compounding this problem, practitioners are always unsure that the communication reaches all the intended audiences.
This is perhaps due to existences of communication fragmentations in case the practitioner opts for the new media to deliver messages. As Horton observes, “social media are so fragmented that an individual may not see the information in a blog or a face book page or tweet” (1). In actual sense the new media, serves to disperse information just like some traditional media for instance newspapers and magazines would do.
The fact that some information was posted in a newspaper does not guarantee that the target audience would read it. This is what new media serves to propagate on a large scale globally. However, through perhaps deployment of mathematical concepts of probability, it standouts more likely to read some article in a newspaper than it would to read it in a social media carrying millions of blogs.
Consequently, it may be argued that, the new media worsen the problem of information dispersion. Furthermore, new media ensures information accessibility, but does not provide a warrant that the information will be viewed. In actual sense, an immense effort by a practitioner to reach a wide range of audiences turns out as of little results due to the evident communication fragmentation in the new media.
Despite the existence of technologies that permit an individual to determine the influence of a certain blog posted on a social media site, such techniques are been argued as not straight forward. Such technologies enable one to determine the nature of friends who are subscribed to a new media site such as face book or twitter.
Unfortunately, none of such technologies provide a warrant that one would reach the audience that he or she is targeting. Worse still, there exists no bureau that can carry out auditing of the information under circulation through the social networks. Additionally, social media present a challenge in terms of information distribution time.
According to Horton, “ to use social media effectively requires learning ones way into each medium and building trust with participants, do campaigns and clients allow one to spend that form of time” (2). Social media demands the practitioner to have established a relationship with the audience.
Unless the practitioner had had communicated with such audience for some time before, to orient the audience so as to embrace his or her attention, it would clearly call for commitment of a lot of time: something that may not be so desirable from the practitioner’s perspective point of view.
As Horton comments, “agency practitioners especially face the challenge of communication timing because they often work on multiple accounts in different industries” (4). However, such challenges need not make a practitioner rule out the possibilities of using social media in communication since rewards exists in employment of the new media in communication.
As Spicer notes, “Facebook users build audiences of like minds and interests and thus one can reach these self-identified audiences with a laser-like focus to communicate client messages effectively and efficiently” (115).
New media circulates information without an individual’s knowledge, something that serves as an additional advantage especially bearing in mind that the message sent will not require the practitioner to pay for such circulations.
Critique of public relations
Over the years, several critiques have been advanced in relation to public relations. Many of these critiques see public relations as a profit making administrative endeavour opposed to the perceived intents of improvement of the service delivery. Miller and Dinan see public relations as, “a means of taking risks out of democracy” (11). To them the perceived risks entail seeking a mechanism of taking full control of a pool of workers.
The modern public relations consequently, seems to stem from the need to extend such functions of the public relations in an attempt to constitute “ a cutting edge of campaigns to ensure liberal democratic societies do not respond to the will of people and the vested interests prevail” (Miller and Dinan 12). In this context, PR is depicted as propaganda oriented form of democracy.
New media technologies may not thus escape criticism especially when PR concerns are incorporated into it. Somewhat some of the criticism that is crucial to consider includes the ones raised by Carl Byoirs. Carl Byoirs was particularly interested in adoption of third parties techniques deemed subtle for the manipulation of the public debates.
“Front groups could be created by influencing the leaders of the co-placement group and by forming new fronts” (Grunig & White 57). In this context, media is viewed as a tool of manipulation and subversion of the reality.
Unfortunately, Byoirs’ practices were nothing to be acceptable before the eyes of the law, and when the whistle was blown on his activities between n 1930 and 1940s, his firm was convicted and charged $5,000. Since the times of Byoirs, according to Miller and Dinan, “manipulation and deceit have been the defining characteristics of the public relation s industry” (12).
Conventionally, many critics of the PR are inclined to the opinion that PR is executed for some vested interests mainly by large corporations of which media may not be segregated from them. Scrutinizing the clientele of any successful PR firm reveals that the majority of its clients are the large corporations.
This has consequences of creation of imbalances between the citizens and the tools of the propulsion of the economies through production: corporations. Its practice “is not open and transparent about its means or even about its clients and interests it is working for” (Miller and Dinan 13).
However, it needs not be taken that all PR practitioners consciously lie despite the fact that PR calls for some means of the management of cognitive dissonance (Miller and Dinan 13). More importantly, in as much as the association of PR with desires to lie, it is evident that public interests and the private interests hardly get directly congruent.
As Maloney observes, “ corporate spin doctors and agencies consequently have no choices rather than lying unconsciously since their job entangles at the most basic level, an attempt to align the sectional interests of their principles (employers or clients) with general interests” (30). The idea here is not to arrive at the conclusion that PR endeavours are geared toward conspiracy.
The argument is all about the ideas of the PR firms to equate the private and public interests, which result to negative repercussions to the public interests aspects, since by the fact that this two interests are not similar, more often than not, public interests get undermined.
PR also is considered by its critiques as aimed at subversion of the clients interests opposed to its disguised intents of promotion of democratic debates. On the other hand, Bernays feels that, PR faces a given draw back since, “corporate social responsibility and other ethical activities are all subordinates to the corporate strategy, and that it has played a crucial role at the cutting edge of corporate power in the neoliberal revolution” (67).
In this context, it may be argued that in as much as corporations may be doing marvellous from one front, in some other front, it may stand out evident that they are attempting to safeguard their vested interests which do not necessarily conform to the interests of the public.
As a way of example, during the case of involvement of the shell corporation in the international chamber of commerce, “mantra heard from devotees about building the business case for CSR is about more than making money out of ethical and green activities as a tool to ensure binding regulation is resisted and indeed rolled back” (Miller & Dinan 10).
Corporations, on the other hand, have proactively involved themselves in campaigning for the media and political partisans giving rise to neoliberal concerns.
New media, despite its illustrious championed efforts to make sure that it provides a better representation of the public concerns through refraining from political partisans and campaigning for political elites, suffers from the need to protect and quest for some of its own vested interests.
Such vested interests with political attachments ensure the continued presence of a firm in the communications market, since political institutions contribute, by far, in promotions of those firms that are inclined to their affiliations. It is particularly intriguing for media to take opposing stands to the political regimes which by far will affect their future performance.
This reason may perhaps prompt the PR approached in the management of the new media to borrow widely from the traditional media practices and carry on the attempts to maintain public in some form of disguised lies: all with the intent to protect the firm’s own vested interests.
New media concerns are more driven by the spirit of change. Given that PR plays pivotal roles in the management of the human resource, the inclusion of PR “ as a communicative consequence of business, interests and case group activity “ (Miller & Dinan 25) may not be isolated from such endeavours.
However, communication acts a vital tool available to the PR to enhance inculcation of spirit of fame in an attempt to get things done. Look, for instance, the main responsibilities of PR in any organization. It is charged with conflicts resolution, motivation and handling of disputes emanating from the firm and the worker’s unions of the organization in question.
Through its well organized structures of communication, the PR has to ensure that its strategies gets a competitive advantage amongst the parties involved in conflict if at all it has to provide foundations, which are vital to ensure the problem being handled will not repeat itself in future.
This approach is widely criticized as geared towards prejudicing the spirit of democracy among the workers since, it seeks to convince perhaps without adequate grounds on why such solutions are necessary. According to Miller and Dinan, “…..International communication is another activity that fits only partially within the definition of PR as a measure to ensure competitive communication advantage” (25).
Some of the inclusions comprise internal communications, workers motivations, and reward systems among others. Majority of these tasks are constructed by two main interests: employer and the employees. The question remains; what side is more favoured.
Is firm in question; created to make profits for the benefit of the employer or to make a profit for the purposes of provision of employment opportunities to the employees?
According to Bernays “ public opinion, narrowly defined is the thought of a society at any given time toward a given object; broadly conceived, it is the power of a group to sway the larger public in its altitude” (p.1). Given the ability of the PR to accomplish swaying action to the general workforce, it is evident that claims that the PR is responsible for manipulation bear substance.
Aims and objectives of PR and media industries in the wider media landscape
Just like any other professional discipline, public relation has a specified scope of tasks. In a broader sense, public relations practitioners fall into two categories. The first category is dominated by those practitioners who see themselves as communication managers, and the other sphere being constructed by PR practitioners who see themselves as technicians of the communication.
As Berkowitz and Ilias lament, “ within these two groups, the managers role has been broken down into two subgroups related to how a communication manager fits into organizational process” (102). Some studies such the one conducted in 1989 by Belz et al reveal that journalistic roles are evident in both the public relations practitioners and the journalists.
However, the other hand both the journalists and the public relations practitioners held a different opinion on matters concerning roles, aims, and responsibilities of public relations (130). From a wider perspective, the differences are traceable from existing socialization and the education between the two practices.
“Some studies have found that media organizations and the journalistic practices taking place are linked to journalists perceived roles” (Berkowitz & Ilias 104). Furthermore, Berkowitz and Ilias are to the opinion that, “the actual differences among journalists are likely much smaller than the differences among public relations practitioners subscribing to mangers or technician roles” (104).
As priory mentioned, public relations practitioners essentially assume the roles of communication managers and communication technicians. However, Leichty and Springston perceive this as a traditional dichotomy of PR roles and alternatively proposes four roles accorded to the PR practitioners: “ generalists, the internals, the outliers and traditional managers” (467).
However, by careful scrutiny of these four roles, it is evident that the traditional managers’ roles assume remarkably little technical roles and hence it can remain as a significant sub division of the roles of the PR by its own. On the other hand, the other three roles are more of technical oriented.
Consequently, their classification into one group: technical roles are perhaps still valid. As a result, the classification of roles of the PR following the Leichty and Springston criteria is barely a further division of the original traditional PR dichotomy into some further categories.
Managerial roles are more of affiliated to making of decisions and policies within an organization that houses the practitioners. According to Berkowitz & Ilias, “ practitioners enacting the managers roles predominantly make policy decisions and are held accountable for the program success or failure” (111).
Such practitioners are charged with the responsibilities of arriving at decisions that have long term repercussions to a firm as opposed to short term solution of problems, which are predominantly technical in nature.
In addition, such roles entangle analysis, anticipations coupled with clarification and attachment of meanings to the public opinions, issues and altitudes which are subtle tools for cute departmental and overall performance of an organization.
Managers are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that objectives and the goals of an organization are set appropriately in direct congruence with the organizations long term philosophies.
Within, the peripheral departments of a firm, encounters are made of PR practitioners charged with the enactment of technical PR roles. According to Dozier, “ technicians do not participate in management decision making but only make program decisions necessary to internal functioning of their departments” (76).
In fact, the widest spectra of responsibilities entail conduction of low level organizational operational matters aimed at ensuring cute implementation of policies and decisions stemming from the management team.
More often than not, technical practitioners are engaged in activities such as provision of services like media contracting, writing, publications productions and photocopying among other roles that do not involve long term decision making tasks.
Perhaps a different aspect of the PR practitioner’s roles vital to consider, are those roles stemming from the practitioners’ education and organizational environment (Dozier 1992; Ehling 1992).
On his part, Dozier strongly believes that PR practitioners may be in a large part lack and fail, to fulfil their professional roles as anticipated with consequences of some of the practitioners likely to be characterized by semi professionalism (45).
Such professionals are more likely to be worse affected by bureaucratic norms. In most of the situation they evidently lack professional autonomy in the execution of their duties partly due to dwindled endowment with supervisory powers.
To this end, Ryan and Martinson think that lack of clarity in terms of roles anticipations is fuelled by the practitioners lack of common agreement of what the PR profession is all about and perhaps what it needs to embrace (91).
Conclusion
Over the years, especially in the last three decades, a lot research has been done in the subject of the public relations. The paper characteristically identifies these researches as essential foundations of the public relation concerns, which, in fact, have formed the basis of the existing modern criticisms of the profession.
The criticisms in turn, have given rise to an immense enthusiasm to scrutinize the roles of the public relations especially when the other spectrum of the inputs of the new media is incorporated. In as much as the new media is beneficial in terms of promotion of ease of information accessibility, the paper claims that information accessibility does not necessarily translate to practical information viewing.
The demerits of the new media have consequently been addressed by asserting that the new media has a specified challenge in terms of ensuring effective and efficient communication, has time limitations and departmentalization or rather information flow regulation.
Amid these limitations, new media has been discussed as a vital tool for practitioners communication particularly where relationships with the target audience is priory established. The paper also has also made some attempts to introspect the various criticisms of the public relations.
Finally, the roles and objectives of public relations have been given a through treat by dividing the entire sphere of public relation roles into two broad groups: managerial and technical roles.
Through observation of differences in the scholar’s perceptions of the roles and practices of the public relations, which stem right from the traditional approaches to the modern hefty criticisms, evidently, subtle information is available to justify the existing enthusiasm for new media evident in some quarters.
Works Cited
Belz, Arthur et al. “Using role theory to study cross perceptions of journalists and public relations practitioners.” Public relations research annual 1.1 (1989): 125-139.
Berkowitz, Dan & Ilias, Hristodoulakis. “Practitioner Roles, Public Relations Education, and Professional Socialization: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Public Relations Research 11:1 (1999): 91-103.
Bernays, Edward. Manipulating public opinion: the way and the how. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
Curtin, Arthur, & Gaither, Kenneth. Privileging identity, difference, and power: The circuit of culture as a basis for public relations theory. Journal of Public Relations Research 17.3 (2005): 91–115.
Dozier, Douglas. The organizational roles of communications and public relations practitioners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1992.
Ehling, Walter. “Public relations education and professionalism.” In James. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 439-464). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992.
Grunig, James. “Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future.” In Lawrence Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
Grunig, James & White Jon. The Effect of World Views on Public Relations Theory and
Practice: Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992.
Horton, James. “Public Relations and Social Communication.” Journal of Public Relations 31.7 (2009) 1-6.
Karla, Gower. “Public Relations Research at the Crossroads.” Journal of Public Relations Research 18.2 (2006): 177-190.
Leichty, Gabriel, & Springston, Johnson. “Elaborating public relations roles.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73.5(1996): 467-477.
Maloney, Kelvin. Rethinking Public Relations: PR, Propaganda and Democracy. London: Routledge, 2006.
Miller, David, & Dinan, William. Thinker, faker, spinner, spy: corporate PR and the assault on democracy. London: Pluto press, 2007.
Ryan, Martins, & Martinson, Leonard. (1988). “Journalists and public relations practitioners: Why the antagonism?” Journalism Quarterly 64.13 (1988): 1-140.
Spicer, Charles. “Public relations in a democratic society: Value and values.” Journal of Public Relations Research 12.4 (2000):115–130.