Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy

Citation

Hoványi, G. (2009), "Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 No. 1/2, pp. 296-298. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560910923337

The starting point of the second edition of Rethinking Public Relations is the conventional thought that we live in a Niagara of PR propaganda and that this dirty water is not clean enough to mix with the purer water of democracy. To answer this contradiction Mr Kevin Moloney – who spent one half of his career working in PR, and the other half researching and teaching it – examines in the chapters of his book the most exciting ethical, social, political and business oriented problems of modern PR. He starts with the fact that PR is a widespread activity in today's society in all industrial countries:, e.g. its funders and producers spend ł6,7 billion on it and employ at least 48,000 people in the UK. Sure this brings operational advantages for the funders and producers. But PR has also widely low reputation in UK society, mainly because its “propaganda” character. As an advantage “in se”, PR can be (but often is not) a low cost distribution of information – but this means also a menace to the audience: namely this kind of communication is primarily self‐interested: the US academic literature as well as the UK experience demonstrates that PR is a manipulative communication to promote business interests generally and/or certain government policies. It is more “ordering” and “telling” than “listening” and “talking”. Therefore it is only after public wrangling amongst competing PR messages that any truth in them can be more or less easily identified. From this point of view the relation of PR to democracy can be neutral or beneficial. The theorists of neutral relation assert that PR is a communicative agent of competitive organizations and groups and the media publishes their “arguments”. The participants of the beneficial theory argue that for a diminution of discrimination between individuals as senders of PR messages the redistribution of PR resources is necessary. (It has to be taken into account that dominant PR “voices” are heard more than those of subordinate interests, and that this asymmetrical communication expresses and reinforces unequal power relationships in a democracy.)

A new phenomenon in PR practice is the appearance of corporate social responsibility: it is the language of collective and individual responsibility to others with the basic question whether its intentions serve the benefit of others or are only “window‐dressing”. In this context the longer‐term effects of PR in politics prove that presentation does not bring peace, prosperity and justice: only right policy does. Therefore self‐advantages communication – now the demotic word “spin” for any PR – should be weak propaganda when done by politicians. PR in markets has higher credibility than advertising with consumers, but it creates communication deficits if not all producers and consumers send and receive it. When PR's task is to strengthen corporate reputation, it has to be noticed that reputation is plural and dynamic: different stakeholders award different reputations over time.

A critical problem of modern PR is the media: the marketisation of the media weakens journalists, in that readers and audience are seen as consumers to be satisfied rather than informed. As a consequence this weakens also scrutiny journalism. Therefore journalists should treat PR with more scepticism, even bordering on polite hostility.

As a conclusion of the author's train of thought the following can be emphasized: The word “propaganda” and “manipulation” was replaced in our liberal‐democratic world by words “PR”, “goodwill”, “mutual understanding”, “adaptablility and trust”. And to arrive also to a change in the content of these notions the Grunigian concept suggests a symmetrical communication between mutually respectful message negotiators i.e. senders and receivers of messages. But the author's conviction is that PR propaganda is a tow‐way asymmetrical information flow between the sender (including the press agent) and the receiver – and that it is competitive messaging with both public and private advantage as outcomes what is required in a liberal‐democratic society. If this requirement is fulfilled receivers of PR messages can judge with “voice” has more validity. But it must be taken into account that resource‐poor interests are often not heard. Therefore an equalisation of PR resources through public and private subsidy is required to produce PR resource equality. And the bringing about of this equality can be supported by a more vivid scrutiny of the representatives of the media – instead of its present volume and consumption‐oriented attitude.

Kevin Moloney analyses the relations of PR propaganda and democracy with a very wide intellectual and professional horizon: in his book's Bibliography there are approximately 400 items and he is really competent in the presentation and evaluations of the theories and opinions of the quoted experts; he has a firm hand when picking out citations from other professionals's works; and he has a keen eye to support his own statements by convincing examples. When he goes with zeal beyond the Grunigian paradigm he gives a new dimension to the solution of the contradiction of PR propaganda and democracy – which contradiction is more and more oppressive in our time. The style of his book's text is clear, if necessary polemic and not only highly professional but in many parts of the book even entertaining. All those who are in or close to the profession of public relations – from under‐ and postgraduates to well known and recognized experts – will read Moloney's book with enthusiasm; marketing people will find exciting mainly the last chapters of the book dealing with markets, branding, reputation and the media; but the book will present problems to think about objectives, methods, solutions and consequences of PR programmes also to politicians, business executives and managers of communication agencies. Last but not least even the large public – as the more and more defenceless target of the new “PR Niagara” – can find refreshing and orienting ideas in Kevin Moloney's new book.

As reviewer I read Kevin Moloney's book with great appreciation. But I have also some critical remarks. I understand the idea of asymmetrical information flow between sender and receiver as well as the requirement to support the “weak voices” of some senders by subsidies enforced by “scrutiny journalism” and by a media which should treat PR propaganda with much more scepticism. But in that context what about the more and more concentrated ownerships in the realm of the media, which not only influences but determines more and more the attitudes of the once independent opinion leaders of the media? And who or what institution should raise money for the support of the “weak voices” of PR propaganda – and what should be the criteria to distribute the cumulated funds? Another question is how does the huge media income, coming today from the advertisers, influence the possibility to create a real scrutiny‐journalism in the future? And in what degree and after what kind of “education” will be prepared the large public to recognize in time its self‐interest if it is more and more inundated by the “dirty water” of the Niagara of PR propaganda? The author's answers or indications to these problems are missing or not reassuring enough. And two last remarks concerning the author's critic of the Grunigian theory: I agree that it is an “idealistic” theory, but the system of information feedback (i.e. the symmetric model) has more merits for the senders in the field of politics and also on markets than outlined in Kevin Moloney's book – and I am also convinced that the symmetric model must be the leading model for in‐company public relation processes of the future.