Media perceptions of public relations in New Zealand
The Authors
Graeme David Sterne, Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe media
perceptions of public relations in New Zealand and to explore the
reasons behind these perceptions with a view to identifying what
public relations practitioners and Public Relations Institute of
New Zealand (PRINZ) can do to improve the perceptions and build a
better working relationship given the key nature of the public
relations-media relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 30 editors, news
managers, business editors and senior news reporters from a full
range of New Zealand's radio, television, print and online media
were interviewed in late 2007. Maori and Pacific Island media were
also included in order to gather perspectives from the
non-mainstream.
Findings – Media perceptions of public relations in New
Zealand are largely (but not exclusively) negative. The
relationship has four faces – sworn enemies; traditional rivals;
close collaboration; and being in a different place (not
connecting). Antagonism from media practitioners is largely based
on experiences with public relations practitioners but also on self
created identities. Variations are due to power differentials such
as self and other definition, realities in the media landscape, and
perceived misalignment of interests.
Research limitations/implications – This study only looks at
the relationship from a media persective. A similar study of public
relations practitioner perspectives would be the sensible next
step. Further investigation of ethnic models of media and public
relations are needed because they have not been done before and
they may produce fresh ways of understanding and framing public
relations.
Practical implications – This study argues that outright
media hostility is hypocritical and unhelpful but that professional
rivalry is healthy. Public relations practitioners in New Zealand
need to improve their treatment of the media at a relational level
and learn how to relate to other cultures more effectively. This is
crucial because the strongest influence on media perceptions of
public relations is the behaviour of public relations
practitioners.
Originality/value – This study focuses on the perceptions of
senior media in New Zealand. It demonstrates the array of
perceptions and reveals that ethnic media feels disconnected from
mainstream public relations. This study explains why this is and
suggests some practical steps to take to remedy this rift. It also
identifies more general measures public relations practitioners
need to take to improve the crucial public relations-media
relationship.
Article Type:
Research paper
Keyword(s):
Print media; Public relations; Press relations;
Communication management; New Zealand.
Journal:
Journal of Communication Management
Volume:
14
Number:
1
Year:
2010
pp:
4-31
Copyright ©
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:
1363-254X
Media attitudes towards public relations in New Zealand are generally negative but they are by no means uniform. Variations in perception range from deep-seated antagonism to guarded reciprocity through to deliberate collaboration. Outside of this range Maori and Pacific Island media regard public relations as “being in another place”.
The sources of these variations are associated primarily with power differentials in the relationship. Power, the ability to exert or resist pressure, is derived from media practitioner self-definitions, from media practitioner definitions of the public relations profession, and actual experiences of dealing with public relations practitioners. The relationship public relations practitioners establish with the media practitioners is crucial to the standing of the public relations profession because of the influence media has over public perceptions of the profession.
This study aims to describe media practitioners' perceptions of public relations in New Zealand, to diagnose sources of tension as seen from the media perspective, and to suggest strategies public relations practitioners could implement to improve the relationship. This study focuses on the media perceptions. A similar study looking from a public relations practitioner's perspective would be a useful next step.
Media antagonism towards public relations is not peculiar to New Zealand. The relationship between UK public relations practitioners and media representatives, such as journalists, has long been an uneasy one (White and Hobshawn, 2007; L'Etang, 2004). In the US “almost half of journalists believe the division between public relations professionals and the media is widening” (Tactics, 2007, p. 4). Coombs and Holladay (2007, p. 13) note that although there are many who criticize public relations in the US “… perhaps the most vociferous critics can be found among the ranks of journalists”. This criticism is significant because few people have direct contact with public relations practitioners, therefore most people learn about public relations from the media. When the media labels public relations as “spin doctoring”, “stonewalling” or frames it as a “battle” or a “disaster” or as “an insidious influence” these inflammatory metaphors denigrate the profession in the minds of the public.
Conversely, the media need public relations for story leads, background information and access to sources. Yet, this symbiotic relationship is problematic and troubled and has been for some time (French and Raven, 1959; Gans, 1979; Brody, 1984; Spicer, 1993; Henderson, 1998; Miller, 1999; Curran, 2002; DeLorme and Fedler, 2003; Allen, 2004; Shaw and White, 2004; Moloney, 2006; Coombs and Holladay, 2007; Haller, 2007; Centre for Media and Democracy Centre for media and Democracy: Publishers of PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)). In 2005 New Zealand's Journalism Training Organisation (JTO) invited Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ) members to meet with 24 chief reporters from press, radio and television. The aim of the meeting was to discuss the relationship between news managers and public relations practitioners. PRINZ described the meeting as a “rare opportunity to gain an insight into the nation's current gatekeepers and to share our thoughts with them” (PRINZ e-mail, 20 June 2005). The titles of the presentations provide an insight into how the relationship stood at the time. The media entitled their presentation “PRs at the gate: What the PR industry needs to know about busy Gatekeepers” (upper case G in original PowerPoint slide). The PRINZ presentation was entitled “Fair suck of the Savlon: PR issues with journalists”. The titles hinted at tensions between the two groups. The media saw public relations as an irritating (perhaps even threatening) disruption to their busy work demands. Public relations saw the media as gatekeepers with whom they had “issues”. They also felt that they were not getting a fair deal in this relationship.
Rather like troubled marriage partners at an initial counseling session, both parties wanted the other to change. The points of tension ranged from differences in attitude, philosophical approach, definitions of what constituted professional behaviour, and conflicting practical realities (see Table I).
Both parties were suspicious of the other's motives and modus operandi. They accused each other of having their own agenda, unfair treatment of story material, and spinning stories to suit their own agendas. Both thought the other did not really understand the issues surrounding their work contexts. Both complained of unrealistic expectations imposed on them by their counterparts. While some attempt was made to indicate that not all of their counterparts were equally tarred with these brushes, the overall impression from this meeting was that the relationship between media and public relations in New Zealand was characterised by mutual negativity, a low view of one another and accusations of deliberate obstruction.
The PRINZ strategic plan for 2008 – 2010 lists “raising the public profile of PR” as its second highest priority goal behind “gaining recognition of PR as a profession”. These priorities reflect the perceived need for attention to be paid to public relations' reputation in New Zealand. The media representation of the profession is not the only mechanism for achieving these goals but the impact of media coverage is nevertheless vitally important. A major purpose of this study is to inform the profession's effort of raising the public profile of PR in New Zealand.
Literature review
Much has been written about the media – public relations relationship. Cameron et al. (1997) reported at least 150 such studies in the US alone since 1960. They divided public relations source-reporter studies into two major categories. Mutual assessments examine media and PR perceptions of each other (Aronoff, 1975; Jeffers, 1977; Kopenhaver et al., 1984; Sallot, 1990). Studies of power dynamics, examine the bases of power in the relationship and how these produce variations in PR- media relationships (French and Raven, 1959; Robinson, 1977; Newsom, 1983; Kaniss, 1991; Berkowitz, 1993). Mutual assessment studies have shown that media have a low view of public relations source credibility, of the status of public relations as a profession (especially compared to their view of their own value), and of the value of PR to society. They have shown that journalists commonly rate public relations practitioners lower in status than themselves whereas public relations practitioners tend to rate themselves closer to equal with journalists.
DeLorme and Fedler (2003, p. 99) provide a historical framework for understanding why “journalists seem to treat public relations and its practitioners with contempt”. They identify six interrelated factors that contribute to the origins, persistence and contradictions surrounding the hostility. These factors are: the hunger for publicity which drives approaches to the media; the use of flattery, bribery and exaggeration; the use of stunts to attract attention; the seeking of free advertising; the pressure journalists experience due to poor working conditions; and the reluctant acknowledgement that journalists often end up in the public relations profession because of the attraction of higher pay and greater job opportunities.
There are a number of contradictions inherent in the relationship. Journalists are generally reluctant to acknowledge the contribution public relations makes to their news content, but actually use significant amounts of public relations content (Turk, 1986; Zawawi, 2000; Lewis et al., 2008). Lewis et al. (2008, p. 27) argue that, “reliance on public relations and news agency copy has been promoted by the need for a relatively stable community of journalists to meet an expansive requirement for news in order to maintain newspapers' profitability in the context of declining circulations and revenues”. Journalists reject stunts as fake news but sub-editors like the photo opportunities they produce (Motion and Weaver, 2004). Journalists want information yet resent those who provide it to them. Journalists condemn public relations but many end up in the profession. Journalists complain about the quality of press releases but ex-journalists have written them (DeLorme and Fedler, 2003). A recent study in New Zealand concluded that journalists are profoundly conflicted about the value of public relations “often holding two dissonant views and expressing them passionately” (Tilley and Hollings, 2008).
Although generalizations of source-reporter antipathy can be exaggerated (Brody, 1984), the animosity is sometimes based on actual experience (Sallot et al., 1998; Cameron et al., 1997; Ryan and Martinson, 1988). For example, some practitioners seem oblivious to the negative impact of their press release strategy on the media they are working with (Lake, 2004). Furthermore, public relations practitioners can be their own worst enemies by emphasizing the aspects most despised by its critics (Coombs and Holladay, 2007). Media do not take kindly to public relations efforts to “manage” them, as for example, when public relations writers call for practitioners to “gain maximum control over the media [to] intercept the news creation process” (Lerbinger, 2006, p. 100).
An international study which involved interviews with 200 journalists from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the USA, Holland, Italy and France found that most were appreciative of the value of public relations but were frustrated by the inconsistent approach and ability of practitioners (Allen, 2004, p. 5). The journalists criticized public relations practitioners for not reading or profiling their publications before sending material, for calling journalists who were on deadline and for poorly written press releases. 45.7 per cent found press releases to be little more than “corporate wallpaper”. They called on practitioners to “just be a conduit”.
This has led to suggestions that if public relations practitioners want to improve their relationships with journalists they themselves need to change their behaviour to conform more closely to the news values they claim to espouse (DeLorme and Fedler, 2003; Jo, 2003) and to make stronger efforts to improve poor practice at the periphery of the profession (Sallot, 1990). Some contend that perceptions of PR practitioners can only be transformed by positive experiences and by consistent messaging which give a different impression (Jo, 2003).
Others take the view that tension is a necessary part of the relationship (Moloney, 2006) and inevitable because the media and PR are contending for their versions of truth (Weaver et al., 2006). Moloney (2006, p. 4) argues that “in a liberal egalitarian state, public relations makes debate more equal, more vigorous, more appealing, more likely to conclude with some truth”. He decries the “PR-isation of the media”, advocating that journalists should carefully scrutinize public relations material, acknowledge where public relations material is used and stop taking advice from public relations people. Outright hostility however, hurts the public by interfering with information flow (Kopenhaver et al., 1984; Tilley and Hollings, 2008).
There is a contradiction in perceptions between the profession in general and practitioners seen as individuals. One consistent pattern in the US literature is that “distrust and low esteem for public relations practitioners are more profound in the abstract than in the specific experience of journalists” (Cameron et al., 1997, p.118). More recently, Anderson and Lowrey (2007, p. 398) found that “journalists tend to be skeptical of public relations in general but tend to trust the practitioners they know”. In the New Zealand context, Craig (2007, p. 64) noted that “sustained personal contact and the social contexts in which they occur are significant factors in [gaining] media coverage”. A recent study of New Zealand journalists however, argues that the reverse is true. Journalists accept the legitimacy of public relations but have developed negative attitudes towards it based on their experience of actual practitioners (Tilley and Hollings, 2008).
Variations in the media – public relations relationship have been identified. These have been linked to educational background; distrust is more prevalent among non-College educated editorial staff (Pincus et al., 1993). There may also be different levels of skepticism among different types of media. News editors and journalists appear to be more cynical and negative toward public relations than business editors and sports editors (Pincus et al., 1993). Larger metropolitan papers in New Zealand are less likely to pick up stories from environment groups than local community papers (Craig, 2007). Relationships may also be affected by the type of practitioner media are dealing with. Two distinct profiles of public relations practitioner have been identified (Berkowitz, 1993). One group was more idealistic, altruistic and saw themselves as communicating responsibly to society. The other group saw themselves as “business people first” and demonstrated a higher level of commitment to the institution, a position which is not so amenable to journalistic values.
Pincus et al. (1993) identified a thawing in the relationship between the media and public relations. They concluded that the traditional adversarial relationship between journalists and public relations professionals still existed but there was evidence of change in the relationship towards greater collaboration and understanding. They concluded that changes were being introduced by the growing demand for information among readers (which is outstripping journalistic resources); and by public relations practitioners using more sophisticated targeting and more symmetrical relationships with media contacts.
Cameron et al. (1997, p. 141) argue that power is the key “mediating factor affecting the intensity and extent of conflict in the relationship”. Media has power as a gatekeeper of news. Public relations practitioners have power to withhold information or to deny access to it (Gans, 1979). Power can be increased through collaboration. For example, advocacy groups get more coverage if they collaborate with the media against an institution forcing the institution to retreat into silence, information suppression and agreeableness (Newsom, 1983). Others contend that advocacy and non-profit organisations are disempowered. They find it difficult to generate media coverage because they are restrained by a lack of resources to fund personnel with sound media relations expertise and experience” (Motion and Weaver, 2004; Craig, 2007). Corporate public relations is growing in power. In the UK, Davis (2000) has expressed alarm at the rise of corporate public relations and the accompanying decline in editorial resources. This same alarm can be found among environmental groups in New Zealand who feel that they “often battle against the imposition of a hierarchy of sources that marginalise environmental voices … and struggle against a growing corporatisation of the news media that is eroding journalistic numbers and investigative journalism” (Craig, 2007, p. 61). Craig (2007) cited difficulties in building relationships due to staff rotation policies, pro-business agendas, preferences for international source material and the debilitating effects of reduced staffing in New Zealand newsrooms which are now largely under foreign corporate ownership.
Smaller media tend to be more dependent on passively obtained information (McManus, 1990). Local news is heavily influenced by the need to maintain good relations with local business associates (Kaniss, 1991). High powered sources and high-powered media enjoy a symbiotic relationship. Power depends on the source's ability to function effectively without the reporter (Robinson, 1977). Power can be derived from coercion (the ability to punish), the ability to reward, legitimate authority, expertise, referential support from third parties (French and Raven, 1959; Cho, 2006). Power is also derived from relational elements such as resource control, interpersonal linkages and communication skills (Hocker and Wilmot, 1991).
Public relations-media relationships also struggle over knowledge creation. “PR practitioners are in the business of creating particular knowledge and identity positions which then influence the types of social relationships that are possible within and outside that discourse” (Weaver et al., 2006). Media practitioners are also in the business of creating knowledge and identity positions. Some media practitioners are very committed to their role as the fourth estate acting in the interests of society by providing access to information. As noted earlier some public relations practitioners are also committed to acting with a social conscience. Others are more committed to the commercial interests of their clients (Berkowitz, 1993). In an interesting twist however, (Motion and Weaver, 2004) found that public relations sources will be more successful at getting their material published in the media if their material is aligned with the commercial values of media organisations.
Approach
The Tilley and Hollings (2008) study of media perceptions of public relations in New Zealand focused on journalists. More than 97 per cent of their respondents were not in any kind of senior managerial role (general manager, editor, publisher), were mostly under 40 years old, had less than 10 years' experience and were on salaries under $50,000. In contrast, the primary focus of this study is on senior media practitioners, 39 media managers, publishers, news editors, business news editors and senior journalists from a range of media (see Table II) interviewed during the period 9 November 2007-21 December 2007.
Although New Zealand has a high number of media outlets and publications per capita, they are owned by a small number of owners. (For a thorough description of media ownership and reach in New Zealand, see Rosenberg, 2007). The sample for this study included representatives from both of New Zealand's two major television companies, one Government owned and the other privately owned. The radio sample included both Government and privately funded networks and stations. The sample included New Zealand's two largest newspapers. A range of Maori and Pacific Island media was included in the research sample. Pacific Island newspapers were not included in the sample because of the complication of language translation. Magazines included a range of business magazines and two well-known Maori and Pacific magazines. Several of these media also have on-line elements to their news publication. Two editors with specific on-line responsibilities were included.
The response rate was extremely high 30 /39 (77%). A pilot group (n=7) was used to trial the interview questions. This included representatives from mainstream, Maori and Pacific sectors plus two media communication researchers. Since changes to the questions were minor, the responses from the media representatives to the trial interviews were included in the results.
One important suggestion from the pilot group was to offer the option of telephone interviews to respondents. A significant number of the media respondents (12/30) expressed a preference for phone conversations (see Table III).
A semi-structured approach to interviewing was adopted. Set questions were declared ahead of time but used flexibly at interview time. As an introduction, respondents were invited to “relate a story which illustrates what public relations is all about”. Some immediately asked whether they should tell a positive story or a negative story. The researcher consistently invited participants to tell whatever story was top of mind. The stories commonly described experiences of public relations practice rather than offering metaphors or analogies. Several were stories prepared in response to the interview questions which had been e-mailed to the respondents. Several respondents chose to tell both a negative and a positive story. The interviewer took notes. Feedback to participants took the form of clarification and review of these notes with each participant at the time of the interview.
Since meaning is constructed collaboratively the interaction process is inevitably influenced by the presence of the researcher and the dynamics associated with the interview process (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). The interview technique adopted was that of “the quintessential student role where the interviewer adopts an open interactional manner which is receptive to any contribution, exploring, asking for elaboration and cultivating an atmosphere of professional permission” (Babbie, 2004, p. 302). Attention was also paid to establishing connectedness, note taking, seeking clarification, and enjoying humour (Reinard, 1994). As indicated above, interviews were conducted in the environment chosen by the participants to reduce resistance and maximize responsiveness.
For analyzing the data, this study utilized a symbolic interactionist methodology developed by Blumer in 1969, based on the work of George Herbert Mead. Symbolic interactionism is based on three key premises. The first is that human beings act towards things on the basis of ascribed meanings. So the study of meanings is a valid means of explaining and predicting behaviour. The second premise is that meaning is reflected in the language (symbols and names) used in social interaction. This study will examine and describe the common sets of understandings used by the participants to define public relations and public relations practitioners. The third premise is that meaning is negotiated in social interaction. Words have default assumptions built into them. Meanings are developed and modified through an interpretive process. This third premise explains the importance of the interaction involved in the interview process. Symbolic interaction uncovers the embedded sources of discourse creation sometimes only discovered when we examine them (Griffin, 2000; Babbie, 2004; Denzin and Lincoln, 2005).
The process for analysis was for the researcher to comb through the data several times looking for patterns and themes to answer the two key research questions (Owen, 1984; Aronson, 1994; Boyzatis, 1998). The two questions central to the study were kept in view at all times: “What perceptions do New Zealand media have of public relations?” and “What are the sources of these perceptions?” but the process was open to the discovery of themes as they emerged. The first phase identified repeated words or descriptors. The first reading also captured dominant themes as expressed through the emotionality of the stories told, the length of time spent on particular stories in comparison to other answer given, and the power of the descriptors offered. The second phase involved comparison of interview scripts to identify major themes by their frequency and by the degree to which they are closely associated in meaning and in discourse with other themes (Owen, 1984). Identifying commonalities enables the researcher to combine and catalogue them (Aronson, 1994). The third phase involved reviewing the sources of the patterns, for example, was there any evidence of particular media being more antagonistic to public relations practitioners? Subsequent revisions involved comparisons with literature findings for example, to what extent had bad experiences coloured media perceptions of practitioners? What made public relations practitioners powerful or influential in the eyes of certain media? Was media negativity towards public relations uniform and pervasive? This would lead to the final step of developing explanations for the themes and patterns discovered.
News media more negative than business media
Predominantly negative in tone
The stories of “what public relations is all about” can be listed in three tone related categories - negative, neutral (or mixed, containing a balance of positive and negative content) and positive. Most respondents provided stories from two or more categories (see Table IV). There was however, a clear predominance of negatively toned stories (69 per cent). Most participants offered at least one negative story.
Negativity (largely) based on experiences of public relations practitioners
Almost one third of the negative responses, the largest concentration of any one answer, complained about the annoying practices of public relations practitioners. The most frequently mentioned source of irritation was being “bombarded” or “spammed” with public relations press releases, many of which had little or no relevance to their audience or readership. Most reported this as their primary reason for resistance to picking up stories from press releases. Participants spurned public relations press releases, which were obviously mass mailed and tended to only read e-mails from people they knew and trusted unless the e-mail had a particularly intriguing title.
Information overload was further aggravated by public relations practitioners, often juniors, calling to ask “have you seen my press release?” or “are you going to use it?” This practice was most resented when there was little or no relational context to the interaction. In these cases, the media felt they were being treated in a “transactional” rather than “relational” basis and tended to reject the approach as “pushy” or “aggressive”. The interaction was regarded with greater disdain when the caller asked “Have you seen my e-mail?” without identifying which one that might be among the many in the editor's inbox. Several participants pointed out the irony of public relations practitioners doing the very thing they advocated their clients should not do, namely, antagonize key stakeholders with poor communication.
Another item high on the list of annoying practices was the habit of blocking, gate-keeping or stonewalling by not replying to media calls, referring enquiries to others, promising to get access to an appropriate person but not delivering and most detested of all, providing false information. The practitioners who came in for the greatest condemnation were government communications people, especially press secretaries. They were described as “paid liars”, (newspaper editor A); “the worst spin merchants”, (television news editor A). Resentment directed at government public relations practitioners was marked and vehement. “There's an expectation among journalists that press secretaries will be bad to work with”, (senior newspaper journalist A). “Government public relations is synonymous with distorting the truth”, (business editor A). “They make little effort to develop personal relationships”, (business editor B). “They are self serving. They are supposed to be serving the public but are only interested in following rules in order to preserve their own employment”, (business editor C).
Instances of ill treatment from PR practitioners tended to be related to less prestigious media. One example was where second tier print media personnel were publicly embarrassed at a function by being told they had been forgotten and asked who they were in front of other (more prestigious) media. Another instance involved the last minute breaking of guaranteed exclusivity for a monthly magazine, which depends on exclusivity for its point of difference and has limited budget and staffing to chase stories. Second tier publications were more likely to be handled in an off-hand manner when it came to access to stories. If a first tier media outlet offered coverage the second tier media could find themselves “ditched” or “sidelined”. These examples gave clear evidence of power differentials operating among media and public relations practitioners. Maltreatment was not restricted to second tier print media however. A Maori television news producer reported attempts by public relations practitioners to have him barred from an event. A senior newspaper reporter described “deliberate attempts by ex-journalists to make us feel inferior by intimidating junior reporters, by open references to the pay differentials between us and by offering to shout expensive dinners”, (senior journalist A). Pay differentials are clearly a bone of contention for some, especially junior journalists.
Some participants referred to examples of ethically questionable practices such as bribes offered to the media (for example the Stark campaign where a marketing public relations company offered an overseas trip as a prize to selected media if they would use the adjective “starkish” in their articles and programmes); stigmatizing groups of people (for example the Tuhoe “activists”, a Maori tribal group accused of terrorist activities); doctoring images (photo-shopping images of dolphins supposedly caught in fishing nets) and providing false information (inaccurate weather conditions for a ferry sailing). While spinning was widely condemned, obfuscation was considered rare. The use of the term “dark side” or “spindoctor” was regarded by three participants as “a bit of a wind up”. Their view was that “…no industry is ethically pure. There are dodgy operators in every profession so the term darkside is often used tongue in cheek”, (senior newspaper journalist A).
Some linked their perceptions of public relations to the poor handling of particular crises. Two respondents suggested that public relations' reputation had been “ruined” by practitioners such as the UK's Alistair Campbell. They claimed he was a key influence on Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in promoting the weapons of mass destruction argument for going to war with Iraq. This was viewed as a socially negative influence. Names of two specific New Zealand practitioners were offered as unacceptable practitioners. Both were involved in high profile PR scandals. One was described bluntly as the “dark side itself”. In each of the New Zealand cases the named public relations practitioner was still involved in the profession, a point that was made with some degree of derision.
Some media more favourable than others
Not all the responses were negative however. Despite their acrid comments about government public relations practitioners, business media tended to offer counterbalancing accounts. They reported collaboration with corporate public relations practitioners as a resource for story leads, business information and access to key spokespeople for quotes. Some business media found the releases “generally useful” or a “good source of information”. One even went so far as to say “I don't know what I would do without them. I rely on their information and when I don't understand something I ask them to explain it to me. They are a fantastic resource”, (business editor D). The tone of the business editors towards public relations was generally positive. This supports the contention that public relations has a closer alliance with business than with other sectors of society (Moloney, 2006) and that business media are more likely to be warm towards public relations than news media (Pincus et al., 1993).
Public relations was perceived most positively when practitioners made an effort to work with the media by constructing win-win partnerships which explicitly aligned the goals of both the public relations client and the news organisation. One example of such a partnership was a collaboration between public relations conducted by a company and a local community newspaper to promote community health. Another example was a promotion run by a business magazine and a public relations agency where both partners achieved exposure to the client base they were targeting for business. The final example was a company contacting a business magazine working on its anniversary issue to see what might be of interest. The public relations company openly declared their interest in publicizing a particular story and went to great lengths to make key spokespeople, background material, travel and accommodation available. The support from the public relations company was acknowledged in the ensuing article. Editorial comment was generally favourable to the company. The magazine felt they had been given every support in the context of an open relationship.
Different definitions of public relations
Public relations was generally perceived as publicity to cultivate favourable perceptions for clients. This is consistent with the view that sees public relations as primarily media relations (Jo, 2003; Shaw and White, 2004; Coombs and Holladay, 2007). Participants posited this definition in all three tonal categories. Those who considered publicity seeking as negative also tended to regard public relations as unadorned spin to be disregarded in all circumstances. Those who were equivocal about publicity seeking said it was “the nature of the game” or “that's how PR works” (without cynicism or acrimony). Some saw publicity seeking and perception formation as a positive thing – especially when it was done cleverly. A few pointed out that their own media organisations used public relations themselves. A small group described public relations more broadly, as involving contact with a range of stakeholders. This definition is much closer to the PRINZ definition. Interestingly, the stakeholder-orientated definitions were from Pacific Island media.
Public relations is in another place for Maori and Pacific media
The Maori and Pacific Island media provided a similar ratio of negative to neutral or positive stories (65 per cent). But the stories revealed quite different reasons for the negativity (See Table V). PR (and mainstream media) are “not representing our perspectives”, (Maori magazine); “it is in another place”, (Maori radio A); “we are not who they think we are”, (Pacific radio A). Both PR and mainstream media, “lack real access to stories among our people”, (Pacific radio A); “coverage is not well-rounded”, (Maori magazine). “They miss things that are obvious to us such as family considerations”, (Pacific television B); “tribal conflicts of interest”, (Maori radio B and C), “respect for titles”, (Pacific radio B), “the games some of our people play”, (Pacific television B). As for public relations, it “does not know our audience”, (Pacific radio A); “does not know who we are and what we are trying to do as a news agency”, (Pacific radio B). These comments echo the view that ethnic minorities are not well served by mainstream media (Cottle, 2000). Several participants voiced the need for public relations practitioners who can relate to Maori and Pacific Island media and audiences. “It's a struggle to find a Pacific voice to speak on subjects affecting Pacific Islanders”, (Pacific radio A).
Relationships between media and public relations
Participant descriptions of the relationship between media and public relations in New Zealand can be placed in four categories – sworn enemies, traditional rivals, close collaboration and in a different place (see Table VI).
Sworn enemies
The sworn enemies relationship was espoused by almost half the 30 participants. Many tempered their responses by offering a positive story – usually of a public relations practitioner they respected and with whom they got on well. This relationship is highly competitive. It is characterised by mutual distrust and conflicting agendas, a power struggle over dominance in the public domain and a conflict of interests over disclosure of information. Descriptors referring to this relationship included:
- suspicious and hostile (10);
- stormy (8);
- massively irritating (2);
- love/hate (8);
- mutual loathing (3);
- very skeptical (4);
- repulsive;
- like gum on my shoe;
- I prefer to avoid them all together;
- spin doctors (9); and
- dark siders (7).
The explanation attached to such descriptions made frequent reference to “the more unscrupulous practitioners”, particularly political public relations practitioners.
The traditional rivals metaphor is about professional rivalry
Approximately half of the participants described a relationship in which public relations practitioners and media are rivals in a similar professional space. In this space, both understood the rules of engagement and followed them. The relationship in this space was guarded but cordial. “PR is not as bad as journalists make it out to be. We are not the best buddies but pretty good”, (senior newspaper journalist A). In this model, there was an acknowledgement that both had agendas and needs, which could be met by the other:
- “PR people are great to work with, particularly when they want something” (business magazine B);
- “at least PR knows the rules and can pitch stuff at you” (television editor C);
- “we tend to rely on PR press releases on a slow day” (television news producer D);
- “PR is a necessary evil these days because of the welter of information available. We try to use information with as little spin in it as possible” (television news producer E).
This model acknowledges mutual need. Public relations people need the media to achieve publicity for their clients. Media needs public relations for story material, for information processing and for access to key spokespeople. So long as the public relations practitioner understands that media cannot simply publish public relations material and approach the media with due respect for their deadlines, there was good chance of both parties achieving a kind of compromise position. Some added that public relations was “vastly underutilized because there's too much skepticism. They can set up interviews, provide information and so on … but you still have to view them with caution”, (business magazine B).
The rules of engagement are first to develop an acceptable relational style: a polite undemanding approach; adopting a journalist's persona as seen by the media practitioners – laid back easy going, keen to find out information; gets back to the inquirer; answers questions quickly, with no run-around; connects media with the person asked for; is easy to contact and deal with; timely; having a mentality of open interaction.
Second, participants in this rivalry need to understand their opponents' sensitivities knowing the audiences in a particular media market, knowing their publication and circulation; shaping articles to suit their particular readers; working to media deadlines; knowing the different sections an editor has to fill.
Third, good public relations practitioners know how to play the media way:
- to think strategically (know who to go to, can identify angles, identify contacts);
- know what journalists want (conflict, wrongdoing, hostility, who, what, when, where, why);
- have a succinct pitch – a brief statement over the phone followed by support material and access to contacts for follow up; and
- prompt release of accurate information; understand that freebies need to be declared, for example, a journalist whose travel is paid for should declare it.
Fourth, work with media as if they are a valued customer:
I don't think it is relationship based and it should be. I am usually approached by PR people who don't seem to care overtly about the outcome. It's hard for a journalist to write negatively about an organisation which is being open and honest. I have good relationships with some but on the whole more bad than good (business magazine editor D).
Finally, from a media perspective, public relations should provide information but not pressure the media to present it in a particular way. Public relations companies need to understand that their message may not be the story. What makes news is what is in the interests of the media (company policy). They want public relations practitioners to understand their job as giving information, but leave it the media to tell the story.
Some accepted that the public relations practitioner should put their client's point of view strongly and clearly. According to this view, “good” public relations is straightforward advocacy; has clear reasoning; is without half truths and guile; is putting forward a point-of-view to contribute to the wider argument instead of expecting to win; being satisfied with being given a fair opportunity to tell your story. “Good PR is effective communication of key messages in simple language that reaches target audiences and achieves the client's aims”, (television manager).
Close collaboration
Close collaboration was the least common model. This view was primarily espoused by business media/journalists. There were two versions of this model. One was a dependent relationship:
Because of our lack of resources we are dependant on PR people I rely on then to do my research for me … I find PR consultants invariably accessible and helpful – so much so, that I address my follow up questions directly to them rather than their client … we need PR releases for story leads … (newspaper business editor B).
In the other version of this model, public relations is considered a close partner, either as a client or as partners in the same market:
We use a PR company to develop relationships with every paper in the country (television news editor C).
Our PR firm uses our values to enhance our position in the market (television manager).
If PR people do their homework to know our market we can work together to achieve win-win outcomes (community newspaper A).
Examples of collaboration involved community projects, promotions and celebrations. These were considered successful by the media because they met the objectives of both the media outlet and the public relations consultant.
In a different place
There is a significant lack of engagement between mainstream public relations in New Zealand and most Maori and Pacific Island media:
They don't seem to understand us very well. For example, Pacific Islanders must be approached with respect. Europeans earn respect but we give it. Interviewing must be less aggressive …women wear dresses not trousers (Pacific television B).
PR people must recognize titles and the priority of family over publicity (Pacific radio B).
We need more brown faces. It's a struggle to find a Pacific voice to speak on subjects affecting Pacific Islanders. Some of the people PR companies send to deal with us are out of their depth. They lack confidence and knowledge of our culture and who the key people are. Government agencies and private PR companies are ill informed about our audiences and us. They don't know our media consumption patterns. They keep on using contacts they are familiar with. These people may not have much influence among our people but they still keep on using them as spokespeople (Pacific radio A).
A similar pattern emerged for Maori media:
PR people don't handle Maori very well. They are still mispronouncing names, not checking tribal origins, not checking at all! They must recognize the importance of tikanga (Maori values and ways of doing things) such as pride in ancestors like Maui, understanding that we need buy-in from our family (Maori radio C).
PR people must learn to ask for advice if dealing with Maori, consult with key people, find out how to proceed (Maori radio A).
Sometimes PR uses tactics that stigmatize our people (Maori magazine).
Discussion
Differences in purpose
One of the reasons for antagonism between media and public relations is the fundamental conflict in purpose between the two professions. On the one hand, media is committed to exposing issues considered to be in the public interest. Principle One of the New Zealand Press Council is, “Publications should be guided at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission, or omission”. On the other, public relations is obliged to serve the interests of the client. The PRINZ first value is Advocacy. “We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent” (PRINZ Code of Ethics).
The public relations practitioner serves the needs of the client or company, while the journalist serves the needs of the reader or viewer; or the needs of the publisher (to sell their material). The company's goals include building shareholder value, reaching business targets and promoting understanding of the company's viewpoint:
The journalist strives to highlight the most spectacular aspects or problems in the situation and thus sell the most newspapers or reach the most viewers. These divergent goals cannot help but be in conflict with each other (Starck and Do, 2007, p. 29).
From a media perspective, public relations deliberately conceals some things because practitioners are committed to protecting and promoting their clients – even to the point of being obstructive or misleading. At the competitive extreme, public relations practitioners are seen as unscrupulous in achieving this goal and willing to do almost anything (such as breaking promises of exclusivity) to ensure their story is published.
Differences in definition
With a few exceptions the media definition of public relations tends to be narrowly centred on garnering publicity for a client. Media relations and pitching stories to the media are important aspects of public relations practice but the narrow definition of public relations as publicity is not an accurate reflection of what the profession is or does in New Zealand. The PRINZ definition of Public Relations is “the deliberate, planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain mutual understanding and excellent communication between an organisation and its publics” www.prinz.org.nz/constitutionandrules. This definition suggests a wider, strategic approach which emphasizes mutuality and two-way communication processes. This definition is absent from media coverage of public relations.
It is not surprising that most journalists view PR as media relations. That is their main point of contact and ongoing experience. In the US, Henderson (1998) found that only 5 per cent of 100 popular press articles used the term public relations in a way that matched the PRSA definition. Coombs and Holladay (2007, p. 7) point out that the media “tend to focus on some types of public relations practice (such as crisis communication and media relations) while ignoring others (such as stakeholder relationship management and advocacy)”.
Identity formation is an important element in discourse construction (Motion and Leitch, 2001). The media practitioners see their role as defenders of the truth, purveyors of balanced reporting and significant contributors to the open dissemination of information. They tend to think of themselves as operating outside commercial interests and criticize public relations for doing precisely that. In contrast, public relations lacks the same commitment to balanced truth-telling. The following comment from a senior journalist illustrates this philosophical difference.
PR is associated with special pleading, money and influence. It is not altruistic. It is a sworn enemy. Journalists are supposed to critically examine everything … journalists are a bulwark between bullshit and the public not a conveyer belt to dish it out. Their first duty is to represent the truth … the core function of the Fourth Estate is “to monitor the centres of power” (Amira Hass, Ha'aretz Gaza Strip correspondent). So, for a journalist, it is very important not to take things at face value. You have to multi-source, research, ask the hard questions, dig, check, rather than regurgitate disinformation and propaganda. This is a key element to maintaining free and democratic choice (Senior journalist B).
There are several assumptions built into this statement. First, public relations is firmly associated with people in powerful positions, “the centres of power” (Cheney and Christensen, 2001; Motion and Leitch, 2001; Curran, 2002; L'Etang and Pieczka, 2006). The assumption is that these centres are selfish rather than altruistic. Consequently, the media assume the only ethically acceptable role, that of an advocate for the powerless or guardian of the media consumers' interests, and the critic of the powerful. This position is dismissive of public relations messages, calling them “bullshit”, “disinformation” and “propaganda”, terms which imply unreliable, false, and one sided information.
This view fails to acknowledge that the media are strongly influenced by commercial interests (Motion and Weaver, 2004) and tend to support dominant interests because of the need to make a profit, mass market pressures, corporate ownership, and dominant discourses (Chomsky, 1988; Curran, 2002). It also overlooks the fact that the media itself is also in the market of truth telling (Worcester, 2004); has its own struggle for credibility (Geary, 2005; Cordasco, 2007; Geimann, 2007; Schudson and Haas, 2007, p. 4) and struggles with ethical practice. As Schuler (2003) noted that in relation to the training of journalists in New Zealand, “many aspirants join journalism programmes aware of a public perception that journalists are not ethical”. The definition of media as a morally superior bulwark of the truth is a myth, which serves to perpetuate the stereotypical portrayal of public relations as disinformation and propaganda.
Differences in perceived status
The myth of the moral superiority of journalists acts as a marker of status, to differentiate the elite journalist from the rest of the occupation, and journalism as an occupation from public relations.
As one senior television news editor pointed out:
It's not really the money. Senior journalists are well paid. It's more to do with elitism, superiority of mission and profession is hugely important. Some journos are quick to let the traitors who have cross over know they are worthless. PR is full of mediocre journalists (television news editor A).
There is little question that journalists see themselves as morally superior to public relations practitioners. “Journalists are a moralistic, ethical bunch, very values driven. They see PR as the dark side because PR consultants utilize their skills for financial gain instead of the public good” (Television manager). They consider that their profession is a higher calling – truth telling in the public interest, rather than financial interest. They talk about crossing over to public relations as “going over to the dark side; selling your soul to the devil. Journalists pride themselves on not being bought”, (newspaper news editor B). “If a journalist switches to PR their colleagues will say something like ‘you'll shout at the pub next time' because it's assumed they'll be earning more money … and you probably will be, but the subtext is that you have sold your soul. There's a web site www.crikey.com.au which used to list over 200 senior journalists who have never done public relations or consultancy work. It was called the Lily Whites. That tells you something [pregnant silence]”, (senior newspaper journalist A). Crossing over to public relations from journalism is considered by the media as a serious loss of credibility as a professional.
Media practitioners also believe they handle information in a more professional way than public relations practitioners do. “Hard core journalists see crossing over as a sell out … traitorous … instead of investigating the truth they are trying to prevent the truth coming out”, (Television news editor B). “Spinning is not ethical for journalists. So they see themselves as ethically superior”, (Television news producer C). These comments contain a serious media blind spot. The implicit belief is that because journalists are supposed to present information in a balanced and fair way that they actually do. But media have their own agenda when it comes to story telling as this comment from a news editor illustrates. “Our job is to tell stories. We are generally only interested in conflict. PR's job is to put a positive spin on things. Journalists are there to uncover corporate mismanagement and injustice so they are asking the questions that PR people don't really want to answer”, (newspaper editor E). The media clearly have predetermined criteria for story framing – “conflict” and “uncovering corporate mismanagement and injustice”. It is little wonder that PRINZ practitioners reported a “predetermined bias towards how a story would run” and a media predisposition towards “embarrassing public figures”. This comment clearly sets the stage for an arm wrestle between media and public relations practitioners, both wanting to mould their storytelling around their own sense of professionalism.
Power differentials
Using Cameron et al. (1997)'s matrix of Source (Public relations) and Reporter (Media) power we can explore the power differentials in the media - public relations relationship (see Figure 1). Media power is determined by size and circulation and resource capacity (numbers of experienced investigative journalists, financial support base). The recent reductions in media staffing has had a detrimental effect on journalism. “We are massively out-resourced by PR. We simply do not have the resources to do adequate research on our stories” (television news editor A). Public relations power is determined by access to specialised technical or financial information, financial resources such as expertise in handling the media, seniority, communication skills, and connections in the industry. Low power media are constrained by a lack of resources and have an audience which requires specific information which may be beyond the journalist's knowledge range. Low power public relations has less valued information, is not well resourced or experienced in media relations, is not known to the media, and lacks seniority.
The power differentials in this matrix help to explain variations in the relational mix. Where media and public relations are both powerful there is more likelihood of strong antagonism. This explains why there is such antagonism between top tier business media and Government sources for example. They are both powerful and can counter balance each other by acting as combatants for the public terrain (Curran, 2002; Weaver et al., 2006).
Local media and ethnic media who do not possess the same power base find it difficult to obtain information from powerful sources unless those sources are willing to divulge it. When it does come to them, it is likely to be couched in the language and terms of the provider and therefore runs the risk of lacking relevance, using inappropriate spokespeople and discussing subjects that do not appeal to ethnic media audiences. Low powered media are more likely to be shafted by powerful public relations sources when it comes to exclusivity and priority treatment.
Advocacy groups may have to use attention-grabbing tactics to attract media attention, especially from national media and will have to work hard at relationship building on the local level (Craig, 2007). There is a greater chance of local community groups gaining media coverage from local media because they share the same power space. In this case both parties may be more inclined to share a common perception of values alignment.
Complicating dynamics
Perceived alignment
Alignment with media goals involves respecting media needs as described in the Traditional Rivals model. The following blog discussion illustrates some of their frustrations journalists have with public relations people. There is a strong feeling among some media that public relations/communication managers are not aligned with news media story making:
Maybe I'm just having one of those days/weeks. But how much do the internal comms teams and policies of certain organisations get in the way of them having a good story to tell? … It makes me wonder about the value and role of highly paid PR people and comms teams … The thing I just keep trying to keep in the back of my mind is that these people are not paid to help me. In many cases despite the money they're on, these people are really just paid to pass on messages; they're not someone who are actually listened to in any significant way. I want ready access to the CEO or people whose opinions count … (“Death by PR”, 28 November 2007, journz@yahoogroups.com).
Media are inclined to be more positive towards public relations practitioners when they behave in a way which aligns with their interests and are more negative when they do not. The experiences media have of practitioners are the single most important factor in determining the perceptions of media towards public relations in New Zealand (Tilley and Hollings, 2008). This parallels the finding in Sterne (2008b) that business perceptions of public relations in New Zealand are also primarily determined by interaction with public relations practitioners themselves. These experiences influence the various roles media choose to play in relation to public relations practitioners such as adversary, judge, and advocate for an issue (Cameron et al., 1997).
At a philosophical level the more strongly media insist on maintaining the myth of objective reporting, the more the friction increases. News editors in particular, believe they have a right to information and when public relations practitioners are perceived to be standing in their way they are despised as gatekeepers and worse.
In the case of Maori and Pacific Island media, lack of alignment exists on several levels. First, media releases circulated to them are frequently irrelevant to their audiences. Second, the spokespeople chosen are often not recognised in and sometimes spurned by their audiences. Third, the way information is presented lacks cultural awareness and respect. Fourth, the type of practitioner, frequently, young white females, who call the media to follow up releases or who were sent out to interact with them are out of their depth in terms of cross cultural familiarity. Consequently, Maori and Pacific Island media have largely developed their own sources, networks, and modus operandi. Some have even begun to articulate their own models of public relations (Sterne, 2008a).
Environmental forces
We have always had the constant demand to simplify complex issues, the risk of being sued for defamation, regulation by the BSA (Broadcasting Standards Authority) and the Press Council, the pressure of deadlines, the difficulty of getting information, the difficulty of ensuring accuracy, and the difficulty of getting people to go on record. But now we have new pressures (senior newspaper/television journalist A).
New pressures are contributing to a sense of resentment among media people who find themselves forced to engage with public relations practitioners as their own resources are stretched through downsizing and cost cutting:
We have had so many cuts in budget and staffing that we are beleaguered. Because of our lack of resources we are incredibly dependant on PR people. Sometimes we have to pick up press releases. I hate this but it makes life easier – especially on slow days (television news producer E).
The public relations industry is filling a gap vacated by news organisations as they have down-sized. Ex-journalists know how to package stories and get them published. They also know how to chase a story.
There are other trends conspiring against investigative journalism as well. The popularization of news stories, the trend towards commercialization which emphasizes superficiality and trivia, the speed of information dissemination through the web, and the commercial viability of news also create dynamics which aggravate the relationship. There is less time available to check or investigate before publishing if media want to scoop a story. These pressures have produced a siege mentality which has led some to suggest that the anger felt towards public relations in New Zealand is displaced and would be more fruitfully targeted at news media owners (Tilley and Hollings, 2008)
There is also an element of jealousy and chagrin clearly attached to the pay differentials between the two professions. At the same time, media are attracted to public relations by the money:
The only thing that would attract me to PR is money. The philosophy and psychology I'm tuned into is journalism. I would hope not to take a job in PR – except maybe for a not for profit (senior newspaper journalist B).
A telling comment from a junior journalist reflects this dilemma and illustrates the internal conflict that some journalists experience. “The fact is if you want to earn an income that reflects the fact that journalism is a profession you need to enter PR” (Tilley and Hollings, 2008, p. 11).
Conclusions
The use of a symbolic interactionist approach in this study enabled the disclosure of underpinning assumptions and beliefs alongside the surface contributions from participants. For example, the invitation to use stories opened the possibility of polyvocality. It became immediately obvious that participants had multiple views of public relations ranging from positive to strongly negative. Others were equivocal. The symbolic interactionist approach encouraged both spontaneous and analytical exploration of metaphors, statements, tonality, and incidents involved in the interviews on the basis that these discussions would tease out meaning embedded in language. This study did not analyse the tensions expressed by individual participants but this could be a useful source of future research.
A major finding of this study is that media perceptions of public relations in New Zealand are predominantly negative. This contrasts with Tilley and Hollings (2008, p. 14) finding that “negative comments were not dominant overall”. Their study did however concede that “almost half the respondents made either wholly negative comment or at least some kind of negative observation”. Negative comments embedded in the “Specific issues” section of their findings arguably constituted a greater negativity than their analysis accounted for.
This study confirms Tilley and Hollings' (2008) finding that media in New Zealand are conflicted about public relations. But the sources of this conflict are wider than experiences of public relations practitioners. One of the sources of conflict derives from the narrow definition of public relations as publicity. This narrow definition ignores wider understandings of the profession as defined by PRINZ. It overlooks understandings of public relations which place a greater emphasis on a wider view of relationship with publics.
This study confirms that media take the majority of their opinions and views from interactions with public relations practitioners. Since meaning is negotiated in social interaction and people act based on ascribed meanings, this finding underscores the importance of public relations practitioner behaviour in the development of perceptions and the consequent portrayal of public relations in the media. It also opens the door for change in the future since perceptions can be altered through social interaction.
There is a widespread (though not totally pervasive) belief held by media that they are ethically superior to public relations practitioners because they are not tainted by commercialism and are more committed to presenting balanced, objective information. This view is hypocritical because it ignores the powerful influence of commercial interests in the media. It does not acknowledge the preconceived news agenda. It overlooks the fact that the media itself is sometimes involved in unethical practices. The more firmly this stereotypical self-formulation is held the more antagonistic media is towards public relations and its practitioners. This is unhelpful for professional interaction and is not in the best interest of the public.
It is not necessary to bring both parties together in a close collaboration but this relationship can work at times. A preferred relationship would be the professional rivals model which acknowledges the self-interest of both parties and incorporates rules of engagement which allow both to achieve their goals and minimizes information distortion caused by infighting and ill will.
The range of relationships between media and public relations in New Zealand can be understood more clearly by viewing them through the grid of power differentials which help to explain the relational variations between different types of media and public relations sources. These differentials are based on self-perceptions, realities in the marketplace, but most of all on perceptions of power.
The range of relationships is also complicated by a layering of dynamics such as perceived alignment of interests, environmental realities, and personal internal conflict.
Recommendations
A fundamental belief of George Mead was that research should lead to pragmatic outcomes. So the first recommendation is for these findings to be circulated among PRINZ members, at conferences and to be published in media that will make them accessible to public relations and media practitioners, educators and academics, especially in New Zealand. Under the ethical requirements of this study reciprocity to the Maori and Pacific Island participants is essential. This could take the form of report back, promotion of models of Maori and Pacific Island public relations and negotiation to pursue further investigation with a view to wider advocacy for cultural sensitivity to these communities. This study would also recommend professional development courses in engaging ethnic media and in engaging in communication across cultures.
Stereotypes are hard to change even when they are no longer warranted. Nevertheless, some authors have called for editors to avoid stereotyping (Kopenhaver et al., 1984). This study would agree with that call. Outright hostility from the media is unhelpful and hypocritical. Mutual hostility is hurtful to society because it affects information flow (DeLorme and Fedler, 2003). But the philosophical difference between public relations advocacy for a client and the media's belief that they are providing objective, balanced, fair coverage does not need to be reconciled. As Moloney (2006) has pointed out, democratic society benefits from debate. Public relations can encourage debate best by representing their client's view points persuasively and convincingly. In fact public relations benefits from media being seen to be independent. Public relations practitioners need to respect the media's independence because an independent media is essential to lending credibility to what is published. Credible publicity is a vital part of reputation building.
This study supports the call for practitioners need to improve their professionalism. It would seem that practitioner performance is the single most important element in changing perceptions of public relations (Jo, 2003). Significant improvements to public relations -media relationships in New Zealand can be made with adjustments to common practices such as press release distribution, follow up calling, and respect for exclusivity (especially for second tier media). It seems that the media narrative about the public relations profession and of what they consider to be inappropriate practitioner behaviour lingers as a barrier to the relationship. PRINZ may be in a position to address these negative memories through its declared opposition to unethical practices or through tighter certification processes.
Finally, it seems that public relations in New Zealand has some ground to make up in order to work productively with Maori and Pacific Island media. This would suggest that current practitioners make more effort to learn the core elements of effective communication with the various cultures in New Zealand, perhaps through PRINZ-led professional development. Comrie and Kupa (1999) have asked “Can Public Relations [in New Zealand] become bicultural?” Their observation was that though culturally sensitive public relations is recognized in theory, practice lags behind in New Zealand, with too few minority races represented in the field. This could suggest that a concerted effort to train and support Maori and Pacific Island public relations practitioners should be a strategic imperative for the industry.
Figure 1Matrix of media and public relations
power
Table IPoints of tension between public
relations practitioners and chief reporters
Table IISpread of media interviews
Table IIIResponse preferences
Table IVTone of stories describing “what
public relations is all about”
Table VMaori and Pacific Island
responses
Table VIRelationships between media and public
relations in New Zealand Base: 30 participants (some gave multiple
responses)
References
Allen, P. (2004), "A world of difference: 2004 international press/pr relationship study", available at: www.rainierpr.co.uk/international/index.html, .
Anderson, W., Lowrey, W. (2007), "What factors influence control over work in the journalism/public relations dynamic?", Mass Communication & Society, Vol. 10 No.4, pp.385-402.
Aronoff, C. (1975), "Credibility of public relations for journalists", Public Relations Review, Vol. 1 No.2, pp.45-56.
Aronson, J. (1994), "A pragmatic view of thematic analysis", The Qualitative Report, available at: www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/Backissues/QR2-1/aronson.html, Vol. 2 No.1, .
Babbie, E. (2004), The Practice of Social Research, 10th ed., Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, .
Berkowitz, D. (1993), "Work rules and news selection in local TV: examining the business-journalism dialetic", Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 37 pp.67-81.
Boyzatis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code, Sage, London, .
Brody, E.W. (1984), "Antipathy exaggerated between journalism and public relations", Public Relations Review, Vol. 10 No.4, pp.11-15.
Cameron, G.T., Sallot, L.M., Curtin, P.A. (1997), "Public relations and the production of news: a critical review and theoretical framework", in Burleson, B.R. (Eds),Communication Yearbook, International Communication Association, New Brunswick, NJ, .
Cheney, G., Christensen, L.T. (2001), "Public relations as contested terrain", in Heath, R.L. (Eds),Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, .
Cho, S. (2006), "The power of public relations in media relations: a national survey of health PR practitioners", Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 83 No.3, pp.563-80.
Chomsky, N. (1988), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (with Edward Herman), Pantheon Books, New York, NY, .
Coombs, W.T., Holladay, S.J. (2007), It's not just PR: Public Relations in Society, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, .
Comrie, M., Kupa, R. (1999), Communicating with Maori: Can Public Relations become Bicultural?, Public Relations Quarterly, .
Cordasco, P. (2007), "Business more trusted than media and government in every region of the globe", Edelman Report, January 22, .
Cottle, S. (Ed.) (2000), Ethnic Minorities in the Media, Oxford University Press, Buckingham, .
Craig, G. (2007), "Aotearoa New Zealand environmental groups and news media relations", Australian Journal of Communication, Vol. 34 No.1, pp.55-70.
Curran, J. (2002), Media and Power, Routledge, London, .
Davis, A. (2000), "Public relations, news production and the changing patterns of source access in the British national media", Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 22 No.1, pp.39-59.
DeLorme, D.E., Fedler, F. (2003), "Journalists' hostility towards public relations: an historical analysis", Public Relations Review, Vol. 29 pp.99-124.
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds) (2005), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, .
French, J.R.P., Raven, B. (1959), Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, .
Gans, H.J. (1979), Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time, Vintage, New York, NY, .
Geary, D.L. (2005), "The decline of media credibility and its impact on public relations", Public Relations Quarterly, No.Fall, pp.8-12.
Geimann, S. (2007), "Foundation and SPJ to address public perception of the media", Quill, Vol. 8 No.3, .
Griffin, E. (2000), A First Look at Communication Theory, 5th ed., McGraw Hill, Monterey, CA, .
Haller, M. (2007), "Symbiosis or antagonism: the neurotic bind", in Merkel, B., Russ-Mohl, S., Zavaritt, G. (Eds),A Complicated, Antagonistic & Symbiotic Affair, Giampiero Casagrande, Lugano, .
Henderson, J.K. (1998), "Negative connotations in the use of the term ‘public relations’ in the print media", Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No.1, pp.45-55.
Hocker, J.L., Willmot, W.W. (1991), Interpersonal Conflict, 3rd ed., William C. Brown, Dubuque, IA, .
Jeffers, D.W. (1977), "Performance expectations as a measure of relative status of news and PR people", Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 54 pp.299-306.
Jo, S. (2003), "The portrayal of public relations in the news media", Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 6 No.4, pp.397-411.
Kaniss, P. (1991), Making Local News, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, .
Kopenhaver, L.L., Martinson, D., Ryan, M. (1984), "How public relations practitioners and editors in Florida view each other", Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 61 pp.860-5.
L'Etang, J. (2004), Public Relations in Britain: A History of Professional Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, .
L'Etang, J., Pieczka, M. (Eds.) (2006), Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, .
Lake, J. (2004), "ePR overload", Marketing Magazine, Vol. 109 No.30, pp.29.
Lerbinger, O. (2006), Corporate Public Affairs: Interacting with Interest Groups, Media and Government, LEA, Mahwah, NJ, .
Lewis, J., Williams, A., Franklin, B. (2008), "Four rumours and an explanation: a political economic account of journalists' changing newsgathering and reporting practices", Journalism Practice, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.27-45.
McManus, J. (1990), "How local television learns what is news", Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 67 pp.672-83.
Miller, K.S. (1999), "Public relations in film and fiction: 1930 to 1995", Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 11 No.1, pp.1-19.
Moloney, K. (2006), Rethinking Public Relations, 2nd ed., Routledge, London, .
Motion, J., Leitch, S. (2001), "Courting the lost consumer: corporate identity, corporate brands, and the New Zealand insurance industry", Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 2 No.2, pp.59-73.
Motion, J., Weaver, C.K. (2004), "The epistemic struggle for credibility: rethinking public relations", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 9 No.3, pp.246-55.
Newsom, D.A. (1983), "Conflict: who gets media attention and why?", Public Relation Review, Vol. 9 No.3, pp.35-9.
Owen, W.F. (1984), "Interpretive themes in relational communication", Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 70 pp.274-87.
Pincus, J.D., Rimmer, T., Rayfield, R.E., Cropp, F. (1993), "Newspaper editors' perceptions of public relations: how business, news and sports editors differ", Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 5 No.1, pp.27-45.
PRINZ (2005), "Fair suck of the Savlon", PowerPoint presentation, PRINZ, available at: info@prinz.co.nz, .
Reinard, J.C. (1994), Introduction to Communication Research, William C Brown Communications, Madison, WI, .
Robinson, M. (1977), "Television and American politics: 1956-1976", Public Interest, Vol. 48 pp.3-39.
Rosenberg, B. (2007), News media ownership in New Zealand, available at www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/docs/papers/rosenberg_mediaown07.pdf, .
Ryan, M., Martinson, D.L. (1988), "Journalists and public relations practitioners: why the antagonism?", Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 62 pp.131-40.
Sallot, L.M. (1990), "Public relations and mass media: how professionals in the fields in Miami and New York view public relations effects on the mass media, themselves, and each other", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis, MN, .
Sallot, L.M., Steinfatt, T.M., Salwen, M.B. (1998), "Journalists' and public relations practitioners' news values: perceptions and cross perceptions", Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 75 No.2, pp.69-87.
Schudson, M., Haas, D. (2007), "Who hates the press?", Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 46 No.4, pp.70.
Schuler, A. (2003), "The empowering effect of ethics", paper presented at JEANZ Conference on NZ Journalism, available at: www.jeanz.org.nz/Conference%202003%20Annabel%20Schuler.htm, .
Shaw, T., White, C. (2004), "Public relations and journalism educators' perceptions of media relations", Public Relations Review, Vol. 30 pp.493-503.
Spicer, C. (1993), "Images of public relations in the print media", Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 5 No.1, pp.47-61.
Starck, M., Do, P.R. (2007), in Merkel, B., Russ-Mohl, S., Zavaritt, G. (Eds),A Complicated, Antagonistic and Symbiotic Affair, Giampiero Casagrande, Lugano, .
Sterne, G.D. (2008a), "A New Zealand (Maori) model of PR", paper presented at the 5th World Conference and Festival of PR, London, 22-24 June, available at: http://cipr.co.uk/assets/SecureDocumentLibrary/DocumentLibraryManager/documents/ANewZealandMaoriModelofPR_GraemeSterne.pdf, .
Sterne, G.D. (2008b), "Business perceptions of PR in New Zealand", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.30-50.
Tactics (2007), "PR blog", Tactics, No.December, .
Tilley, E., Hollings, J. (2008), "Still stuck in ‘a love-hate relationship’: understanding journalists' enduring and impassioned duality towards public relations", paper presented at the ANZCA08 Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, July 2008, available at: www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms//Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Tilley_Hollings_ANZCA08.pdf, .
Turk, J.V. (1986), "Public relations influence on the news", Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 7 No.4, pp.25-6.
Weaver, C.K., Motion, J., Roper, J. (2006), "From propaganda to discourse (and back again): truth, power, the public interest and public relations", in L'Etang, J., Pieczka, M. (Eds),Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, LEA, London, .
White, J., Hobshawn, J. (2007), "Public relations and journalism", Journalism Practice, Vol. 1 No.2, pp.283-92.
Worcester, B. (2004), "The media are too important to leave to journalists", Profile Extra, available at: www.profile-extra.co.uk/aeticledetail.aspx, .
Zawawi, C. (2000), "Feeding the watchdogs: an analysis of relationships between Australian public relations practitioners and journalists", in Macnamara, J. (Eds),The Impact of PR on the Media, available at: www.carma.co/research/Impact.pdf, .
Further Reading
Bruning, S.D., Ledingham, J.A. (2000), "Perceptions of public relationships and evaluations of satisfaction", Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No.1, pp.85-95.
Bruning, S.D., Castle, J.D., Schrepper, E. (2004), "Building relationships between organizations and publics: examining the linkage between organization-public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent", Communications Studies, Vol. 55 No.3, pp.435-46.
Gregory, A. (2003), "The press, public relations and the implications for democracy", available at: www.globalprorg/news/features/Gregory-1-9-03.asp, .
Grunig, J.E., Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY, .
Grunig, J.E., Hon, C.L. (1999), "Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations", available at: www.shattock.net.nz/Relationship_measure_guide.pdf, .
Grunig, J.E., Repper, F.C. (1992), "Strategic management, publics, and issues", in Grunig, J.E. (Eds),Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, .
Huang, Y., OPRA:, A. (2001), "OPRA: A cross-cultural, multi-item scale for measuring organizational – public relationships", Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 13 No.1, pp.61-90.
Ledingham, J.A. (2003), "Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations", Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 15 No.2, pp.181-98.
Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D. (2001), "Managing community relationships to maximize mutual benefit: doing well by doing good", in Heath, R.L. (Eds),Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, .
Merkel, B., Russ-Mohl, S., Zavaritt, G. (2007), A Complicated, Antagonistic & Symbiotic Affair, Giampiero Casagrande, Lugano, .
Motion, J., Weaver, C.K. (2005), "A discourse perspective for critical public relations research: life sciences network and the battle for truth", Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 17 No.1, pp.49-67.
Oliver, S. (2007), Public Relations Strategy, 2nd ed., Kegan Page, London, .
PRINZ (2002), Code of Ethics, available at: www.prinz.org.nz/Prinz/prinzopen.nsf/htmlmedia/body_what_is_prinz.html#Code, .
PRINZ (2005), "JTO, PRs at the Gate", PowerPoint presentation, PRINZ, available at: info@prinz.co.nz, .
Sallot, L.M. (2002), "What the public thinks about public relations: an impression management experiment", Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 150 –171.
van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., Butschi, G., Flodin, B. (2004), "A first look for parameters of PR in Europe", Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 16 No.1, pp.35-63.
Corresponding author
Graeme David Sterne can be contacted at: graeme.sterne@manukau.ac.nz
