P.R.'s Identity Crisis

According to the Public Relations Society of America during their 1982 National Assembly and reiterated in Stuart Elliott's article "Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media", "[p]ublic relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other." (You can also find it here.)

It leaves much room for improvement, but let's face it, this definition dates back to 1982. For the longest time, the relationship between the organization and the public was perceived to be linear. But technological advances make the definition above no longer tenable. How and why does public relations help these two entities "adapt mutually"? What purpose does public relations serve? Is it merely the oil that keeps the organization/public mechanism greased and smooth-sailing?

My definition? "Public relations is an organization's concerted and targeted effort in keeping the communication lines open within the organization and with its various stakeholders to inform and generate public discussion, while upholding the highest ethical standards, that will result in relationship-building and shared understanding."

This definition recognizes that the P.R. effort stems from the organization itself. It implies that the P.R. work - whether done internally or externally - is still going to be partial because they are advocating on behalf of the organization. Yet even if the advocacy is on behalf of the organization, the people can trust that it is the organization's attempt to be honest and transparent - they respect the public's right to know and wants the public to know. Lastly, the organization wants to build a relationship with them.

Gerard Corbett's article "Time for Resolutions: Will You Commit to PR Ethics in 2012?" identified the issue of P.R. firms representing dictators as one of four issues PRSA will look into this year. This has been happening for a long time, yet somehow, nothing has been seriously done to address this.

Born in the Philippines, I was a martial law baby during then-President Ferdinand Marcos' second term, a dictator whose reign of terror is comparable to despots worldwide. Of course, I was too young to know what was going on. But as I learned over the years (via my Philippine history and specifically, my Philippine media history studies), his administration wanted U.S. support, and implemented a consistent P.R. campaign in both the domestic and international fronts to make sure they got it. Stephen Shalom's "Promoting Ferdinand Marcos" states:

"In 1977 the Philippine government hired Doremus and Company, a U.S. public relations firm, to promote the Marcos regime in the United States. 12 In 1982, public relations consultant John McHugh Stuart was retained to boost Marcos during a state visit to the United States. 13"

As Corbett pointed out, "...for P.R. firms to represent dictatorships that do not afford that same freedom to their own people is disingenuous to democratic societies' reputations as marketplaces for dissenting ideas." Martial law was already in effect starting 1972 until 1981. During that period, he gagged the press - media people were jailed, tortured and killed, while media establishments were closed down, among others. Given this context, did the P.R. people even consider the ethical issue of working with his government? This was a regime with human rights violations left and right, and you're helping it get the support it needed to stay in power? The amount of harm done to the citizens far outweighed the good Marcos actually did during his presidency from 1965 to 1986.

With ethical issues such as these, it is highly recommended and commendable for PRSA and FTC to keep their watchful eyes on P.R. practices and practitioners. Inasmuch as the current definition of public relations leaves much room for improvement, so does the P.R. field and its ethical standards. If other industries have stringent code of ethics, rules and regulations, then it is likewise necessary with the P.R. industry where communication is used to influence and sway people's opinions.

Initiatives can be put in place to prevent misconduct, specifically unethical or illegal acts. Of course, licensing will be a good way to go, especially when there's the possibility of revoking the license at an instance of misconduct. There should also be stiffer fines and penalties. To keep P.R. agencies on their toes, it might even be necessary to conduct a third-party audit and investigation of P.R. firms and practices. Overall, the P.R. industry will stand to benefit from practicing more transparency and disclosure.