Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

• Do you agree the events of September 11,
2001 have had any immediate impact on
your organization’s PR and communications
function
• Do you agree managed, strategic communications
and public relations can be
effective weapons of war
• Do you agree the United States will implement
a managed, strategic communications
and public relations campaign in the
current struggle against terrorism
October respondents also were invited to add
open-ended comments following each question.
The first two questions focused directly
upon the events of September 11 – one asking
how the terrorist attacks might change how
companies communicate; and the other
asking about any immediate impact on the PR
and communication function.
Two of the October questions were
designed to measure thoughts and opinions
regarding how strategic PR and communication
campaigns might impact military retaliations
the United States was taking in an
attempt to combat terrorism. The United
States has a long history of effectively implementing
managed and strategic communication
and PR campaigns when the country has
been at war. This was particularly evident
during the First World War when President
Woodrow Wilson asked crusading journalist
George Creel to establish the Committee on
Public Information (CPI). 15 And, in the Second
World War years when Elmer Davis was head
of the Office of War Information (OWI). 16
Steinberg says US public relations efforts in
the First and Second World Wars, ‘provided
the stimulus for the development of public
relations into what many of its contemporary
practitioners like to call a full-fledged profession’.
17 In spite of this success during the two
world wars, the United States did not implement
any noted, strategic public relations
effort during the Vietnam conflict years of the
1960s and 1970s.
Although the two noted world war communication
campaign efforts received considerable
praise for keeping the American
public behind the cause of those wars, such
was not the case during the Vietnam era
when a large percentage of the US population
opposed the military action. A major
reason the October questionnaire asked
questions about the use of strategic public
relations during war was to measure how
important senior-level communication executives
thought these might be in the campaign
against terrorism.
This study’s first questionnaire was distributed
on 10 October 2001, four weeks following
the terrorist attacks and three days after
the first round of US military retaliation in
Afghanistan. Responses received up to 22
October 2001 were included in the analysis.
An obvious methodological concern about
research of this nature focuses upon whether
the initial – and potentially emotional – reactions
of PR executives remain constant over
time. For example, did the fact that so many
US civilians were savagely murdered in the
September 11 attacks prompt initial concerns
that would diminish as the nation, and the
world, adjusted to the tragedy In an attempt
to control for this possibility, all US-based subjects
in the study were surveyed again in late
March 2002, six months after the attacks.
The March questionnaire also contained
four, closed-ended, Likert-type questions. Two
of these were similar to October questions
with two minor changes necessary with the
passing of time. Those questions were:
• Do you agree the events of September 11,
2001 changed how your company communicates
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors