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

CHAPTER 21
Public relations and democracy: historical
reflections and implications for practice
Jacquie L’Etang
In this chapter some key criticisms against public relations are examined. From ‘spin doctors’
to ‘champions of discourse in society’, the debate on the role of public relations
shows no sign of abating. Indeed today’s media hungry society seems only to fuel the
debate. Using a historical analysis of the PR profession in the United Kingdom, the author
seeks to explore some of the factors that have challenged the role of public relations
through empirical evidence in a variety of political, social and economic contexts. She
identifies some precise contributions to democratic as well as anti-democratic practices
and provides deeper insight and broader understanding of public relations today; its
interpolation within the deep structures of society; and sources of the mythology that
plagues the PR profession.
‘Spin doctors’, ‘hidden persuaders’, invisible
persuaders’, ‘charlatans’, ‘anti-democratic’:
these are typical contemporary criticisms of
public relations. What lies behind such accusations
appears to be the fear of manipulation
and the secretive and inappropriate access to
power, subterfuge and the employment of
hype and selective silences to enhance the
case of the organization on whose behalf
the practitioner works. Criticisms are aired in
the popular press and in the academic journals
and books of media researchers. Indeed,
an increasing amount of popular argument is
being marshalled against the legitimacy of PR
practice and the ethics of its practitioners. The
defence of the industry has been somewhat
lacklustre and a little unconvincing, partly
because the industry is unregulated and the
large majority of practitioners are not members
of the professional body. This makes the
task of professional bodies in the United
Kingdom, the Institute of Public Relations and
the Public Relations Consultants Association,
very difficult since they cannot claim to represent
all practitioners, and while they have well
publicized codes of practice, they certainly do
not control the practice. This in turn reduces
their potential as a media source, the media
often preferring to turn to individuals such
as publicist Max Clifford whose undoubted
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors