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

international flux and transformations. So
while the concept of a valuable role for public
relations in facilitating the ‘free market place
of ideas’ in a capitalist, competitive context
might seem attractive, it always has to be
remembered that public relations activities
may be utilized to support some potentially
anti-democratic ideals. In an open society
it is inevitable that different causes will utilize
public relations to advance their positions,
and it seems increasingly the case that in times
of organizational or organizational–public
conflict communication will include a metaargument
about the nature of communication,
both by the participants who may hurl
the slur of ‘propaganda’ against their opponents
and by the media who will be searching
for examples of ‘spin’ or hypocrisy.
The concerns of media academics have
largely focused on structural inequalities in
complex society that privilege corporate and
government institutions at the expense of
smaller organizations and causes. For example,
while tending to conflate advertising,
marketing, propaganda and public relations
Chomsky’s analysis that the media serve the
interests of state and corporate power ‘framing
their reporting and analysis in a manner
supportive of established privilege and limiting
debate and discussion accordingly’ does
imply the need for elite networkers, wheelerdealers,
rhetoricians and lobbyists who can
put their case across (Chomsky, 1989). One
argument is that those with ‘deep pockets’
can fund expensive public relations campaigns
which disadvantages ‘resource-poor’
groups and this is the line taken by Gandy in
his notion of information subsidies which
illustrate that structural inequalities in society
can be reinforced by public relations and the
media (Gandy). Another approach is that
those with resources clog the channels of
communication and dominate the limited
space available for individuals and less welloff
groups to debate issues of importance to
them. The relationship between sources and
the media explored by a number of media
sociologists (Hall, 1969; Schlesinger, 1990;
Anderson, 1993; McNair, 1996; Miller, 1998;
Dinan, 2000; Davis, 2002) has focused on
the implications for citizens to the public
sphere. Such analyses rely to some degree
on the notion that the moral principle of fairness,
which seems important for democracy, is
potentially infringed by PR practice. In other
words issues, and the way they are framed
are done so in terms of government and
corporates, and competing interests and lines
of argument are not heard. It is worth pointing
out, however, that there is still a limited
amount of empirical work in the field. It is
also the case that media sociologists on
the whole focus on relationships between the
media and public relations to explore and
condemn the extent of their influence. Such
a focus omits an exploration of the nonmedia
aspects of PR work and its influence in
the public sphere and upon publics, public
opinion and society more widely. It is also the
case that the substantial academic critiques
emerging from media sociology have not
been addressed by the PR discipline which
has until relatively recently largely excluded
critical debate as being ‘unhelpful’ to the
practice. Media academics to varying degrees
reflect the prejudices of journalists and may
therefore regard PR academics as either nefarious
or unthinking functionaries operating in
an atheoretical and thus inferior environment.
Consequently, debate is still polarized into
opposing camps which inhibits analysis of
what is actually a very complex practice. Even
at the level of basic definitions the history
of public relations has led to considerable
confusion over terminology, the relationship
between the various related occupations such
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors