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

elations, environmental factors and the
consequent institutional structures that shape
our lives.
The reason that the state contribution in
the United Kingdom was so paramount was
two-fold: first, Britain’s international position
as a colonial power (L’Etang, 2003) required
the management of a host of domestic and
worldwide publics; second, social reform
gathered pace from the early nineteenth
century which required a major shift in the
climate between the government and its subjects.
Unlike the isolationist United States,
Britain’s history dictated close involvement in
European areas and particularly with the
other major colonial powers of France and
Germany. Communications were needed to
support diplomacy. For example, it required
substantial propaganda efforts on Britain’s
behalf to persuade the United States to
become involved in both world wars (even so,
the United States did not participate until
1917 and 1941). The two world wars, and the
international unrest which preceded them,
facilitated the growth of what was, initially
unproblematically, termed ‘propaganda’.
Modern war and the advances in communication
technology contributed greatly
to the development of propaganda. The
increased democratization of society necessitated
public opinion management in times
of war. Government needed to control and
censor unfavourable information that might
harm morale; to penetrate enemy communication
networks in order to confuse or demoralize;
and to win and maintain alliances
from which political, economic or military
support might be forthcoming. In wartime the
British government made substantial propaganda
efforts both at home and overseas. The
wartime experience sensitized civilian and
military populations to issues of propaganda,
information and intelligence. While Britain
cultivated notions of media independence
and truthful information, there was an extensive
internal and external propaganda effort.
‘Black’ propaganda (defined as communication
which entails deception and untruths)
was considered morally justifiable in the
circumstances and somewhat romanticized.
The head of SOE’s ‘F’ Section was Colonel
Maurice Buckmaster who had worked for Ford
Motor Company prior to the war. After the
war he became Director of Public Relations at
Ford and subsequently went freelance representing
the French champagne industry. He
became a fellow of the IPR in 1954 and was
president in 1955. The career of such a man
clearly demonstrates the overlap between
public relations and propaganda and the difficulty
in separating the two terms.
The emergence of totalitarian politics in
continental Europe in the 1930s and the
growth of home-grown versions stimulated an
ongoing policy debate about the British
response to such developments and the necessity
of a propaganda policy to respond to the
perceived threat. Thus it was at this point
in history that the term ‘propaganda’ began to
be tarnished and associated with particular
political structures and ideologies. There was
much debate in British political circles about
the appropriateness of a propaganda policy
in a democratic society in peacetime (its use in
wartime was deemed inevitable and justifiable)
and whether it was right to adopt such
tactics in order to compete with the totalitarian
states. The idea that propaganda was
a necessary adjunct of diplomacy began to
prevail.
In terms of domestic politics there was
an increasing awareness by politicians of
the need to manage public opinion (and
their own personal image) in an increasingly
democratized state. Consequently, some
civil servants became specialized in media
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors