Week One reading

This weeks reading was mainly based around the different types of theories towards the practice of public relations.
I think the two key points to come out of the reading were that Public Relations is inherently asymmetrical in nature, and also that the only way to address this [some what unethical] power imbalance is by engaging and empowering the receiver. The way this point was addressed, though somewhat flawed, was touched on in the “Symmetrical/excellence” approach.

The Asymmetrical nature of Public relations means that its inherently unethical in how it is practised. Those with more resources, time and money have a distinct advantage over their audience, with the rhetorical theory giving an example of this practice in saying on page 70 “this theory suggests that these powerful players overwhelm the news media and dominate other means of communication and cultural expression.”
Although Jurgen Habermas identified such challenges in The Structural Transformation of the Pubic Sphere (1989), even an approach which tries to address this power imbalance through the “Symmetrical/Excellence Theory” is flawed in its realistic application. As Moloney (2006) suggests: “ It [public relations] is a promotional activity built on favorable, partial and self selected data, and has been and is much used by the resource rich'. He then goes on to point out that the very use of the word “symmetrical” acts in a “asymmetrical, semantic manner to divert attention away from understanding public relations as 'manipulation' and 'propaganda'.”

My ethical concerns within the PR industry are, in my opinion, well founded. The nature of the industry is such that the audience is bombarded with messages, to the point where they themselves do not have a voice, and are only able to act in the capacity of a “consumer”. The reading made me think about the clear imbalance that exists, and the realisation that we must activate the audience, that is to engage and encourage impute, in order to move towards a more ethical and fair approach.

An example I have noticed of such PR practices that clearly display an asymmetrical approach is the recent campaigning by the National Union of Students. The resource rich organisation have completely muted the voice of the opposition, through access to a level of money and manpower which is simply not attainable for the opposing side. The result of stickering around campus [using (expensive) materials that are not easily removed] and heavy postering [at a level which the Newcastle Students Association cannot compete with] has resulted in the student body being almost completely oblivious to any kind of opposing argument. The result will of course be that the general student body votes “yes to NUS” because they have not seen any arguments are to why they would vote “No”.

In a more ethical senario, both voices would have the capacity to present their arguments on a level playing field. However just as is the case with PR representing big business, their capacity for influencing opinion cannot be matched by those who do not have access to the same resources.