Public relations and propaganda

But is power, like weed in de head, dat make big men behave like dey suck crazy seed.

Public relations has often been described as propaganda by its critics. Those practicing the profession would attest differently. They would say it is used for the public good, but across the divide, all would agree that propaganda is harmful.

Dedicated practitioners would readily accept that public relations is a much abused function, and similar to any other profession, if practiced within an ethical framework it benefits society tremendously.

It has evolved, in recent times, as a systematic and sustained effort to foster mutual understanding or shared reality between institutions and their stakeholders. PR is ethical and effective communication, through credible channels, to target groups. This is distinct from the systematic dissemination of one-way information by governments and other institutions to create perceptions in order to build, and reinforce loyalty and support. This type of information distribution has little and often, no relation to ethical PR.

Effective public relations is information shared truthfully, and there is disclosure of the implications of decisions. An excellent example is the recent announcement on the removal of Value Added Tax (VAT) from food items. Thousands of people were not aware of the fact that basic food items, which allow for daily healthy diets across all age groups, were already zero rated. After the announcement, their expectation was that their food bill would be fifteen percent less come November. This might well be so depending on what they buy, and depending on normal price changes of commodities.

It would have been accurate to have said, that the Government would remove VAT from all other food items not now zero rated, or most of the other items, given the information now coming to light. Such a statement would not have diluted the positive impact, or detracted from the intent to reach out to citizens. It would have preempted any subsequent challenge to the veracity of the communication.

Ultimately, misguided communication backfires. Many PR advisers would say they never advise their clients to lie, but would concede that they did not always advise them to tell the whole story. Effectiveness of public relations has to do with intent of the communicator. To intentionally conceal material information is to deceive stakeholders.

It was a man named Edward Bernays (1891-1995), called the “father of public relations,” who coined the term public relations in his book Crystallizing Public Opinion. He believed that PR was about engineering social responses to organisational needs and named his next book Propaganda.

Public relations also has its roots in European and UK propaganda. In the UK, it was used as part of a cultural propaganda policy, to promote the British Empire to the rest of the world. It was the famous author, George Orwell, who objected to the government’s propaganda, and in 1949 responded with his equally famous novel Nineteen Eighty Four. The most nefarious use of PR as propaganda was by Nazi and communist regimes to systematically “shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions” – brainwashing – to gain favourable public responses. In that context, regimes use it in a similar manner to rogue advertising, which entrenches messages and slogans in people’s minds through frequent repetition, and subliminal means. Typically, they place messages strategically throughout the electronic media, which works in tandem with images of regimes’ leaders strung up throughout the lands.

The growth of public relations as a means of communicating persuasively with the electorate runs in concert with the growth of democracy. Educated and enlightened citizens generally aspire for a greater say in matters that affect their daily lives. When leaders communicate proposed policies well, then citizens play a vital role in shaping policy and preserving a democratic way of life.

Propaganda and governments’ PR never sit well with journalists. Daily, the media cover and report on government events. They put in the public domain much useful information, but they guard jealously freedom to do their jobs. To criticise the media for legitimate reasons, such as mangling news, is quite in order. However, when powerful people abuse airtime and use intimidating language against journalists that is unacceptable.

When simultaneously, they seek a pound of flesh of five minute spurts of free airtime under disguise of local content, then “that kind of head couldn’t come from weed.” They suck a crazy, propagandist seed.