The Spin

In the class, I have learnt that in public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favour or against a certain organization or public figure. There have been many debates that PR should be more transparent exactly due to this bad reputation. 

It is well known that politicians are often accused by their opponents of claiming to be honest and seek the truth while using spin tactics to manipulate public opinion and their actions. Historically Public Relations in Slovakia has been perceived as propaganda produced by government, businesses and other dominant interests to maintain communist ideology in the country.  Personally i would be really interested whether an experience of being propagandised produced a culture of suspicion and mistrust in PR, hence a generated low reputation.

Edward Bernays has been called the "Father of Spin". In his book he describes situations where tobacco and alcohol companies used techniques to make certain behaviours more socially acceptable. Bernays was proud of his work as a propagandist although many PR professionals disapprove his tactics due to breaking the so called code of conduct/ethics. So the million dollar question remains, serve the client or the public??? I think this is for every individual to decide.

Stuart Ewen said that "The history of PR is… a history of a battle for what is reality and how people will see and understand reality." This exactly gives a true picture of Slovakia being under communist regime. Just imagine that just after the Chernobyl disaster, my in that time 1 year old brother was still playing outside and was exposed to nuclear waste simply because government didn’t want to weaken the ideology that anything coming from Russia our communist ‘brothers’ is in any way less than perfect! Here it is a crystal clear example of how spin and propaganda can work really well for over a 30 years without people realising that they are being simply manipulated by spin and pure propaganda.

NGO’s activism and PR

Non-governmental organisation is there to lobby (try to change laws) or advocate for someone who has no voice or cannot be heard wit out their help. It could be argued that NGOs can easily become a threat to corporate organisations (e.g. PETA) but on the other hand can be a friend when a company practice CSR to e.g. improve community work. 

A great example of a situation when NGO becomes a threat is for instance a movie called Supersize Me which has raised a social issue of McDonald’s corporation causing health problems and obesity amongst population and kids. McDonald’s has become a target for several NGOs. It can be argued that the PR/ media communication person did not handle well the threats that were about to face McDonald’s after revealing this film. One can ask why that was. Was she maybe not heard from people above or was she simply too ignorant and did not consider the film to be a potential threat to McDonald’s reputation. 

NGO has various goals and functions. It is not only about corporate attack. NGO can deliver a service e.g. RNIB (a charity supporting blind and partially sighted people) or it can campaign for a change such as Greenpeace. It can also advocate or give voice to children or animals that could not be heard otherwise. 

NGO is seeing outside the sphere of influence, hence organisations and corporate PR is seen in the centre and sphere of influence. We need to ask a question, why so often there is a silence between activists and PR. Activists ignore PR and PR industry ignores practices of activists. This could be the result of PR being small and new body of knowledge hence some organisations are unorganised and unprofessional (so called cottage industry). It is necessary to create public debates to make corporate bodies to change e.g. laws hence, NGOs have very important role in order to keep a balance in the fierce corporate world.

Contemporary Theory and Issues

There are different models and theories for the company’s communication channels and audiences. 

It can be argued that Bernstein’s wheel is not PR specific. In his theory, one can spin the wheel to use any combination, necessary for the organisation. However, this model is out of date and does not take internet into consideration. It can be considered one way form of communication. It also does not differentiate amongst stakeholders meaning that one might be more important to the organisation’s survival than other. 

Esman’s Linkages theory is on the other hand two-way relationship, however does not include tools, its only nature of relationship. It overlaps with Grunig’s model when it comes to public segmentation. The organisation is still in the centre of everything according to this model e.g. government has power hence becomes high priority to the organisation. On the other hand general public have no immediate impact hence organisation needs to only keep an eye on them. 

Grunig’s situational theory is not static, it is very operational model. Unlike the previous models, this one does not categorize where customers and employees are. There are no compartments, they can be placed anywhere. According to Grunig, publics can actually be higher thread to organisation (e.g. via social networks) hence are as important as government sector. 

 
Power-interest matrix has no checklist or general strategic. It does not segment and list stakeholders. Different aspects can be applied and groups are not predefined. This model allows quality thinking on how stakeholders can be used or prioritized in order to maximize profit. Similarly to Grunig’s model, groups move around which means that the model is not static but flexible.