Our most recent lecture was on Political Communications and Public Relations. In it we discussed issues in political communications such as media management, image management and information management done by political parties. The lecture was really engaging and what I really found interesting was the discussion around how campaign public relations can make or break a political party's chance at winning an election.
The lecture reminded me of an incident that happened back home in the 2005-2006 national elections.
At the outset the Liberals were the expected winners, with very few expecting the Conservatives to win the election. However a lack of a cohesive campaign plan on the Liberal's part and a well-thought out campaign and communications strategy on the Conservative's part led to a defeat for the Liberals. That's just some context though and not my main point. One the crucial blows to the Liberals came in the form of a PR faux pas which badly hurt their image and gave the Conservatives plenty of ammunition to paint the Liberals in a negative light in the media.
Ironically the mistake was made by the Liberal Director of Communications, Scott Reid. When discussing a Conservative initiative to give Canadian parents money for daycare, Scott Reid said that the money would go towards "beer and popcorn".
The quote was in the papers, all over the news next day and taken to mean that the Liberals thought parents were irresponsible and would misuse daycare money. it was a blow to the party's image. The mistake followed the Liberals all the way through the election and because of it they perceived to be elitist and insulting. It was even thought to be one of the main reasons they lost the election.
What struck me about this whole incident was the power of image or of a mistake in regards to image management in deciding a whole election and even a whole country's fate. I think its cause for reflection on how important our roles as PR professionals, especially in the political sphere, has become.
Here is a link to a story about the incident;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2005/12/11/daycare051211.html
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Lecture 2 - PR and New Media
In the second lecture of our Public Relations theory class we discussed the rise of new media and it's effect on PR. It was pretty interesting to realize that just because there has been an increase in the types of new mediums (blogs, podcasts, social networking sites etc) available to PR professionals, it doesn't mean that PR techniques or way of PR practice has changed.
However the lecture was really interesting, in that it got me thinking about ways in which new media has changed or altered the way in which Public Relations is practiced or how it operates.
I was researching the topic when I found this study, New Media, New Influencers and Implications for Public Relations done by the Society of New Communications Research. The study looks at the impact new media is having on Public Relations and looks at real actual Public Relations campaigns carried out with the use of new media.
What really struck me however was this quote;
"Marketers and public relations professionals today are confronted with an astounding array of new communications channels. Internet-based social media tools like blogs, podcasts, online video and social networks are giving voice to the opinions of millions of consumers.... Marketers and public relations professionals are responding to these forces with a mixture of excitement, fear and fascination. They're alarmed at the prospect of ceding control of their messages to a community of unknowns. Yet at the same time they're excited about the prospect of leveraging these same tools to speak directly to their constituents without the involvement of media intermediaries."
I think what this study notes is true. As opposed to traditional media which followed the hypodermic needle formula with one way communication, new media allows for two communications, a back and forth. With the rise of new media, consumers or receivers of our PR messages have the chance to answer back to state their opinion to what we are telling them and be active rather than passive in this process. I find this really interesting about New Media PR, that our audiences can talk back to us letting us know right away whether or messages speak to them and whether our strategies work. That is definitely an interesting development on regards to new media and PR.
Here is the link to the study:
http://sncr.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/new-influencers-study.pdf
Csaema%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml">
However the lecture was really interesting, in that it got me thinking about ways in which new media has changed or altered the way in which Public Relations is practiced or how it operates.
I was researching the topic when I found this study, New Media, New Influencers and Implications for Public Relations done by the Society of New Communications Research. The study looks at the impact new media is having on Public Relations and looks at real actual Public Relations campaigns carried out with the use of new media.
What really struck me however was this quote;
"Marketers and public relations professionals today are confronted with an astounding array of new communications channels. Internet-based social media tools like blogs, podcasts, online video and social networks are giving voice to the opinions of millions of consumers.... Marketers and public relations professionals are responding to these forces with a mixture of excitement, fear and fascination. They're alarmed at the prospect of ceding control of their messages to a community of unknowns. Yet at the same time they're excited about the prospect of leveraging these same tools to speak directly to their constituents without the involvement of media intermediaries."
I think what this study notes is true. As opposed to traditional media which followed the hypodermic needle formula with one way communication, new media allows for two communications, a back and forth. With the rise of new media, consumers or receivers of our PR messages have the chance to answer back to state their opinion to what we are telling them and be active rather than passive in this process. I find this really interesting about New Media PR, that our audiences can talk back to us letting us know right away whether or messages speak to them and whether our strategies work. That is definitely an interesting development on regards to new media and PR.
Here is the link to the study:
http://sncr.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/new-influencers-study.pdf
Csaema%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml">
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Lecture 1 - PR and Propoganda
In our first lecture we discussed the relationship between PR and propaganda, PR and war spin and communications strategies in regards to government defense.
The lecture was an interesting look at how public relations can be used to win over public support for war using lies or exaggerations. A video we watched about the communications strategies employed by the US government during the war in Iraq really highlighted this point. The video showed how army personnel were trained to avoid certain subjects during press conferences, how government spokesmen re-framed and put their own 'spin' on tricky questions from journalists or negative media coverage of the war. Even journalists embedded within the army were told to report in ways which would maintain the public's support for the war (such as not recording soldiers carrying guns).
It was really interesting to realize how, it can be argued that, PR essentially allowed the war to happen through creating and maintaining the public support for the war that was needed to make it happen.
This point of view seems to be supported in an article I was reading called 'Propoganda or Public Relations Campaign? Internal communication on the war against Iraq'. In it the authors state that;
"The war against Iraq is a global public relations campaign allowing the U.S. adminsistration to build a favorable public opinion against terrorism and to remove Saddam Hussein"(Jo, Shim, Jung, 63, 2007).
In terms of tactics used by the US government the article notes that
"The fundamental sentiment toward the war can be influenced by media reports. Initially the U.S government has used the WMD, Axis of Evil, and the need to dispel of international terrorism and probable connection as reasons for the war against Iraq"(Jo, Shim, Jung, 65, 2007).
What I got from the lecture was a sense of the importance and essentially 'power' of PR. War PR has the potential to determine the fate of whole countries through creating support for wars which may or may not be justified.
Jo, Samsup. Shim, Sung Wook and Jung, Jaemin. (2007). 'Propoganda or public relations campaign? International communication on the war against Iraq' Public Relations Review. Vol 34. pg 63-65.
The lecture was an interesting look at how public relations can be used to win over public support for war using lies or exaggerations. A video we watched about the communications strategies employed by the US government during the war in Iraq really highlighted this point. The video showed how army personnel were trained to avoid certain subjects during press conferences, how government spokesmen re-framed and put their own 'spin' on tricky questions from journalists or negative media coverage of the war. Even journalists embedded within the army were told to report in ways which would maintain the public's support for the war (such as not recording soldiers carrying guns).
It was really interesting to realize how, it can be argued that, PR essentially allowed the war to happen through creating and maintaining the public support for the war that was needed to make it happen.
This point of view seems to be supported in an article I was reading called 'Propoganda or Public Relations Campaign? Internal communication on the war against Iraq'. In it the authors state that;
"The war against Iraq is a global public relations campaign allowing the U.S. adminsistration to build a favorable public opinion against terrorism and to remove Saddam Hussein"(Jo, Shim, Jung, 63, 2007).
In terms of tactics used by the US government the article notes that
"The fundamental sentiment toward the war can be influenced by media reports. Initially the U.S government has used the WMD, Axis of Evil, and the need to dispel of international terrorism and probable connection as reasons for the war against Iraq"(Jo, Shim, Jung, 65, 2007).
What I got from the lecture was a sense of the importance and essentially 'power' of PR. War PR has the potential to determine the fate of whole countries through creating support for wars which may or may not be justified.
Jo, Samsup. Shim, Sung Wook and Jung, Jaemin. (2007). 'Propoganda or public relations campaign? International communication on the war against Iraq' Public Relations Review. Vol 34. pg 63-65.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
