What the Public Thinks About Public Relations

The media has consistently depicted public relations negatively over many years, shaping public perceptions and influencing how credible and valuable the profession is seen by society. According to second-level agenda-setting and cultivation theories, mass media shape beliefs about social reality by building a broad, shared awareness that underpins assumptions and judgments. This implies that public views on public relations are likely to align with media portrayals. Public relations is seen more favorably by the public than the media portrays it to be, according to a telephone survey. Respondents reject the notion that public relations is only damage control, dishonest, or lacking in content, instead viewing it as an important informational function of society. Nonetheless, publicity, media relations, and organizational initiatives to advance its own objectives are still associated with public relations.

An introduction

Numerous researchers have independently noted similar tendencies in the unfavourable stereotypes that have been repeatedly found in media portrayals in public relations (Henderson, 1998; Jo, 2003; Keenan, 1996; Park, 2001; Spicer, 1993; White & Lambert, 2006). Public relations has been described as damage control, merely publicity, manipulating the truth, a way to achieve a company’s agenda, or lacking substance by common themes throughout studies. Journalists create an interpretive framework or “stock of frames” that conveys explicit and implicit messages when frequently reinforcing these negative themes (Van Gorp, 2007). Studies have also shown that the word “public relations” is frequently used carelessly in news articles that have nothing to do with it (Kinsky & Callison, 2008; Scrimger & Richards, 2002). Words like “public relations gimmick” or “public relations nightmare” that characterize immoral or regrettable incidents unrelated to public relations help create a bad impression of the industry.
Traditional agenda-setting has evolved from concentrating on what subjects to consider to influencing our thoughts about them, according to second-level agenda-setting theory, which describes how media framing affects audience interpretations (Scheufele, 1999). This idea is comparable to the cultivation theory (Gerbner et al., 1980) in that both contend that media contributes to the formation of a collective, cumulative understanding that shapes our presumptions and assessments of social reality. The language and framing used by journalists imply value judgments and interact with the mental frameworks, or schemata, of both audiences and other journalists, who are also influenced by media frames (Scheufele, 2004; Van Gorp, 2007). Journalists frequently adopt common framing patterns, forming a “stock” of frames that embeds itself within culture (Van Gorp, 2007). The persistence of negative media frames around public relations may shape audience perceptions, affecting the profession’s perceived credibility and societal value.

Portrayal of public relations in media

According to scholarly studies, journalists frequently present public relations in a persistently unfavourable light despite the field’s usefulness to society. The frequent derogatory use of “public relations” in the news media has impacted public impressions of the field, according to a number of studies. Spicer’s 1993 study, for example, looked at 84 news stories that used the word “public relations.” He discovered that PR was framed negatively more than 80 per cent of the time, emphasizing how it was used to twist, avoid, or control the truth. The perception of PR as a means of deceit rather than this conceptualization strengthened a channel for open dialogue or public involvement.
Spicer’s research categorized unfavourable depictions into distinct groups frequently seen in the media. These categories mostly focused on PR’s purported role in preventing the truth from coming to light or advancing a business’s own interests at the expense of the general public. These portrayals create a limited understanding of public relations as a weak field that focuses on image management or “damage control.” According to Spicer’s research, these representations minimize PR’s many functions and benefits, including promoting ethical communication between businesses and their audiences, interacting with communities, and distributing factual information.

Keenan’s 1996 study built upon Spicer’s paradigm to further investigate the extent of this negative framing. By applying Spicer’s categories to further media samples, Keenan supported the conclusion that PR is frequently positioned as a practice with little substance, prioritizing manipulation over transparency. Keenan claims that journalists frequently overlook the more positive facets of public relations, such as crisis management that puts public safety first or efforts to increase public awareness of significant social concerns. The media maintains a narrow, negative perception of PR that continuously neglects these aspects and ignores its beneficial effects on society. The research by Spicer and Keenan is consistent with theories such as cultivation theory and second-level agenda-setting, which describe how the media shapes audience perceptions by consistently promoting particular frames or interpretations. According to these views, when journalists consistently present public relations in a bad light, they are influencing public opinion by fostering a collective conviction that PR is fundamentally deceptive. Eventually, this framing becomes what is called a “stock of frames”—a collection of well-known stories or concepts that people easily connect to a subject, in this instance, public relations. The public starts internalizing these presumptions when public relations is primarily presented as dishonest or superficial, impacting the field’s perceived legitimacy and acknowledged social significance.
Furthermore, this recurring framing affects how people view public relations specialists and their work. Audiences who frequently see unfavourable representations may become less trusting of PR campaigns or experts because they perceive them as essentially biased or self-serving. As a result, even when the intention is to inform or protect the public, people may infer that the messaging is being used for other purposes, which can reduce the effectiveness of public relations efforts.

Method

Computer-assisted telephone interviews were used in a poll to find out how the public felt about public relations. This study aimed to collect information on people’s public relations opinions, looking at favourable and unfavourable views. A university research institute conducted the survey and ensured a representative and wide sample using randomly generated phone numbers for outreach. Four hundred fifty-five respondents from throughout the state participated in the interviews, yielding a sizable dataset for study. According to the computed response rate, 42 per cent of all contact efforts resulted in completed interviews. This rate suggests a moderate degree of public participation, providing insightful information but recognizing certain drawbacks because of the percentage of people who did not take part.

The survey used a five-point Likert scale to record respondents’ opinions on a range of public relations-related statements. This scale, which went from strong agreement to strong disagreement, gave researchers an idea of how strongly respondents felt about each issue. Negative statements were used to test for agreement with typical criticisms of PR, such as its relationship with image management or manipulation, whereas positive statements were used to capture agreement with positive viewpoints. Some of the survey’s items were developed with the orientation reversed to assure internal validity; for instance, whereas agreement should normally imply a good perspective, a reversed item would position agreement as a negative viewpoint. This method lessened the possibility that respondents might adopt response patterns without giving each inquiry their complete attention. In order to ensure that higher scores consistently reflected favourable perceptions and lower scores indicated more critical opinions, all reversed items were turned in orientation during data processing after responses were collected.
The information gathered from these interviews shed light on the public’s complex perceptions of public relations. Because the Likert scale provided a range of answers, from strongly disagree to agree strongly, researchers were able to observe respondents’ beliefs’ intensity as well as their overall view. For example, respondents may have strongly agreed with statements regarding PR’s contribution to society in the form of useful information, indicating a positive societal force perception. On the other hand, it would indicate more critical views in line with typical media representations if respondents agreed with comments that framed PR as image control or manipulation. The survey’s use of a five-point rating system made it possible to examine in detail whether public opinion was generally positive or negative and whether PR-related elements were most or least favoured.

Result

The survey sample consisted of 61 per cent female and 39 per cent male respondents, with a median respondent age of 50. Interestingly, 39 per cent of those surveyed had finished four or more years of college. The median age of this sample was much greater than the national median, which is approximately 35 years old, even if these demographics typically match national data. Given that mobile phone numbers are not reached by the random digit-dialing method employed for this study, this age disparity raises possible concerns about the future of telephone surveys. Over time, this approach may restrict the representativeness of telephone survey samples since younger individuals are more likely to rely only on cell phones rather than landlines.

When compared to the national median, the age gap within the survey sample illustrates more general demographic changes in communication preferences. Younger people frequently prefer mobile phones, social media, and digital communication channels to traditional landlines. People under 40, many of whom do not have landlines at home, are especially prone to this propensity. Random digit-dialing for landline numbers may bias samples toward an older demographic, thereby influencing survey results that fail to represent the viewpoints of younger age groups adequately. Older respondents, for instance, can have different perspectives on public relations as a discipline, possibly seeing it through a less digitally focused or more conventional lens. The poll participants’ educational backgrounds were significantly higher than the national average, with 39 per cent having finished at least four years of college. Survey results may also be impacted by the fact that this level of educational attainment is higher than average for the country. Those with higher levels of education may be more knowledgeable about or interested in public relations-related subjects, which could affect how they answer the survey. For instance, more sophisticated or knowledgeable viewpoints on intricate subjects like public relations, marketing, and media impact may be associated with higher educational attainment. Therefore, the higher educational attainment of the sample may influence the survey results in a manner that represents viewpoints that are not fully representative of the broader community.

The sample’s gender distribution, which is somewhat weighted toward female respondents (39 oer cent men and 61 per cent women), is comparable to national gender demographics. Given that research indicates that men and women may have different opinions on issues like communication and media influence, this bias could slightly affect the survey’s findings. However, this discrepancy is unlikely to significantly impact the survey’s generalizability due to its relatively tight alignment with national gender ratios. However, it is crucial to consider gender distribution when analyzing survey data because gender might have distinct effects on perceptions of public relations and media representations.

Even while the sample demographics generally follow national trends, some significant variations, particularly regarding age and education, may affect the study’s conclusions and how they are interpreted. Higher education and a greater median age may distort the data, giving younger or less educated groups viewpoints that are not entirely representative. These demographic variances highlight the significance of modifying future research methodologies to capture a more balanced demographic profile, particularly as the use of landlines to reach younger audiences becomes less feasible.
Researchers may consider employing mixed approaches or including mobile phone numbers in the future to guarantee wider demographic inclusion. Survey methods must also be modified to capture a more accurate cross-section of public opinion as communication preferences change. The aforementioned modification would enhance the representativeness of survey data and provide a more thorough understanding of public opinions in domains such as public relations, where opinions may differ among age groups, educational attainment, and communication styles.

The results of this study offer a novel viewpoint on how public relations is portrayed in the media. Although negative media framing is prevalent, the respondents to the survey do not entirely concur with these negative representations. Although media discourse undoubtedly contributes to constructing meaning and shaping public perceptions, its impact can differ greatly depending on the subject. According to a literature review, the media has consistently framed public relations negatively, yet this study implies that public attitude may be more positive than earlier research suggests.
According to historical research, public relations is often associated with manipulation, deceit, or “spin” by the media, which tends to emphasize negative aspects and frame PR as a tool for image management rather than open communication. Because of this frequent framing, the “stock” of frames—a collection of traditional depictions that the public typically identifies with public relations—has grown. The language employed by journalists, who may use phrases like “PR stunt” or “damage control” to express certain value judgments, reinforces these frames.

It is evident from second-level agenda-setting and cultivation theories that recurrent media representations can influence audiences’ perceptions of particular professions. The public’s perceptions can be progressively influenced when public relations concepts are employed interchangeably with deceit or manipulation. Additional investigation into the ways in which media representations of public relations impact certain populations may help explain the reasons behind these disparities. Higher education or professional experience in communication, for instance, may make people warier of unfavourable depictions since they are aware of the wider extent of PR work than the “damage control” caricature. A further factor may be age disparities; younger audiences may view PR as more dynamic and multidimensional, recognizing its function in crisis management, community outreach, and corporate social responsibility. They may also engage with brands more frequently on digital platforms.

Overall, this study’s findings indicate that public opinion may not be wholly influenced by media representations, even though these representations have historically portrayed public relations negatively. Individual experiences, exposure to digital platforms, and the PR industry’s endeavours to improve ethics and openness lead to a more complex public perception of the discipline. The impact of media framing on public perceptions of PR may be more complicated and varied than previously believed, indicating the significance of considering media effects in the context of other social influences.