Two Models of PR

PR 1.0 (traditional) vs. PR2.0 (modern)

I think,in traditional times media relations was considered as the main task of a PR practitioner. His/ her job was to enhance press coverage and create awareness. The perpetual thought enveloping our minds was tomorrow’s headlines. Will we make it or not? May be our task veered towards product promotion and mass targeting ( both debatable) using persuasion as a tool. And how many nights and days were (and still are) spent on press clipping analysis?

In PR 2.0 times the role has slightly shifted. We now have stakeholder communities that need to be constantly monitored. We have to worry about Google search ranking. Awareness has given way to acceptance in order to move towards sustainable success. We now are moving in the era of discussing issues rather than mere product promotion. Micro targeting is the buzz word and along with the press analysis we are doing attitudinal research. Persuasion is gradually changing to conversation.

Richard Bailey : Source

Book ref. PR 2.0 by Deirdre Breakenridge

I came across this You tube interview with Michael G. Cherenson, Executive VP Success Communications, who talks about the importance of new media for a PR practitioner.

New Media and PR

How do PR practitioners prepare themselves from this onslaught of internet? Should the practitioner start getting worried about this phenomenon and kind of look for other jobs as citizen journalists take the role of advocacy? (Sounds extreme, may be!!)

In our class we discussed the advent of new media and the role of PR. It was a relief to understand that new media/ social media(SM) may not pack us off hunting for jobs during recession!!!! And not anytime at all.

The reasons for not hitting the panic buttons are.

1. Media management serves as the mainstay of PR

2. PR has more than 100 years of history in traditional media.

3. Pitching story ideas to a journalist is a vital skill for a PR practitioner.

4. Third party endorsement differentiates PR from advertising. It helps in creating credibility.

The new media may actually be used as complimentary to the traditional media. PR practitioners can now connect directly with the consumer and create better and more effective campaigns. People/ customers discussing issues on blogs actually may give the PR practitioner an edge.

In order to achieve this edge, we no doubt, have to learn new skills to use social networking sites. What can be better for us than to read the thoughts of people and then masterfully react to them?

The underline principal is : we have to learn, accept and change.

After reading about Propaganda and war, today I would like to sum up the lecture we had on last Wednesday on War and Spin.

I decided to take the reverse route of reading first , understanding the word propaganda in terms of public relations and then see if we the ordinary civilians could decipher the word propaganda correctly in the class.

Well I can say we sure were successful. I think Iraq war farce was on everybody’s mind and we had that example at the back of our minds when we discussed propaganda. Iraq the mother of all Lies!!!! has taught us all an important lesson once again....NEVER trust a political leader. They manipulate and they spin and most of all politics has given a BAD name to PR.

As I was reading the strategy used in propaganda it appeared to me that Bush sat down with a good book on Propaganda and followed every word. (Should we stop the authors of such books to write?? So we can avoid other wars???)

Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign. Its activities alone would have constituted the largest foreign-funded campaign ever aimed at manipulating American public opinion. . Did this agency forget the Code of Ethics? So when Bush picked up a good book on Spin, Hill & Knowlton put down or may be hid the best book ‘Code and Ethics for PR professionals.’

A conservative estimate of the likely overall cost of the war and its aftermath is carefully projected in Joseph Stiglitz' and Linda Bilmes' 2008 book, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. Amy Goodman interviewed Stiglitz and Bilmes on February 29, 2008. You may read the transcript as well as watch and/or listen to this interview at http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive

_the_three_trillion_dollar_war.

How many hospitals, schools and vocational training centres could have been made with this huge amount of money?

On second thoughts (frivolous of course) propaganda cannot be so bad because an agency calls itself Propaganda PR!!!!!!!!!!!

Books ref.

1. PR power by Barry Amanda

2. PR A Social History of Spin by Ewen Stuart

Why does propoganda work?

It seems to work for a number of reasons including

People wish to believe the best about themselves and their country
Fear - mongering, especially about the threat to cherished values such as freedom and justice.
Presenting fears and claims that appear logical and factual.
Media management and public relations is very professional.
Managing thoughts by narrowing ranges of debate, thus minimizing widely discussed thoughts that deviate from the main agenda.


I came across this very interesting video on ' How to brainwash a nation?'

Stages of Propoganda in war

Ottosen identifies several key stages of a military campaign to “soften up” public opinion through the media in preparation for an armed intervention. These are:

The Preliminary Stage—during which the country concerned comes to the news, portrayed as a cause for “mounting concern” because of poverty/dictatorship/anarchy;

The Justification Stage—during which big news is produced to lend urgency to the case for armed intervention to bring about a rapid restitution of “normality”;

The Implementation Stage—when pooling and censorship provide control of coverage;

The Aftermath—during which normality is portrayed as returning to the region, before it once again drops down the news agenda.

O’Kane notes “there is always a dead baby story” and it comes at the key point of the Justification Stage—in the form of a story whose apparent urgency brooks no delay—specifically, no time for cool deliberation or negotiating on peace proposals. Human interest stories … are ideal for engendering this atmosphere

Two Grounds of Conflict

I think,probably every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda. The “good guys” and the “bad guys” can often both be guilty of misleading their people with distortions, exaggerations, subjectivity, inaccuracy and even fabrications, in order to receive support and a sense of legitimacy.

It is really fascinating to know how public discourse is being shaped, particularly concerning issues of public policy and how facts, lies, spin, and propaganda is used to further ideologically-driven agendas, all the while couching it is in the language of reason and argumentation.

Is this ethical PR? I wonder.....

Common Propoganda Tactics : Useful in all wars

The first casualty when war comes is Truth

— U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917

Common tactics in propaganda often used by either side include:

• Using selective stories that come over as wide-covering and objective.
• Partial facts, or historical context
• Reinforcing reasons and motivations to act due to threats on the security of the individual.
• Narrow sources of “experts” to provide insights in to the situation. (For example, the mainstream media typically interview retired military personnel for many conflict-related issues, or treat official government sources as fact, rather than just one perspective that needs to be verified and researched).
• Demonizing the “enemy” who does not fit the picture of what is “right”.
• Using a narrow range of discourse, whereby judgments are often made while the boundary of discourse itself, or the framework within which the opinions are formed, are often not discussed. The narrow focus then helps to serve the interests of the propagandists.

Build up of Iraq War - A propoganda caught red handed

The propaganda by Bush worked like charm on the people of America. The time was post 9/11 and America was vulnerable after the fall of the twin towers. They wanted the villain and Bush named him as Saddam Hussain the president of Iraq.

The reasons given were that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and might help Al- Qadea and therefore pose a threat to the American people and the world.

The strategies and tactics used by the Bush administration were what PR people are generally accused of in political scenario -- spin and manipulation.

The three weeks of Iraq war will go down in history where the entire world was taken for a ride by USA and its greatest ally UK .

Just a few examples of manipulation and spin used during the Iraq war...

1. The Bush administration bought the scientists who said the Saddam will use chemicals to contaminate and bring mass destruction. Of course they were not speaking the truth.

2. Embedded journalists who gave a sanitized picture of Iraq war.

3. Maximum imagery was shown with minimum insight

4. Setbacks and atrocities of the coalition army were glossed over.

5. Only military coverage of Jessica Lynch was shot and edited version handed over to the media.

6. Towns which were not won over were falsely reported as seized.

we Weapons of mass destruction !!!!!!!! Have they been found as yet?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E7DC1738F937A35757C0A9659C8B63http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_iraqmedia.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/nov/06/broadcasting.Iraqandthemedia

I came across this very interesting site on Nazi Propaganda.

http://www.historians.org/Projects/GIroundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda1.htm