For example, one of the earlier models is the general systems theory, which views public relations through the prism of an organisation operating within 'open' (external interaction with the outside world) and 'closed' (internal communication within the organisation) systems. This theory enables PR strategists to formulate campaigns by analysing the flow of communication within and without the company. However, I feel that such an analytical, dispassionate view of public relations does not take into account the emotional and pyschological elements of human communication.
Another prominent theory is the four model approach by Grunig and Hunt, which contends that there are four models - Press Agentry, Public Information, Two-way Asymmetric and Two-way Symmetric - which illustrate the different activities and priorities of public relations practitioners, depending on the political and social setting of the time. The press agentry model, for example, manifests itself when practitioners use propaganda for blatant publicity-seeking purposes, and can be observed in things like stunts performed by celebrities endorsing a product - think Jackie Chan play-fighting with Yao Ming in the current Visa and Beijing Olympics advertisement. On the other hand, the public sector and governmental agencies might be more inclined to approach PR activities using a public information model, where information is disseminated while adhering to strict professional and ethical rules of conduct.
Grunig and Hunt contend that the two-way aymmetric model is the most common approach to PR seen today, a view I believe to be accurate and persuasive. PR campaigns are often based on the interests and views of a particular organisation, with public feedback and interest subsumed under the economic and business objectives of the company. I find this be the most realistic model because ultimately, organisations hire PR personnel for a reason, and that is to advance the company's interests. Granted, PR practitioners might appear to give careful consideration to public needs and wants, but even this is done with an eye towards company policy and agenda.
On the other hand, the two researchers also regard the two-way symmetric model as the most effective approach to public relations. While ensuring that the publics' viewpoints are accorded equal importance as those of the organisation's is certainly an egalitarian and democratic way of doing things, it appears to me to be both idealistic and untenable. Not every segment in society is equal in status and power. This brings me to the article by Dr Mark Chong on how Singapore dealt with the SARS crisis, in which he claimed that “public participation in risk management is akin to the two-way symmetrical approach”. While the adeptness and efficacy of the local government in dealing with the crisis was certainly admirable, the interaction between it and the public cannot be said to be symmetrical. Yes, the government took pains to engage the public and to garner trust in its policies regarding the crisis. However, an average Singapoporean would not have known about the transmission and prevention methods of the relatively new disease, had it not been for the public information dessiminated by the government. Therefore, I would argue that the SARS crisis was an example of the public information model, with some elements of two-way symmetry thrown in.
This leads me to conclude that the key points to remember from this week's readings are that public relations theories are, in the end, just that: theories. It is virtually impossible to generalise and say that any one theory is superior to the rest. Therefore, PR practitioners must not only have an understanding of all the various theories, but also possess the discernment and flexibility to apply any or a combination of them when dealing with specific situations in the real world today.
No comments:
Post a Comment