Cejoc 4 1(6) Imprim.Indb
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PR, politics and democracy Sigurd Allern UNIVERSITY OFbOSLO, NORWAY ABSTRACT: Th is article examines the relationship between politics and public relations, based on re- cent developments in Sweden and Norway. It has become increasingly common for PR fi rms to off er well-paid job opportunities for former politicians. Th en, aft er some years as advisors in public aff airs, including lobbying activity, some of them return to politics as members of the government, press of- fi cers or advisors. Th e article discusses the background for this development, and poses some ques- tions concerning integrity and the possible consequences for democracy. KEYWORDS: public relations, lobbying, politics, integrity, democracy INTRODUCTION Public relations consultants cover many areas of communication and perform a range of roles. One type of modern PR much in demand concerns public aff airs: stakeholders who want to infl uence political decisions and legislation buy advice and services concerning media initiatives and lobbying. In this marketplace, former politicians have found opportunities for new careers as well-paid PR consultants. Th ey can then render their services to clients for a fee without being accused of cor- ruption, as would be the case if they still were members of the government or parlia- ment. One of the most spectacular events in Scandinavia in this context was when Sweden’s former Prime Minister Göran Persson1 joined the PR fi rm JKL aft er the Social Democratic Party lost the national elections in 2006. In Norway, two of the country’s best-known and most experienced politicians, one of them a cabi- net minister, announced their transition to PR consultant companies just aft er the 2009 national elections.2 All these cases gave rise to public debates about 1 Göran Persson served as Prime Minister of Sweden from 1996 to 2006 and was the leader of the Sweden’s Social Democratic Party from 2006 to 2007. Since August 2007 he has worked as a part-time consultant and corporate lobbyist for the JKL Group, a PR consultancy with offi ces in four Nordic countries — and in Brussels. 2 Norway’s Bjarne Håkon Hanssen, Minister of Health and former Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion in Jens Stoltenberg’s “red–green” coalition government, left the government aft er the national CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011) ISSN1899-5101 125 Central European Journal of Communication vol. 4, 1(6), 2011 © for this edition by CNS CCEJoCEJoC 4 11(6)(6) iimprim.indbmprim.indb 112525 22011-04-26011-04-26 112:22:122:22:12 Sigurd Allern the professional identities and public roles of politicians — and about the border- lines between PR and politics. Drawing on Swedish and Norwegian experiences, this article discusses this de- velopment and its possible consequences for democracy. Th e author focuses on three questions: • What type of professional competence do former politicians represent as PR consultants? • What kinds of challenges and opportunities do former politicians see in PR consultant jobs? • What kinds of integrity confl icts may appear when former politicians are asked to use their “political capital” in the service of commercial clients? PR — AND THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION Public relations is a concept with several meanings and many, oft en negative, con- notations — like spin, stonewalling, distortion, and manipulation. When political journalists or media analysts label a political advisor or a PR consultant a “spin doc- tor” it is not meant as a compliment. A vital aspect of presidential power, writes Maltese (1994): … is the ability to spin a story — to manipulate not only what administration offi cials are saying but also what the media are saying about them. Spinning a story involves twisting it to one’s ad- vantage, using surrogates, press releases, radio actualities, and other friendly sources to deliver the line from an angle that puts the story in the best possible light. (Maltese, 1994, p. 215) Th e phrase “it’s just PR” is typical of this critical attitude: it indicates that public relations is superfi cial and marketing-oriented, sending out messages that should not be taken too seriously or trusted. Two US experts on corporate communication, W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay (2007), even chose It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society as their book title to refl ect the frustration experienced by both scholars and practitioners in the fi eld. In their opinion, the term PR is mis- used by the media and misunderstood by the general population. Th eir own aim was to “help readers understand why society benefi ts from the practice” (Coombs & Holladay, 2007, p. 1). Th is is sometimes a diffi cult task, as even these authors’ examples and defence of public relations clearly show. Th e basic, positive and elementary argument for the positive eff ects of public relations is of course that all organizations and institu- tions need to communicate with their audiences and stakeholders. Some elements of public relations are as old as the knowledge of rhetoric. Th e ability to convince or persuade is necessary for all types of leadership, not least in the political life of dem- elections in 2009 and began working as a consultant for the PR fi rm First House. Carl I. Hagen, former leader of the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet, an infl uential right-wing populist party), was recruited as a part-time consultant by the Oslo offi ce of the international PR fi rm Burson-Marsteller. 126 CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011) Central European Journal of Communication vol. 4, 1(6), 2011 © for this edition by CNS CCEJoCEJoC 4 11(6)(6) iimprim.indbmprim.indb 112626 22011-04-26011-04-26 112:22:122:22:12 PR, politics and democracy ocratic countries. In that respect, public relations is a necessary tool for any or- ganizations that want to infl uence the development of society — be they corpora- tions, governmental bodies or NGOs, or minority and interest groups without large fi nancial resources to back them up. Th e basic problem and counter-argument are equally well known. “Votes count, but resources decide,” the Norwegian social scientist Stein Rokkan (1966) wrote, in describing the power of organized interest groups in society. Basically, his analy- sis concerned the corporative channel, but the resource argument is also relevant when large corporations and organizations lobby independently to infl uence policy decisions. Another point in this debate is that communication skills and persuasion — or perception management, as the PR fi rm Burson-Marsteller terms their type of expertise — may be used as an instrument for corporations (like Enron) to cover up their misdeeds, or for governments to polish their tarnished image and close all doors for investigative journalism. In his Propaganda (1928), the pioneer and father fi gure of modern public rela- tions in the USA, Edward Bernays, defi ned his trade as the “engineering of consent.”3 He formulated the task of PR consultants in words that today would create an image crisis for any fi rm unwise enough to quote them: Th e conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Th ose who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country. (Ber- nays, 1928, p. 9) In fact, even in the 1930s, the negative connotations of the propaganda concept were evident, as Harold Lasswell observed in an article on the topic: “Hence it is common for modern promoters of attitudes to borrow the prestige of words like education, public relations and publicity” (Lasswell, 1935, p. 3). In their well-known textbook defi nition, Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 6) charac- terize public relations as “the management of communication between an organiza- tion and its publics.” Th ey distinguish between four communication models for PR, with propaganda and publicity as the oldest, most primitive version, while sym- metrical two-way communication represents their ideal for modern, systems-ori- ented PR. However, this normative approach is debated and criticized, not least because it ignores the fact that persuasion and public relations are “two Ps in a Pod” (Miller, 1989). Any organization will want to control its symbolic environment and infl uence people’s attitudes towards the organization. Coombs and Holladay (2007, p. 2) therefore defi ne public relations as “the management of mutually infl uential relationships within a web of stakeholder and organizational relationships,” intended to refl ect how PR does have a strong persuasive component. Simon Cottle makes the importance of persuasion and power even clearer when he defi nes public rela- 3 Th e term was inspired by Walter Lippman’s (1922) defi nition of opinion formation as the “manufacturing of consent.” CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011) 127 Central European Journal of Communication vol. 4, 1(6), 2011 © for this edition by CNS CCEJoCEJoC 4 11(6)(6) iimprim.indbmprim.indb 112727 22011-04-26011-04-26 112:22:122:22:12 Sigurd Allern tions as “the deliberate management of public image and information in pursuit of organisational interests” (Cottle 2003, p. 3). As a former CEO in one of the world’s best-known PR corporations, Hill & Knowlton, once stated: “Power comes from remembering and using the linage of communication, recognition and infl uence” (Dilenschneider, 1990, p. 8). One important task in public relations is the production of messages and source material in a journalistic format, given free for use in media organizations. As Gan- dy (1992, p. 143) underlines, policy actors provide such information subsidies through a variety of means, “most of which have to do with using a credible source to deliver a persuasive message.” Th e main aim is to infl uence decisions based on such information.