Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Persuasion and ethics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Persuasion and ethics

9,809
views

Published on

Can persuasive communication be defended on ethical grounds and how is it different from propaganda?

Can persuasive communication be defended on ethical grounds and how is it different from propaganda?

Published in: Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
9,809
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Can
 persuasive
 communication
 be
 defended
 on
 ethical
 grounds
 and
 how
 is
 it
different
from
propaganda?

 Introduction
 
Persuasion
is
a
process
of
communication
designed
to
influence
the
judgements
and
actions
 of
 others.
 Most
 PR
 academics
 agree
 it
 is
 the
 goal
 of
 the
 vast
 majority
 of
public
 relations
 programmes
 and
 hence
 forms
 its
 dominant
 practice.
 The
 art
 of
communication
is
central
to
the
function
of
PR:
“Stripped
to
its
fundamentals,
public
relations
means
communicating
with
others”
(Tymson
and
Sherman,
1996,
cited
in
Reddi,
2002,
p19).
Moloney

(2000)
expands
on
this
view:
“…PR
people
use
processes
of
persuasion,
compromise,
bargaining
and
negotiation
in
search
of
compliance
and
problem
 solving”
 (p.55).
 While
 persuasive
 communication
 often
 co‐habits
 with
propaganda
and
its
implied
connotations,
a
pivotal
element
of
ethical
persuasion
is
truthfulness;
where
truthfulness
requires
intention
and
action
that
does
not
mislead,
misinform
 or
 deceive.
 Messina
 (2007)
 defined
 ethical
 persuasion
 as:
 “An
 attempt
through
 communication
 to
 influence
 knowledge,
 attitude
 or
 behaviour
 of
 an
audience
through
presentation
of
a
view
that
addresses
and
allows
the
audience
to
make
voluntary,
informed,
rational
and
reflective
judgments”
(p.33).
From
the
CIPR’s
definition
of
‘understanding’
in
its
glossary,
it
is
clear
there
are
historic
links
between
PR
 practice
 and
 propaganda:
 “Understanding
 is
 a
 two‐way
 process
 and
 to
 be
effective,
an
organisation
needs
to
listen
to
the
opinions
of
those
with
whom
it
deals
and
not
solely
provide
information.
Issuing
a
barrage
of
propaganda
is
not
enough
in
todays
open
society.”
Miller’s
(1989)
definition
of
public
relations
further
highlights
the
 overlap
 between
 PR
 and
 propaganda
 as
 a
 process
 that
 attempts
 to
 manage
symbolic
 control
 over
 the
 environment,
 observing
 that:
 “Effective
 persuasion
 and
effective
 public
 relations
 are
 virtually
 synonymous”
 (p.
 368).
 
 However,
contemporary
 PR
 practice
 has
 sought
 to
 distance
 itself
 from
 propaganda
 as
 it
 has
become
increasingly
discredited
as
unethical.
This
is
a
view
echoed
by
Weaver
et.
al.
(2006)
 who
 observed
 that
 as
 PR
 practitioners
 seek
 to
 distance
 themselves
 from
propaganda
tactics,
especially
because
they
have
been
discredited
as
manipulative,
new
 models
 of
 ethical
 persuasion
 have
 been
 developed.
 Free
 will
 to
 engage
 in

  • 2. debate
 and
 discourse
 is
 fundamentally
 what
 separates
 persuasive
 communication
and
the
negative
connotations
of
propaganda.

This
essay
analyses
the
relationship
of
 persuasive
 communication
 as
 an
 essential
 element
 of
 public
 relations
 practice.
The
discussion
highlights
the
challenges
facing
practitioners
to
operate
ethically
on
behalf
 of
 their
 organization,
 while
 simultaneously
 acting
 in
 the
 public
 interest
 to
minimise
dissonance.
The
essay
argues
for
the
need
to
understand
the
distinctions
between
 persuasive
 communication
 and
 propaganda
 in
 order
 to
 implement
persuasive
tactics
in
an
ethical
manner.


  • 3. Propaganda
as
Persuasion
 
Jowett
 and
 O’Donnell
 (1999)
 focused
 their
 definition
 on
 the
 unneutrality
 of
propaganda
as
a
communication
process:
“Propaganda
is
the
deliberate,
systematic
attempt
 to
 shape
 perceptions,
 manipulate
 cognitions,
 and
 direct
 behaviour
 to
achieve
a
response
that
furthers
the
desired
intent
of
the
propagandist.”
(p.
6).
The
idea
 that
 public
 opinion
 could
 be
 managed
 and
 PR
 was
 an
 instrument
 of
 social
control
 started
 in
 America
 shortly
 after
 the
 first
 world
 war;
 shifting
 from
 largely
 a
public
 information
 to
 a
 purely
 press
 agentry
 model
 of
 communication.
 European
business
 leaders
 and
 governments
 of
 the
 1920s
 believed
 the
 publics’
 emotions
provided
 levers
 of
 influence
 that
 mere
 facts
 could
 never
 match
 (Ewen,
 1996).
 As
 a
strategic
 form
 of
 communication,
 propaganda
 is
 a
 technique
 that
 attempts
 to
intentionally
 influence
 or
 manipulate
 a
 group
 of
 publics
 through
 language
 and
imagery
whilst
maintaining
an
advantageous
position.
Propaganda
as
a
sub‐category
of
persuasion
has
a
shared
heritage
with
public
relations
and
has
contributed
both
to
the
 development
 of
 communications
 practice
 as
 well
 as
 the
 reputation
 and
 public
perception
 of
 PR
 today.
 Nazi
 Reichsmarshall
 and
 propagandist,
 Herman
 Goering
 in
an
interview
stated:
“…it
is
the
leaders
of
the
country
who
determine
the
policy
and
it
 is
 always
 a
 simple
 matter
 to
 drag
 the
 people
 along…that
 is
 easy.”
 (Rampton
 and
Stauer,
 2003,
 p.137).
 This
 unsettling
 view
 is
 one
 that
 has
 become
 the
 dominant
understanding
 of
 how
 propaganda
 works,
 why
 it
 attracts
 mistrust
 and
 why
 PR
practitioners
 seek
 to
 distance
 themselves
 from
 the
 activity.
 The
 public
 relations
industry
 continues
 to
 face
 the
 challenge
 of
 low
 public
 opinion
 due
 to
 its
 close
associations
with
propaganda
and
spin.



However
since
the
end
of
the
Second
World
War,
propaganda
has
moved
away
from
being
the
preserve
of
the
political
classes.
As
a
persuasive
tool
it
is
used
in
promoting
consumer
 products
 including
 cars
 and
 beer.
 It
 does
 so
 through
 advertising,
 by
bypassing
 rational
 thought,
 manipulating
 individuals
 on
 a
 more
 emotional
 and
symbolic
level.
For
example,
during
the
Desert
Storm
conflict
in
1991,
the
American
population
 experienced
 heightened
 fears
 about
 their
 general
 safety
 and
 security.
Taking
 advantage
 of
 this
 insecurity
 the
 Hummer
 sport‐utility
 vehicle
 was
 launched

  • 4. with
their
anxiety
in
mind.
Civilians
wanted
more
more
robust,
secure
and
aggressive
cars
 (Rampton
 and
 Stauer,
 2003).
 This
 is
 a
 classic
 example
 of
 where
 persuasive
techniques
 were
 employed
 in
 the
 traditions
 of
 propaganda,
 in
 other
 words
 the
American
 public
 were
 persuaded
 that
 buying
 this
 car
 would
 allay
 their
 fears
 and
increase
 personal
 safety
 levels.
 These
 claims
 were
 later
 proved
 completely
unfounded
 as
 the
 vehicles
 actually
 caused
 many
 traffic
 related
 fatalities.
 The
Hummer
had
in
fact
been
originally
designed
for
military
use.

Rampton
 and
 Stauer
 (2003)
 contend
 that
 there
 is
 a
 distinct
 difference
 between
propaganda
 and
 persuasive
 communication.
 Arguing
 that
 a
 propagandist’s
 view
 of
communication
is
a
set
of
techniques
for
indoctrinating
a
‘target
audience’,
whereas
the
democratic
concept
of
communications
is
an
ongoing
process
of
dialogue
among
diverse
 voices
 (p.134).
 This
 suggests
 the
 propagandist
 does
 not
 regard
 the
audiences’
well‐being
as
a
primary
concern,
assuming
that
audiences
are
extremely
passive
and
possess
very
little
intelligence
to
participate
in
discourse.
At
the
heart
of
every
 propagandist
 is
 self‐interest.
 Their
 aim
 is
 to
 promote
 the
 concerns
 of
 the
organisation
 at
 the
 expense
 of
 the
recipient.
Jowett
and
O’Donnell
 (1999)
 expands
on
this
view:
“People
in
the
audience
may
think
the
propagandist
has
their
interest
at
 heart,
 but
 in
 fact,
 the
 propagandist’s
 motives
 are
 selfish
 ones”
 (p.9).
 Indeed
Jowett
 and
 O’Donnell’s
 definition
 has
 some
 similarities
 with
 the
 CIPR
 official
definition
of
public
relations
which
stresses
the
need
for
a
‘planned
and
sustained’
effort
to
achieve
organisational
objectives
while
‘influencing
opinion
and
behaviour’
as
 opposed
 to
 Jowett
 and
 O’Donells
 ‘deliberate
 and
 systemic’
 attempts
 to

‘manipulate
cognition,
and
direct
behaviour’.
Whilst
it
might
seem
desirable
to
place
the
two
concepts,
persuasion
and
propaganda
at
polar
opposites,
there
is
in
fact
an
overlap;
a
concept
endorsed
by
Heath
(2005):
“Because
there
may
sometimes
be
a
fine
 line
 between
 persuasion
 and
 propaganda,
 public
 relations
 practitioners
 must
understand
the
differences
and
implement
persuasive
tactics
in
an
ethical
manner”
(p.615).
The
2005
Think
Road
Safety
Campaign
by
the
UK
Department
of
Transport
used
 fear
 as
 an
 emotional
 leverage
 and
 as
 a
 means
 to
 persuade.
 The
 inherent
difference
between
black
and
white
propaganda
models
is
the
acknowledgement
of
the
source
and
its
accuracy.
Although
the
Think
Campaign
manipulates
the
media
to

  • 5. gain
publicity
for
its
cause,
it
is
acting
ethically
since
it
does
so
for
the
greater
public
good;
 even
 while
 employing
 a
 one‐way
 public
 information
 communication
 model.

This
 strong
 emotional
 response
 to
 visual
 stimuli
 has
 also
 been
 used
 effectively
 by
charity
 fundraisers
 to
 illicit
 immediate
 responses
 from
 potential
 donors.
 Most
recently
it
has
been
used
by
the
2010
Digital
Death
Campaign
for
Keep
a
Child
Alive
which
showed
hard
hitting
images
of
dead
celebrities
to
raise
funds
to
fight
HIV/AIDS
in
 Africa
 and
 India
 –
 eliciting
 a
 response
 from
 Twitter
 and
 Facebook,
 for
 fans
 to
donate
 up
 to
 $5000
 to
 buy
 their
 lives
 back.
 Although
 this
 campaign
 makes
 use
 of
propaganda
techniques,
it
cannot
be
assessed
as
unethical,
especially
since
there
is
a
discernable
 social
 benefit.
 A
 view
 echoed
 by
 Jowett
 and
 O’Donnell:
 “When
 the
information
is
used
to
accomplish
a
purpose
of
sharing,
explaining
or
instructing,
this
is
considered
to
be
informative
communication.”
(pp.25‐26).
This
power
to
influence
society
 means
 that
 the
 profession
 of
 public
 relations
 holds
 an
 enormous
responsibility
 to
 be
 ethical.
 A
 view
 endorsed
 by
 Harlow
 (1976)
 who
 observed
 that
the
 public
 relations
 professional:
 “…define
 and
 emphasises
 the
 responsibility
 of
management
 to
 serve
 the
 public
 interest…and
 uses
 research
 and
 ethical
communication
techniques
as
its
principal
tools”
(cited
in
Tench
and
Yeomans,
2006,
p.4).


  • 6. Ethical
Persuasion
and
Public
Interest
 
The
 UK
 Department
 of
 Health
 has
 enacted
 this
 concept
 with
 various
 persuasive
communication
 campaigns
 aiming
 to
 affect
 and
 change
 society’s
 attitudes
 and
behaviour.
Most
notably
in
recent
years
they
have
included
anti‐smoking,
drinking,
and
 obesity
 and
 cancer
 screening
 campaigns.
 Health
 Secretary,
 Andrew
 Lansley
(2010)
 in
 discussing
 the
 Healthy
 Lifestyle
 role
 ‘for
 all
 society’
 stated
 the
 campaign
aims
 were:
 “to
 improve
 the
 health
 of
 the
 nation
 and
 to
 improve
 the
 health
 of
 the
poorest
 fastest."
 This
 involved
 numerous
 complex
 messages
 to
 a
 diverse
 range
 of
publics,
aiming
to
persuade
and
affect
changes
in
behaviour.
Modern
PR
academics
have
 provided
 the
 structures
 and
 tools
 necessary
 to
 communicate
 persuasive
messages
 with
 ethical
 consideration.
 The
 Westley
 and
 Maclean
 model
 of
communication
(1977)
facilitates
ethical
persuasion
by
a
process
of
advocacy,
using
various
channels
including
feedback,
to
affect
behaviour.
A
process
by
which
Lansley
says
 is
 achievable
 by
 ‘nudging’
 rather
 than
 ‘nannying’.
 Persuasion
 was
 achieved
 by
the
encoding
and
dissemination
of
scientific
facts
with
feedback
an
intrinsic
element
of
the
campaigns
design
and
the
evaluation
of
attitudes
are
considered
and
included
in
the
planning
stage
and
throughout
the
programme’s
lifespan
(Grunig,
2001).
This
agenda
 and
 its
 objective
 can
 be
 defended
 on
 ethical
 grounds
 since
 the
 required
behavioural
change
is
for
the
benefit
of
the
campaigns’
publics.
PR
academics
have
argued
 that
 persuasion
 is
 considered
 unethical
 only
 when
 an
 organisation
deliberately
 lies,
 distorts
 the
 facts
 or
 attempts
 to
 deceive
 its
 publics
 to
 mask
 its
intentions.
 However
 many
 critics
 have
 argued
 that
 persuasion
 can
 never
 be
considered
on
a
sound
ethical
basis
because
the
true
end
is
not
public
welfare
but
rather
 organisational
 profit
 (Curtin
 and
 Boynton,
 2000).
 However,
 while
 many
 PR
academics
 would
 agree
 that
 the
 role
 of
 the
 public
 interest
 is
 central
 to
 ethical
 PR
practice
and
by
inference
ethical
persuasion,
very
little
guidance
by
way
of
literature
exists
to
inform
PR
practitioners
how
to
determine
what
is
in
the
public
interest.
It
is
clear
 that
 by
 acting
 on
 behalf
 of
 an
 organisation,
 it
 is
 likely
 that
 a
 PR
 practitioner
would
 be
 acting
 in
 the
 private
 interest
 of
 their
 client
 rather
 than
 in
 the
 public
interest.
Hence
without
a
viable
definition
of
the
public
interest,
it
becomes
difficult
if
not
impossible
to
expect
PR
practitioners’
compliance.
How
common
or
universal

  • 7. must
an
interest
be
before
it
is
in
the
public
interest?
(Messina,
2007).
For
example,
medical
 opinion
 on
 the
 benefits
 of
 consuming
 pre
 and
 pro‐biotic
 products
 (which
boost
levels
of
certain
bacteria
in
the
gut)
is
widely
split.
While
some
doctors
claim
they
 bring
 great
 health
 benefits
 to
 consumers’
 immune
 systems,
 others
 believe
there
is
no
clear
evidence
to
back
this
up.
However,
the
UK
is
awash
with
these
food
products,
which
claim
through
advertising,
to
make
consumers’
health
better.

  • 8. Boundary
Spanning
and
Rhetorical
Persuasion
 
The
 role
 of
 boundary
 spanner
 is
 central
 to
 a
 PR
 practitioner’s
 activity
 and
 explains
how
the
practitioner
interacts
with
the
organisation’s
environment.
This
concept
of
the
 ethical
 guardian
 acting
 for
 the
 good
 of
 the
 organisation
 and
 its
 publics
 has
formed
 much
 of
 the
 valued
 function
 of
 modern
 PR
 today,
 with
 the
 practitioner
acting
as
a
boundary
spanner,
gathering
information
from
the
internal
and
external
environments,
 assessing
 the
 impact
 of
 organisational
 actions
 upon
 its
 publics,
 and
recommending
 the
 ethical
 course
 of
 action
 based
 on
 supporting
 organisational
objectives,
 whilst
 minimising
 dissonance.
 This
 role
 enacts
 the
 two‐way
 symmetric
model
of
systems
theory,
since
a
vital
component
is
feedback
where
compromise
on
both
 the
 organisations’
 and
 publics’
 view
 is
 achieved.
 An
 approach
 supported
 by
Fawkes
 (2007)
 who
 reiterates
 Grunig
 and
 Hunt’s
 (1984)
 view:
 “In
 the
 two‐way
symmetric
model
practitioners
serve
as
mediators
between
organisations
and
their
publics.
Their
goal
is
mutual
understanding”
(p.
316).
As
a
boundary
spanner,
the
PR
practitioner’s
role
is
considered
only
truly
ethical
when
it
is
symmetrical.
However,
it
is
 difficult,
 if
 not
 impossible,
 to
 practice
 public
 relations
 in
 that
 way
 with
 the
everyday
realities
of
running
a
PR
department.


Rhetoric
 and
 persuasion
 are
 historically
 linked.
 Rooted
 in
 the
 culture
 of
 ancient
Greece,
 it
 has
 influenced
 the
 way
 all
 forms
 of
 human
 discourse
 were
 analysed,
appraised
and
critiqued.
Aristotle
(a
champion
of
rhetoric)
formulated
a
theory
that
today
is
still
regarded
as
an
invaluable
tool
for
assisting
the
art
of
persuasion
and
the
function
of
PR.
To
demonstrate
this,
he
outlined
four
means
of
persuasion:


 • Ethos
 ‐
 achieved
 by
 establishing
 credibility,
 the
 speaker
 must
 posses
 character,
integrity
and
be
knowledgeable
in
their
subject.

 • Pathos
‐
appeals
to
an
audience’s
emotions
in
order
to
persuade.

 • Logos
 ‐
 logic
 as
 a
 means
 to
 persuade;
 logical
 arguments
 are
 built
 from
 statements
of
evidence
that
lead
to
a
sound
conclusion.
 • Kairos
‐
fitness
or
timeliness,
appropriateness
of
the
message
tone.

 

  • 9. Aristotle
defined
rhetoric
as:
“…the
ability
to
observe
in
any
given
case,
the
available
means
of
persuasion
–
what
needs
to
be
said
and
how
it
should
be
said
to
achieve
the
desired
outcome”
(Aristotle,
cited
in
Toth,
2000,
p.124).
Scholars
such
as
Smith,
Ferguson
and
Heath
(2001)
have
drawn
attention
to
the
benefits
of
rhetoric
laying
within
its
ability
to
participate
in
mutual
discourse:
“the
heritage
of
rhetoric
assumes
that
 decisions
 are
 better
 if
 people
 who
 are
 interested
 in
 them
 can
 communicate
openly
and
assertively
about
them...it
is
the
means
through
which
organisations
and
activist
publics
use
symbols
to
achieve
agreement,
persuade,
or
induce
cooperation”
(p.298).
 However,
 for
 this
 mutual
 dialogue
 and
 exchange
 to
 take
 place
 all
participants
must
possess
the
right
and
the
means
to
be
both
informed
and
heard.
Interaction
 among
 participants
 must
 be
 free
 of
 manipulations,
 domination,
 or
control
and
participants
must
be
afforded
equal
opportunity
to
be
heard.

  • 10. A
Case
for
Professionalisation
 
A
key
element
of
persuasion
is
that
information
must
be
based
on
truth,
a
value
also
embraced
 by
 the
 CIPR
 in
 its
 formalized
 professional
 codes
 of
 conduct.
 Contained
within
 it
 are
 references
 to
 integrity,
 honesty,
 competence,
 confidentiality,
transparency,
conflicts
of
interest
and
conforming
to
accepted
business
practice
and
ethics.
These
codes
of
conduct
provide
a
framework
that
directs
PR
professionals
to
their
 duty
 to
 observe
 common
 standards
 of
 behaviour
 and
 conduct
 (Cook,
 1988,
Pearson,
 1989).
 Sharpe
 (1990)
 suggests
 that
 the
 ethical
 goal
 for
 public
 relations
practitioners
 consists
 of
 five
 professional
 responsibilities
 (Black,
 1994,
 Blumenthal,
1972):


 • Honest
communication
to
obtain
organisational
credibility.
 • Being
open
and
consistent
to
gain
public
confidence.
 • Fairness
in
action
to
ensure
fair
treatment
is
received
in
return.

 • Maintaining
 continuous
 communication
 so
 that
 mutual
 understanding
 and
 respect
is
achieved.
 • Accurate
 research
 of
 the
 social
 environment
 with
 a
 willingness
 to
 change
 when
actions
no
longer
serves
the
public
interest.


Codifying
public
relations
activity
provides
a
point
of
reference
or
yardstick
by
which
practitioners
can
operate
professionally
while
reinforcing
ethical
expectations.
In
the
2001
 UK
 Population
 Census,
 48,000
 respondents
 identified
 themselves
 as
 being
employed
 in
 public
 relations
 and
 yet
 the
 CIPR
 only
 has
 a
 modest
 9,500
 members.
Moreover,
in
a
survey
conducted
for
this
paper
within
a
global
PR
company;
out
of
220
 staff,
 only
 one
 was
 an
 accredited
 member
 of
 an
 official
 industry
 association
(Whiteside,
2010).
Taking
a
critical
perspective
L’Etang
(2008)
expands
on
this
view,
arguing
 that
 the
 practice
 of
 public
 relations
 is
 ‘ethically
 challenged’
 because
 it
 is
unregulated,
 seeks
 to
 influence
 attitudes,
 opinions
 and
 decision‐making.
 Without
wider
accreditation
and
ability
to
control
entry
into
the
PR
industry
it
is
difficult
to
ensure
ethical
accountability.


  • 11. Conclusion
 
PR
is
indeed
a
form
of
persuasive
communication.
However
the
difference
between
persuasive
communication
and
propaganda
is
the
intent
of
the
person
who
creates
the
 message.
 Both
 communicative
 processes
 seek
 symbolic
 control
 over
environments.
 However
 the
 hostility
 that
 exists
 between
 the
 two
 communications
processes
lies
with
its
manipulative
aim
(Molonely,
2000).
A
view
echoed
by
Jowett
and
 O’Donnell
 (1999)
 in
 suggesting
 propaganda
 is
 distinguished
 by
 its
 purpose;
 to
benefit
the
propagandist.
The
inference
is
that
an
ethical
communicator
who
avoids
propaganda
 must
 avoid
 communication,
 the
 sole
 or
 main
 intent
 of
 which
 is
 to
manipulate
the
behaviour
of
others
to
benefit
the
communicator’s
cause.
This
essay
has
 demonstrated
 that
 persuasion
 can
 be
 but
 is
 by
 no
 means
 necessarily
propaganda.
Nor
is
it
necessarily
ethical
or
unethical
since
this
should
be
assessed
in
relation
 to
 the
 context
 in
 which
 it
 is
 being
 practiced.
 The
 main
 determinant
 of
persuasive
 communication
 as
 ethical
 PR
 practice
 is
 in
 meeting
 the
 public
 interest.
However,
the
concept
of
the
public
interest
has
been
found
to
be
elusive
as
there
is
no
 universal
 definition
 of
 what
 that
 entails;
 thus
 it
 is
 incapable
 of
 guiding
 the
everyday
reality
of
persuasion
in
PR
practice.


Word
Count:
2750


  • 12. Bibliography
and
References

Curtin,
 P.
 and
 Boynton,
 L.
 (2001)
 Heath,
 R.
 Ethics
 in
 Public
 Relations.
 Cited
 in
Handbook
of
Public
Relations.
London.
Sage.


Ewen,
S.
(1996)
PR!:
A
Social
History
of
Spin.
1st
ed.
New
York.
Perseus
Books
Group.

Fawkes,
 J.
 (2007)
 Public
 Relations
 Models
 and
 Persuasion
 Ethics:
 a
 new
 approach.
Cited
in
Journal
of
Communication
Management.
Vol.
11
No.
4.
Emerald
Group.

Harlow,
R.
F.
(1976)
Building
a
Definition
of
Public
Relations.
Cited
in
Tench,
R.
and
Yeomans,
L.
(2006)
Exploring
Public
Relations.
1st
ed.
Harlow.
Pearson
Education.

Heath,
R.
(2005)
Encyclopedia
of
Public
Relations.
London.
Sage
Publications.

Grunig,
J.
and
Hunt,
T.
(1984),
Managing
Public
Relations.
New
York.
Holt,
Rinehart
and
Winston.

Jowett,
 G.
 and
 O’Donnell,
 V.
 (1999)
 Propaganda
 and
 Persuasion.
 3rd
 ed.
 London.
Sage.

Lansley,
 A.
 (2010)
 Ed.
 Triggle,
 N.
 in
 Healthy
 lifestyle
 role
 ‘for
 all
 society’.
 [Online]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health‐11866031.
[Accessed
11
Dec
2010].

Messina,
 A.
 (2007)
 Public
 relations
 the
 public
 interest
 and
 persuasion:
 an
 ethical
approach.
Cited
in
Journal
of
Communication
Management.
Vol.
11
No.
1.
Emerald
Group.

Miller,
G.
(1989)
Public
Relations
and
Persuasion.
Cited
in
L’Etang,
J
and
Pieczka,
M.
(2006)
 Public
 Relations:
 critical
 debates
 and
 contemporary
 practice.
 New
 Jersey.
Lawrence
Earlbaum.


  • 13. Moloney,
 K.(2006)
 Rethinking
 Public
 Relations:
 The
 Spin
 and
 the
 Substance.
 2nd
 ed.
London.
Routledge.

Rampton,
 S.
 and
 Stauber,
 J.
 (2003)
 Weapons
 of
 Mass
 Deception:
 The
 Uses
 of
Propaganda
in
Bush’s
War
on
Iraq.
London.
Constable
&
Robinson
Ltd.

Smith,
 M.
 and
 Ferguson,
 D.
 (2001)
 Heath,
 R.
 Ethics
 in
 Public
 Relations.
 Cited
 in
Handbook
of
Public
Relations.
London.
Sage.


Tench,
R.
and
Yeomans,
L.
(2006)
Exploring
Public
Relations.
1st
ed.
Harlow.
Pearson
Education.

Tymson,
 C
 and
 Sherman,
 B.
 (1996)
 In
 Reddi,
 C.
 Ed.
 Public
 Relations
 and
Communication.
1st
ed.
2002.
India,
CVN
PR
Foundation
Press.

Whiteside,
A.
(2010)
Personal
Communications.
PRCo,
London.
14th
December
2010.
A
Whiteside
is
a
Manager
of
Digital
PR
for
PRCo.



×