MBA 525 – Review of Literature Assignment Description .docx

MBA 525 – Review of Literature
Assignment Description
You are required to write a 15-page (minimum), double-spaced
Review of Literature (ROL) on an
instructor-approved topic related to the course. The ROL is an
academic paper following APA writing and
citation guidelines. The paper includes a critical analysis of the
relationship among different works
(articles). You must use at least 10 scholarly, peer-reviewed
journal articles to build your ROL.
Purpose
The general purpose for writing a literature review is to
critically analyze and summarize the published
knowledge related to a specific narrowed topic. Most reviews
summarize, classify, and compare and
contrast the information found in peer-reviewed journal articles.
A well-written ROL should identify the
thought leaders in the given field as well as present a clear idea
of what is known, not known, and still

needs to be known.
Requirements
No earlier than the beginning of Module 3, and no later than the
conclusion of Module 5, the instructor
must approve your proposed topic for the ROL. Topic
submission must include a specific purpose
statement and two supporting peer-reviewed journal article
citations in APA format. Submit this to your
instructor via email. The earlier your topic is approved, the
more time you will have to complete the
paper.
When selecting your topic, review those covered in the
Corporate Communications textbook and the
module materials. Your ROL topic must relate directly to the
course material. Be certain that your topic is
timely, represents contemporary business issues, and is of
interest to you and your career path. You will
find that with timely, current topics that the discussion is still
being debated by authors and researchers.
The final paper must adhere to APA 6th edition writing style
and format, including title page, abstract and

citation page (references). It must be a minimum of 15 pages,
double-spaced, and reference at least 10
scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles.
Review process
Similar to primary research, development of the literature
review requires four stages:
• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined
and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject
being explored.
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a
significant contribution to the
understanding of the topic.
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and
conclusions of pertinent literature.
Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:
• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under
consideration, along with the objectives of the
literature review.
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in
support of a particular position, those

against, and those offering alternative theses entirely).
• Explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies
from the others.
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their
argument, are most convincing of
their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the
understanding and development of their
area of research.
In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:
• Provenance—What are the author's credentials? Are the
author's arguments supported by
evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies,
narratives, statistics, recent scientific
findings)?
• Objectivity—Is the author's perspective even-handed or
prejudicial? Is contrary data considered
or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's
point?
• Persuasiveness—Which of the author's theses are most/least
convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions

convincing? Does the work ultimately
contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the
subject?
(Derived from material created by UC Santa Cruz University
Library. Used with permission.)
Statement on graduate-level writing requirements
Your writing reflects your ideas and communicates your
understanding of the topic to the instructor. This
assignment will be graded on the composition elements listed
below, as well as your understanding of
the content:
Successful graduate-level writing should demonstrate
• Proofreading skills
• Correct grammar and punctuation
• Logical organization
• Proper content presentation (introduction, body, conclusion)
• Correct formatting for citations, references, and headings
• Correct and consistent use of APA style and formatting

Assignment Submission
Submit the Review of Literature to Chalk and Wire no later than
Sunday 11:59 EST/EDT of Module 7.
The Review of Literature Chalk and Wire link is located in the
Module 7 folder. Students who do not
submit the assignment to Chalk and Wire will receive a zero.
This is a key program assessment; the
results are used to ensure students are meeting program goals.
Video and PDF instructions can be found
on the course home page. PDF instructions are also located in
the Start Here folder.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Informal relations: A look at personal influence in media
relations
Jae-Hwa Shin;Cameron, Glen T
Journal of Communication Management; 2003; 7, 3;
ABI/INFORM Collection
pg. 239

Dialogic communication and
media relations in
non-governmental organizations
Seow Ting Lee and Mallika Hemant Desai
Department of Communications and New Media,
National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to seek to clarify the
conceptual building blocks of
relationship building between non-governmental groups (NGOs)
and news media, which is essential
for the development of civil society where dialogue is a product
of ongoing communication and
relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on an online
survey with a sample size of 296
NGOs from India. The data are analyzed with SPSS to test six
hypotheses related to dialogic
orientation, media relations, relationship quality and the NGOs’
structural characteristics.
Findings – The study found that an organization’s dialogic
orientation has a positive impact on
media relations knowledge and strategy but not on the action
dimension that focusses on providing
information subsidies to journalists. A stronger dialogic
orientation is also associated with better
organization-media relationships. A stronger engagement in
media relations also has a more positive
impact on the quality of organization-media relationship.
Theoretical and practical implications
are discussed.
Research limitations/implications – The findings of this study

are limited to a sample of NGOs
from India. Future research should address more diverse
samples to better understand the dynamics of
media relations in NGOs, and how their patterns of media
relations, use of information subsidies,
culture and media choice shape news coverage and their impact
in developing civil society.
Originality/value – By approaching media relations from an
organizational perspective to
investigate media relations in the NGO sector to address an
under-researched area, the study is able
to draw out the significant relationships between and among
three distinct and yet connected
conceptual building blocks of public relations.
Keywords Public relations, Press relations, Dialogic
communication, NGOs
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and news media are
two fundamental players
in the development of civil society (Taylor, 2000, 2004; Taylor
and Napoli, 2008). NGOs
are non-profit, voluntary citizen groups or organized groups of
individuals that are
not yet institutionalized working on behalf of issues at a local,
national or international
level. According to Gandy (1982), NGOs can maximize their
efforts by working
with the news media to provide information subsidies about
issues. The news media
help disseminate information, play an agenda setting function as
opinion leaders
and also serve as watchdogs of government, business and

society. “The media provide
information about democratic change, champion social and
political issues, and
their investigative reporting can expose corruption of political
leaders. NGOs
also contribute to civil society by advocating for the under-
represented, serving
marginalized publics, and agenda setting” (Taylor and Napoli,
2008, p. 1226). Taylor
(2000) suggested that a civil society “is a place where many
voices are heard, many
positions debated, and disagreement respected and tolerated.
Relationships between
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-254X.htm
Received 18 July 2012
Revised 11 September 2012
26 February 2013
Accepted 3 May 2013
Journal of Communication
Management
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2014
pp. 80-100
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1363-254X
DOI 10.1108/JCOM-07-2012-0059
80
JCOM
18,1

NGOs and [y] media outlets are one of the most important ways
to ensure this
dialogue” (p. 45).
India, the second most populous country and the most populous
democracy in the
world, has a thriving sector of NGOs that have been vocal
activists of civil society since
the country’s independence in 1947. The country “has possibly
the largest number of
active non-government, not-for-profit organizations in the
world” (The Indian Express,
2010). India is estimated to have around 3.3 million NGOs in
2009, which translates into
one NGO for fewer than 400 Indians. NGOs play a prominent
role in Indian civil society
through their expansive work and programs in numerous and
diverse areas including
education, health, provision of safe drinking water, forest
management, farming
innovations, child labor issues, micro finance and thrift
societies for rural women.
The rise of NGOs in India coincides with the demise of
developmentalism
as a responsibility of the nation-state and the emergence of
post-developmentalist
neo-liberal political economy, or what also been described as
market triumphalism
(Ghosh, 2009). Historically, NGOs in India have worked in
collaboration with the
government to reform the country post-independence. However,
as skepticism arose
about the ability of the institutional structures of the state to

politically process and
implement solutions for the needs of the poor, NGOs began to
distance themselves
from the government (Sheth and Sethi, 1991).
Despite the proliferation of NGOs in India, they remain mostly,
in internal structure,
small, financially insecure and their decision-making power
continues to be concentrated
among their small groups of founders, with authority often
being vested in one
charismatic figure who started the NGO (Ghosh, 2009). One of
the most acute
vulnerabilities of India’s voluntary sector continues to be its
dependence on funds
from international donors (Viswanath and Dadrawala, 2004).
Most Indian NGOs have
individuals working for them on a voluntary basis and 73.4
percent of the NGOs
have only one or no paid staff (Asian Development Bank, 2009).
Despite their sheer
numbers, little is known about Indian NGOs and even less is
known about their financial
management. In December 2011, US Secretary of State Robert
Blake announced a US-led
initiative to set up a database of Indian non-governmental
organizations that are
accountable, transparent and keep only a small portion of their
donations, and spend
most of it on intended beneficiaries (Hindustan Times, 2011).
India has one of the world’s biggest print markets with rising
print readership, and
the country enjoys a vibrant and a relatively free news
environment (Sudhaman, 2010).
In its latest annual ranking of press freedom, the Freedom

House categorized India as
partly free (Freedom House, 2011). In India, media relations is
one of the most important
functions of public relations. Press agentry remains the
predominant model of public
relations practice with an emphasis on technical and functionary
roles as opposed to the
strategic (Singh, 2000). The thriving media industry in India
offers immense potential for
vocalizing the NGO sector’s importance and impact as well as
contributing to NGOs’
relationship-building programs through media relations. Media
relations plays a central
role within the public relations domain precisely because the
media are the information
gatekeepers that control the flow of information to relevant
publics (Grunig and Hunt,
1984). Many practitioners and scholars acknowledge that media
relations is the core of
public relations (e.g. Desiere and Sha, 2007; Grunig and Hunt,
1984; Hunt and Grunig,
1994; Sriramesh and Vercic, 2003; Zoch and Molleda, 2006).
However, little is known or
has been studied about media relations in NGOs in India.
Although macro- and micro-level interactions in combination
form media relations,
organization-media relations have been largely understudied.
Few scholars have
81
Non-
governmental
organizations

analyzed media relations as an organizational-level practice, as
the focus has been
on micro-level analyses of individual practitioner skills
especially in the context of
practitioner-journalist relationships (e.g. Aronoff, 1976; Cancel
et al., 1997; Jo and Kim,
2004; Shin and Cameron, 2003) and information subsidies (e.g.
Taylor, 2000; Zoch and
Molleda, 2006; Yoon, 2005).
An organizational-level approach could offer much unexamined
potential for
understanding media relations. This study assesses media
relations within the domain
of NGOs in India through a macro, organizational-level analysis
to understand the
interactions between and among an organization’s approaches to
public relations and
the impacts on relationship building.
Theoretical framework
Dialogic communication theory
Maintaining dialogue is a crucial part of a successful
relationship between an
organization and its publics, including the news media.
Dialogue can benefit organizations
by increasing their credibility and public support, enhancing
their image and decreasing
governmental interference through transparency (Ledingham
and Bruning, 2000). Buber
(1967), explained that a genuine dialogue is one in which a
mutual relationship grows.
He suggested that dialogue involves an effort to recognize the
value of the other where the

other should not be viewed as objects (I-You) but as equals (I-
Thou). Botan (1997) observed
that “dialogue manifests itself more as a stance, orientation or
bearing in communication
rather than as a specific method, technique or format” (p. 4).
Stewart (1978) argued that
dialogical communication can reconceptualize the notion of
relationships.
Although dialogue as a concept predates two-way symmetrical
communication
by decades, it was mostly ignored in the context of public
relations. The theoretical
shift from an emphasis on management to a relational approach
in public relations
has brought on the importance of dialogue within relationships,
and hence a
reconceptualization of the dialogic approach (Kent and Taylor,
2002). With the new
emphasis on relationships in public relations, “dialogue appears
to be joining and
perhaps even replacing the concept of symmetry as an
organizing principle in public
relations theory building” (Taylor et al., 2001, p. 265).
According to McAllister-Spooner
(2009), “deeply rooted in philosophy and relational
communication theory, Kent and
Taylor extended dialogic theory as an honest and ethical means
to guide practitioners
and scholars in the creation and maintenance of effective
organization-public
relationships” (p. 320).
Kent and Taylor (1998) suggested that in dialogic
communication, dialogue is “not
a process or a series of steps” but rather “a product of on going

communication and
relationships” (p. 24). This product, Botan (1997) explains,
“elevates publics to the status
of communication equal with the organization” (p. 196) as
opposed to the traditional
secondary role of publics in public relations. In ethical public
relations, it is important to
“have a dialogic system rather than monologic policies” where
relationships are more
important than feedback (Kent and Taylor, 2002, p. 23). Pearson
(1989) viewed dialogue
as a practical and ethical public relations strategy, as “it is
morally right to establish and
maintain communication relationships with all publics affected
by organizational action
and, by implication, morally wrong not to do so” (p. 329).
Kent and Taylor (2002) outlined five features of dialogue:
mutuality, propinquity,
empathy, risk and commitment. Mutuality is characterized as
collaborative orientation,
including co-learning, where participants should understand
each other’s positions
and how they arrived there and a spirit of mutual equality that
emphasizes the
82
JCOM
18,1
maintenance of fairness in a relationship. These values would
enable the
professionalization of public relations and would help “move

our democratic societies
away from confrontation and divisiveness to more collaborative
cultures” (p. 25).
Mutuality is already an accepted practice in public relations,
according to Kent and Taylor
(2002), as seen in the relationship between the media and public
relations practitioners.
Mutuality is also related to the second tenet of dialogue:
propinquity that represents
an orientation to a relationship. Propinquity involves
participants communicating
in the present, and not only after a decision has been made.
Such dialogue focusses
on the equitable and acceptable future of all participants and the
accessibility and
involvement of participants in the interaction. “For
organizations, dialogic propinquity
means that publics are consulted in matters that influence them,
and for publics,
it means that they are willing and able to articulate their
demands to organizations”
(p. 26). The implications of propinquity on public relations thus
include organizations
pre-empting public dissatisfaction, and demonstrating an ability
to engage in two-way
communications to improve organization effectiveness.
Propinquity is further facilitated by empathy or the support and
trust inherent in a
dialogic relationship. Organizations, according to this principle,
must treat publics
as colleagues as opposed to outsiders, develop a community
building function in their
public relation activities and acknowledge groups who do not
agree with the organization.

The assumption in this principle is that “a sympathetic
orientation to publics may help
the organization improve relationships with external groups” (p.
28).
However, there is risk involved in dialogic organization-public
relationships as they
have a potential to produce unpredictable and dangerous
outcomes. The principle of
risk explains that dialogue can make participants vulnerable to
manipulation and
expose them to uncertainties, yet individuals need to take the
risk and self-disclose
to build the relationship. Thus, risk is a positive value that must
be accepted in order to
reap the benefits of a dialogic relationship. Public relations is
about minimizing
environmental risk for organizational stability and the dialogic
risk offers to strengthen
organization-public relationships by facilitating a sharing of
information and thereby
averting risk.
Finally, the aforementioned four features of dialogue in public
relations make up the
foundation for the final tenet – commitment. The value of
honesty and genuine
participation and a commitment to conversation and
interpretation are key aspects
of this principle. This principle is the foundation of ethical
public relations as
commitment to their publics enables public relations
practitioners to forge successful
dialogic relationships.
Kent and Taylor (2002) attempted to make these five principles

accessible and
applicable to practitioners by proposing three ways in which
dialogue can be incorporated
into everyday public relation activities: by building
interpersonal relationships,
demonstrating their commitment through engaging in dialogic
relationships through
mass-mediated channels.
However, there is very little research on dialogic
communication principles
(Kent and Taylor, 2002), especially in the context of media
relations. Bruning et al.
(2008) observed that the role of dialogue in organization-public
relationships has
been relatively unexplored. Their study, which operationalized
three out of the five
principles of dialogue (mutuality, propinquity and empathy),
found that relationship
attitudes and dialogue positively affected respondent
evaluations of, and intended
behaviors toward, an organization. Bruning et al. concluded that
“a relational
approach, grounded in dialogic principles, requires that the
organization tailor
83
Non-
governmental
organizations
communication and organizational action to specific recipients
based upon relational

needs” (p. 26).
Other studies that employed dialogic theory of public relations
included an
examination of zoo managers employing relationship-building
communication, evaluation
and feedback strategies to retain membership (Kinser and Fall,
2006), the role of trust in
practitioner-client relationships (Chia, 2005) and in the contexts
of public relations
practice, research and education (L’Etang and Pieczka, 2006).
More recent applications of the dialogic theory have shifted to
focus on relationship
building on the internet (Bortree and Seltzer, 2009; Kang and
Norton, 2006; Kent et al.,
2003; Reber and Kim, 2006; Rybalko and Seltzer, 2010; Taylor
et al., 2001) based on the
application of the web-based dialogic principles proposed by
Kent and Taylor (1998,
2002). McAllister-Spooner (2009) in a ten-year literature
review on the past, current and
future directions of Kent and Taylor’s (2002) dialogic internet
principles, suggested
that “organizations do not seem to be fully utilizing the
interactive potential of the
Internet to build and maintain organization-public
relationships” (p. 320). Web sites
“are very poorly used dialogic tools” and “are effectively
utilized for introductory level
of relationship-building functions” (p. 320).
McAllister-Spooner (2009), who conceded that dialogue is
“difficult and time
consuming,” argued that, “[a]lthough mediated tools offer
opportunities to reinforce

their commitment to dialogue and foster more interaction with
publics, the advanced
relationship-building functions may be better suited for face-to-
face communications.”
This study, within the context of NGOs in India, seeks to
understand dialogic
communication in media relations. The Indian public relations
context, with its strong
media relations component, offers a rich locus for
understanding dialogic approaches
for relationship building between NGOs and the news media.
Media relations and NGOs
Media relations is essential for maintaining dialogic
relationships between
organizations and their key publics. In the context of NGOs,
media relations is a
tool that brings together like-minded individuals and groups to
articulate needs,
pressure governments and represent interest group needs
(Taylor, 2000, 2004).
This function places public relations as a building block of civil
society. Furthermore,
relationship building between social groups and a free press is
essential for the
development of civil society (Taylor, 2000). The development
of a media system that
allows for communication between groups is the most critical
aspect in supporting
civil society, especially organizations that articulate public
needs and opinions (Shaw,
1996). In this way, public relations, with a focus on media
relations and relationship
building, can be seen as playing an integral part in civil society.
According to Reber

and Kim (2006), activists “use public relations to rectify
conditions they deem
undesirable and to maintain the activist organization itself
through membership
involvement and growth” (p. 317). Media were used to set the
public agenda and to
convey legitimacy to the activists’ cause. In a content analysis
of 74 activist
organization web sites, their study found that the activist web
sites did not provide
strong dialogic features for journalists, but dialogic features
were more available for
the general public.
Rouner and Camden (1988) suggested that NGOS, despite their
clear good
intentions, lack the expertise and sophistication in public
relations that is needed to
maximize their impact. Taylor and her co-researchers examined
NGOs and media
relations in Bosnia (Taylor, 2000), Croatia (Taylor, 2004;
Taylor and Napoli, 2008) and
84
JCOM
18,1
Kosovo (Taylor, 2009). Taylor (2000) interviewed NGOs in
Bosnia to investigate the
perceived importance of media relations, use of media tactics
(i.e. press releases,
media events, etc.), media coverage and building relationships
with the media. Taylor

and Napoli (2008) used a longitudinal case study to examine
how Croatians perceive
the media’s and NGOs’ contributions to civil society as their
nation moves toward
European Union accession.
In exploring public relations in Croatia, Taylor (2004) applies
communication and
the media richness theory to determine the use of media tactics
at NGOs to examine
organization-media relationships. She found that Croatian
public relations “is often
practiced through personal relationships and rich
communication channels” (p. 159).
Taylor (2009), who examined the relationships between public
relations practitioners of
NGOs and media representatives in Kosovo, found that the
media lacked strength and
experience and thus were unequal partners in the relationship.
Taylor suggested that
“by making a concerted effort to help the media become the
valuable members of civil
society that they should be, public relations can fulfill its
relationship-building function
and solidify its role in civil society” (p. 29).
A number of recent studies (e.g. Naude et al., 2008; Reber and
Kim, 2009; Seo et al.,
2009) have examined the use of new media by NGOs. Seo et al.
(2009), for example,
analyzed how transnational non-governmental organizations
make use of new media
tools in their public relation activities and what factors
influence their online public
relations. Their survey of communication representatives at 75
transnational NGOs

based in the USA found that promoting the organization’s image
and fund raising were
the two most important functions of new media for the NGOs.
In the context of Indian NGOs, little is known about their media
relations work.
This study seeks to first understand media relations in Indian
NGOs through the
research question:
RQ. What are the functions of media relations in Indian NGOs?
Measuring media relations activities
There have been few attempts by scholars to measure media
relations among
organizations, let alone NGOs. According to Yoon (2005),
“professional PR involves
more than supplying information subsidies and developing
favorable images of PR
among journalists. To effectively achieve access to the media,
sources should have
great knowledge of journalists’ work habits and news values
and adopt sophisticated
strategies and well-planned, timely actions in relation to the
media” (p. 767).
Thus, Yoon conceptualized media relations to cover three
dimensions: knowledge,
action and strategy.
Yoon (2005) created a 31-item survey questionnaire that
included 17 items for the action
dimension (information subsidies), seven items for the
knowledge dimension (knowledge
about media industry) and seven items for the strategy
dimension. The knowledge aspect
includes “the degree to which the PR team understands news

values and routines of
journalists, such as journalists’ deadlines, their favorite types of
stories and formats, and
their pursuit of objectivity” (p. 767). The action dimension
addresses the ability of the
public relations team to fulfill journalists’ need for timely,
accurate and relevant
information and story ideas. The strategy dimension focusses on
“the degree to which the
PR team addresses public concerns rather than promotes its
private interest” (p. 767).
Yoon’s (2005) measurement scale is adapted for this study to
measure media
relations by Indian NGOs to answer the following hypotheses
for the RQ2, which seeks
85
Non-
governmental
organizations
to understand the relationships between dialogic orientation and
media relations based
on the following hypotheses:
H1. A stronger dialogic orientation will be associated with a
more positive impact
on media relations.
H1a. A stronger dialogic orientation will be associated with a
on media relations knowledge.

H1b. A stronger dialogic orientation will be associated with a
on media relations action.
H1c. A stronger dialogic orientation will be associated with a
on media relations strategy.
Another aspect of media relations performance centers on the
expected outcome
of media relations practices, or the quality of organization-
media relationship (e.g.
Ledingham, 2003; Ledingham and Bruning, 1998; Hon and
Grunig, 1999; Kent and
Taylor, 1998, 2002). Although it is often assumed implicitly
that more media relations
naturally translates into good relationships between an
organization and the media,
an organization’s engagement in media relations activities may
or may not be directly
proportionate to success in maintaining a high quality
relationship between the
organization and the media. It is also unclear if a good
relationship between
an organization and the media enables more media relations
activities, or vice-versa.
Measuring organization-media relationship
Ledingham and Bruning (1998) identify the key dimensions of
organizational-public
relationships as trust, openness, involvement, commitment and
investment. Trust is
conceptualized as an organization doing what it says it will do;
openness is sharing the
organizations plans for the future with members of the key

publics; involvement
is the organization being involved in the welfare of the
community; commitment is
the organization being committed to the welfare of the
community; and investment
is the time, energy, effort and other resources given to build the
relationship
(Ledingham, 2003). Ledingham and Bruning (1998), in a survey
of 384 telephone
subscribers in territories competing for local phone service,
found that consumers who
ranked an organization highly on these five dimensions were
more likely to use that
organization’s services when given a competitive choice.
Although Ledingham and
Bruning’s work focussed on for-profit organizations, many of
the concepts are just as
likely applicable to NGOs.
Hon and Grunig (1999) developed a scale for measuring
organization-public
relationships based on the dimensions of control mutuality,
trust, satisfaction,
commitment, communal relationships and exchange
relationships. Control mutuality is
the degree to which parties agree on who has rightful power to
influence one another;
trust is one party’s level of confidence in and willingness to
open oneself to the other
party with dimensions of integrity, dependability and
competence; satisfaction is the
extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other
because positive
expectations about the relationship are reinforced; commitment
is the extent to which
one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth

spending energy to maintain
and promote with action and emotional orientations; communal
relationships occur
86
JCOM
18,1
when both parties provide benefits to the other because they are
concerned for the
welfare of the other, even if they do not get anything in return;
and exchange
relationships are those where one party gives benefits to the
other only because the
other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in
the future. According
to Hon and Grunig, the presence or absence of these dimensions
determines the quality
of the organization-public relationship. The scales (Ledingham
and Bruning, 1998;
Hon and Grunig, 1999) are adapted to measure the quality of
NGO-media relationship
in this study and explicate the relationships between dialogic
communication,
media relations and organization-media relationship. The
following hypotheses are
proposed:
on organization-media relationship.
H3. A stronger engagement in media relations will be associated

with a more
positive impact on organization-media relationship.
In terms of organization, NGOs tend to be less structured
compared to their for-profit
counterparts, and few have dedicated teams of staff in public
relations or an in-house
public relations unit. In the Indian context, public relations
work also tends to be
attached to marketing and advertising. Public relations is a
relatively new industry in
India, compared to the more developed fields of journalism and
advertising. In 2007,
there were only about 700 PR firms in India with a workforce of
approximately 10,000
people (Gupta, 2007). The lack of professional public relations
infrastructure in India
may be an obstacle to media relations. As noted by Sudhaman
(2010), public relations
continues to be undervalued in India.
Seo et al. (2009) found that the two most important predictors
of US-based NGOs’
new media use in their public relations are organizational
capacity and main objective.
The higher the organizational capacity of the organization, the
more important was the
use of new media. This is because NGOs that work under tight
budgets do not have
sufficient resources to develop new means of communication
and are therefore would
not as actively involved in media relations for their
organizations. Organizational
efficiency and revenue, however, did not significantly predict
the NGOs’ use of new
media. Seo et al.’s study offers important insights into how

characteristics of an
organization, including its public relations infrastructure, may
influence the way
NGOs utilize new media for external communications.
Organizational or departmental
factors are inhibiting public relations practitioners’ ability to
take full advantage of the
internet’s dialogic potential (McAllister-Spooner, 2009).
In this study, it is compelling to investigate whether the Indian
NGOs’ public
relations infrastructure is associated with dialogic orientation
and their engagement in
media relations as well as the quality of organization-media
relationship. The following
hypotheses are proposed:
H4. Having a public relations or communications department
will be associated
with a more positive impact on dialogic orientation, media
relations and
organization-media relationship.
H5. Higher funding is associated with a positive impact on
dialogic communication,
media relations and organization-media relationship.
87
Non-
governmental
organizations
Organization size, operationalized as the number of permanent

employees in an
NGO, is another organizational characteristic that may shape
media relations work
differently. Larger NGOs may have better access to resources
that impact their dialogic
orientation and media relations work. Thus, a sixth hypothesis
is proposed:
H6. Organization size is associated with a positive impact on
dialogic
communication, media relations and organization-media
relationship.
Method
An online survey was conducted on SurveyMonkey
(www.surveymonkey.com) over a
period of five months, between May 14 and September 17,
2010. Systematic sampling
was conducted on a master population list of 18,503 Indian
NGOs retrieved from the
online database www.karmayog.org on May 12, 2010. The
online database is one of
the most well established and comprehensive databases of
NGOs operating in India.
Starting with the third NGO on the list with an e-mail address,
every fourth NGO
with an e-mail address thereafter was included in the sample.
The mailing list was
thoroughly checked for any repeating pattern to ensure there is
no periodicity.
Invitation e-mails were successfully sent to 1,489 NGOs to
participate in the online
survey.
A total of 296 NGOs completed the online survey, resulting in a

response rate of 19.9
percent, which is an acceptable response rate considering the
typically low response
rates from public relations practitioners in academic surveys.
Most of the individuals
who responded to the survey on behalf of their NGOs are CEOs,
founders, chairmen,
presidents, managing trustees and program directors. The
questionnaire, which is
in the English language, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to
complete. It begins
with a demographic section that seeks to understand the
organization, including the
development sector in which it mainly operates, funding
sources, geographic location,
staff size, number of volunteers and whether the NGO has a
public relations or
communications department.
Next, respondents were asked to rate their agreement, on a five-
point Likert scale,
with statements that describe the functions of media relations
work as practiced in
their organizations. The subsequent sections also utilized a five-
point Likert scale
through multiple questions to measure three areas of interest:
(1) Dialogic communication: the 26 questions, adapted from
Kent and Taylor (2002),
addressed elements of bridge building, external threats, external
publics,
organization characteristics, public relations department and
dominant coalition.
(2) Media relations: the 34 questions, adapted from Yoon (2005)
to measure media

relations activities, asked about knowledge of how news media
operate and
access to journalist contacts, the organization’s engagement in
action such as
organizing press conferences, issuing press releases and media
tracking, and
understanding of media relations strategy such as using media
relations to
improve the NGO’s image, raise funds, enhance networking,
etc.
(3) Organization-media relationship: the 29 questions, adapted
from Ledingham
and Bruning (1998) and Hon and Grunig (1999) addressed the
quality of the
relationship between the NGO and news media, for example,
trust and
confidence in news media, and the value of the relationship to
the NGO.
Please refer to Appendices 1 through 3 for the full lists of
questions.
88
JCOM
18,1
Results
Among the 296 NGOs, 20.3 percent (60 organizations) are
involved in programs for
displaced populations (refugees or persons who are displaced by
natural disasters,
disease or conflict), followed by health care (22 or 7.4 percent),

agriculture (20 or 6.8
percent), education (20 or 6.8 percent) and a number of diverse
areas such as suicide
prevention, child labor issues, sexual harassment prevention,
family planning,
empowerment of women and gender issues, etc. Nearly 75
percent of the NGOs are
engaged in direct aid and services while the rest work in
research, training and policy
evaluation and monitoring. Examples of NGOs that participated
in the survey included
the following:
. Udyama, an NGO that focusses on poverty reduction and
promotion of livelihoods.
Udyama bagged the “Rajiv Gandhi Award” as the best NGO for
the year 2006-
2007 in the field of rural reconstruction and environment
(www.udyama.org).
. Ujjain HIV/AIDS Network Peoples Society, an NGO that
provides medical care
and support to HIV/AIDS patients.
. Vallalar Educational Trust, an NGO that focusses on
empowering rural villages
through social, economical and children’s educational
development for creating a
sustainable village atmosphere (www.vetngo.org).
. Loka Dharma Seva Foundation Trust, an NGO engaged in the
preservation of
Hindu customs and temples (www.lokadharma.org).
. Manav Sewa Society, and NGO that focusses on empowerment
of the Dalits

(untouchables) and the marginalized sections of the society
through raising their
educational, social, economic and health status
(www.manavsewa
charitablesociety.org).
. Pahal Trust, an NGO that works in areas of women
empowerment (www.
pahaltrust.com).
. Shramdeep, an NGO of Nagpur Diocese of the Church of North
India (www.
shramdeepindia.org).
On average, the 296 NGOs have 182 employees and 405
volunteers each. The NGOs’
monthly funding averages 885,771 rupees (approximately
$16,587). A majority (214 or
72.3 percent) of the NGOs do not have any foreign donors while
the rest (82 or 27.7
percent) do. More than half (179 or 60.5 percent) of the NGOs
have a standalone public
relations department or communications department. On
average, the public relations
or communications department employs seven staff members
each. The 296 NGOs are
distributed across 28 states all over India.
Based on the questions asked with regard to dialogic
communication, media
relations (knowledge, action and strategy) and organization-
media relationship, indices
were created by summing up the responses to the specific sets
of questions asked in the
survey to produce a Dialogic Communication Index (Cronbach’s
a¼0.901), a Media

Relations Index (Cronbach’s a¼0.937) and an Organization-
Media Relationship Index
(Cronbach’s a¼0.954). For example, under a five-point Likert
scale for the responses,
the more dialogic an organization, the higher the number on the
Dialogic Communication
Index. Similarly for media relations; the higher the number on
the Media Relations Index,
the stronger the media relations work. The higher the number on
the Organization-Media
Relationship Index, the better the quality of the relationship.
89
Non-
governmental
organizations
The Dialogic Communication Index ranged between 32 and 115,
with a mean of
88.00 (SD¼13.64). The Media Relations Index ranged between
68 and 170, with a
mean of 122.41 (SD¼21.45). The Organization-Media
Relationship Index ranged
between 29 and 145, with a mean of 101.47 (SD¼18.02). The
three indices have
excellent internal consistency or reliability, as seen in the
strong Cronbach a values:
RQ1. Functions of media relations.
Based on the percentages of “agree” and “strongly agree” with
specific statements, the
functions of media relations in the NGOs are mainly for

informing their publics about
their organization’s goals and objectives (66.4 percent), for
obtaining feedback from
their publics to improve society (63.7 percent) and for assuring
their publics that they
can voice their concerns (61.9 percent).
Less significant functions are to demonstrate support for their
publics
(59.9 percent), to show the public that they are the NGOs’
equals (59 percent),
to encourage our publics to be more involved in the NGOs’
activities (58.9 percent), to
respond to current issues affecting the NGOs’ publics (58.4
percent), to emphasize the
importance of the well-being of their publics (56.5 percent), to
consult the publics on
the NGOs’ activities (54.4 percent), to show the publics that the
NGOs are committed to
them (52.1 percent), to demonstrate that the NGOs listen to the
concerns of their publics
(51 percent) and to show their publics that they value them (50
percent):
RQ2. Dialogic communication, media relations and
The results, based on a correlational analysis, reveal a number
of significant relationships
between and among dialogic communication, media relations
and the quality of
organization-media relationship. The next section outlines the
findings pertaining to each
hypothesis:

on media relations. This hypothesis is not supported. There is
no evidence
of a relationship between dialogic orientation and media
relations.
H1a. A stronger dialogic orientation will be associated with a
on media relations knowledge.
This hypothesis is supported (r¼0.351, po0.01). This finding
suggests that NGOs
with stronger dialogic orientation tend to have stronger media
relations knowledge:
H1b. A stronger dialogic orientation will be associated with a
on media relations action.
This hypothesis is not supported. There is no evidence of a
relationship between
dialogic orientation and media relations action:
H1c. A stronger dialogic orientation will be associated with a
on media relations strategy.
suggests that NGOs
with stronger dialogic orientation tend to have stronger media
relations strategy.
90
JCOM
18,1

The results for the first hypothesis shows that NGOs with a
stronger dialogic
orientation tend to have stronger media relations in two
dimensions, knowledge and
strategy, but not the third dimension, which is action:
H2. A stronger engagement in media relations will be associated
with a more
positive impact on the quality of organization-media
relationship.
suggests that NGOs
that engage more in media relations tend to have higher quality
organization-media
relationships:
on organization-media relationship.
suggests that
NGOs that have a stronger dialogic orientation tend to have
higher quality
organization-media relationships:
H4. Having a public relations or communications department
will be associated
with a more positive impact on dialogic orientation, media
relations and

The hypothesis is not supported for dialogic communication.
However, having a public
relations or communications department is associated with a
on media relations; this hypothesis is supported (r¼0.268,
po0.01). Having a public
relations or communications department is also associated with
a more positive impact
on organization-media relationship; this hypothesis is supported
(r¼0.183, po0.05).
These findings suggest that NGOs that have a public relations
or communications
department tend to engage more in media relations and tend to
have higher quality
organization-media relationships:
H5. Higher funding revenue is associated with a positive impact
on dialogic
relationship.
This hypothesis is not supported:
H6. Organization size is associated with a positive impact on
dialogic
relationship.
Contrary to expectations, organization size is negatively
correlated with dialogic
communication (r¼�0.362, po0.001), with media relations
(r¼�0.241, po0.001) and
with organization-media relationship (r¼�0.393, po0.001). This
finding suggests
that larger NGOs tend to be less dialogic in orientation, do less
media relations and

have a weaker organization-media relationship compared to
smaller NGOs.
Discussion
This study approaches media relations from an organizational
perspective to
investigate media relations in the NGO sector in India and to
address an
under-researched area in public relations. By measuring
dialogic communication,
91
Non-
governmental
organizations
media relations and the quality of organization-media
relationship, this study is able to
draw out the relationships between and among these three
distinct and yet connected
conceptual building blocks of public relations.
As seen in the findings pertaining to the functions of media
relations, the
significance of media relations as a tool for informing publics
about the NGOs’
goals and objectives, for obtaining feedback from their publics,
and for assuring their
publics that they can voice their concerns – reveals a pattern of
responses mostly
consistent with one-way, asymmetric communication such as the
press agentry
model of public relations practice rather than dialogic

communication. Historically,
public relations in India underwent an era of propaganda from
1500 BC to 1858; an era
of publicity and public information from 1858 to 1947 and the
era of public relations
albeit mostly in the asymmetric form from 1947 to date (Singh,
2000). Although this
trend refers to the for-profit sector, its applicability to the NGO
sector appears sound.
As noted by Singh (2000), press agentry remains the
predominant model of public
relations practice in India with an emphasis on technical and
functionary roles as
opposed to the strategic.
As suggested by McAllister-Spooner (2009) dialogue is
“difficult and time
consuming” (p. 320). The concept of dialogue may also be an
anathema to Indian
culture, as some scholars suggest. Societal culture has
tremendous impacts on the
function of public relations in India (Sriramesh, 1992), as
Indian culture tends to breed
management philosophy that is authoritarian in nature. This in
turn causes public
relations work to be shaped similarly, in a one-way or top-down
approach. The high
power distance in Indian culture can also be attributed to a
clear-cut hierarchy in
organizations where senior executives “will be less inclined to
seek information from
their publics because they do not intend to shape organizational
activities to the needs
of their environment” (p. 204).
As such, dialogue may not be as strong a focus in media

relations as a perceived
need to inform the publics and gather feedback from them. Like
their for-profit
counterparts, NGOs are just as affected by cultural dimensions
especially as they are
increasingly adopting commercial organization qualities (Blood,
2005). This entrenched
approach to public relations could prove detrimental for NGOs,
as unlike for-profit
organizations, their functions and programs are more
necessarily shaped by the publics
that they are attempting to reach out to.
It is therefore unsurprising that the NGOs assign a low priority
to goals such
as treating their publics as equals, consulting their publics on
their organization
activities, showing the publics that the NGOs are committed to
them, demonstrating
that they listen to the concerns of their publics and showing
their publics that they
value them – media relations functions that connect better with
Kent and Taylor’s (2002)
dialogic framework featuring the five principles of dialogue:
mutuality, propinquity,
empathy, risk and commitment. For instance, mutuality is
characterized as collaborative
orientation where participants should understand each other’s
positions and how they
arrived there and a spirit of mutual equality that emphasizes the
maintenance of fairness
in a relationship. However, in an environment where
organizations reject the notion of the
publics as equal partners, dialogue cannot thrive.
The findings from the RQ2 seem to support this rejection of

dialogic communication
to some extent. The hypothesis that a stronger dialogic
orientation will be associated
with a more positive impact on overall media relations is not
supported, but dialogic
orientation is found to be positively correlated with two
dimensions of media relations,
knowledge and strategy but not with the action-based dimension
of media relations that
92
JCOM
18,1
addresses whether the public relations team endeavors to meet
the needs of
journalists including consistent and timely provision of
information subsidies in the
forms of press releases, news conferences, background briefings
and phone queries
(Yoon, 2005).
On the other hand, the two dimensions of media relations,
knowledge and strategy,
by addressing public relations practitioners’ understanding of
news values and
journalistic routines including the prevalent angles, formats and
notions such as
objectivity and public interest – focus on more on less tangible,
tacit processes instead of
outputs, which are more tangible and explicit. In this sense, it
may appear that knowledge
and strategy may not be easily transferred into action. A public

relations practitioner may
know or understand the value of dialogic perspectives in his or
her dealings with the news
media, and yet could not translate these principles into the
information subsidies
provided to journalists. This finding somewhat parallels the
findings from studies on
dialogic internet principles, in which there appears to be “an
inconsistency between what
practitioners think is possible through the internet, and what
they are actually doing to
facilitate relationship-building” (McAllister-Spooner, 2009).
This finding further raises significant questions for dialogic
communication theory.
Theoretically, Kent and Taylor’s (2002) dialogic theory suggest
that the five principles
are accessible and applicable to practitioners and could be
easily incorporated into
everyday public relation activities: by building interpersonal
relationships, demonstrating
their commitment through engaging in dialogic relationships
through mass-mediated
channels and creating organizational mechanisms that facilitate
dialogue. However,
structurally, the traditional practice of media relations premised
on the provision
of information subsidies to journalists such as press releases
and news conferences – as
tools of information rather than dialogue – may be an obstacle
to the development of
dialogic relationships between organizations and news media.
This structural limitation
deserves more attention than it has received in dialogic theory.
Structural limitations may
inhibit public relations practitioners’ ability to take full

advantage of the dialogic capacity
in media relations.
Another significant finding centers on the potential impact of
media relations on the
quality of organization-media relationships. Media relations
could be a condition for or
outcome of (or both) good relationships between the
organization and media.
Intuitively, it suggests that when organizations have good
relationships with the news
media, they are able to engage more in media relations.
Similarly, organizations that
are more active in media relations work are able to reap the
benefits of their efforts and
have better relationships with the news media. With dialogue as
the centerpiece
of relationships, it is unsurprising that a stronger dialogic
orientation is also found to
be associated with better organization-media relationships. This
finding reaffirms the
theoretical centrality of dialogue as a necessary component of
excellent public relations
(Botan, 1997; Kent and Taylor, 2002; Pearson, 1979; Stewart,
1978).
Although having a public relations or communications
department is associated
with a more positive impact on media relations and
organization-media relationship,
the finding is not significant for dialogic communication
although NGOs that have a
public relations or communications department tend to engage
more in media relations
and tend to have higher quality organization-media
relationships. This finding

reinforces the importance of public relations infrastructure in
media relations, as the
existence of a public relations or communications department
can help shape media
relations performance and organization-media relationships.
This finding to some
extent supports McAllister-Spooner’s argument that
organizational and departmental
93
Non-
governmental
organizations
factors are inhibiting practitioners’ ability to take full
advantage of dialogic potential in
organizations.
In the context of India, where public relations is undervalued,
this finding reaffirms
the value and importance of structured public relations efforts
within organizations.
Consistent with Seo et al.’s (2009) findings who found that
organizational efficiency and
revenue did not significantly predict the NGOs’ use of new
media, this study also found
that NGOs’ funding strength does not have any significance on
media relations, thus
offering hope to many struggling and financially strapped
NGOs.
The finding that organization size is negatively correlated with
dialogic

relationship is surprising.
Contrary to expectations, the larger NGOs tend to engage less in
media relations. They are
also less dialogic in orientation, and have weaker organization-
media relationships than
smaller NGOs. Further analysis shows that larger NGOs are not
necessarily characterized
by more funding, or a reliance on foreign donors, a stronger
volunteer base compared
to smaller NGOs. Nor are larger NGOs more likely to have a
public relations or
communications department.
In India, the work of NGOs is highly localized. In disaster
management, for
example, Indian NGOs are quick to react at a local level and
often the first organized
group to reach the disaster site. Indian NGOs work mostly with
the disenfranchised
and marginalized segments of society, and due to their
essentially localized scope
of operations, they have the ability to outreach to
underprivileged sections of society
who may not have access to the media or who lack literacy
competence.
It may seem plausible that the larger NGOs, which are also
more established,
are able to harness its substantial strength in employees and to
deploy them on
house-to-house visits, collaborations with local opinion leaders
as the village
panchayat (village councils) and other forms of direct
communication networking
or interpersonal relationships. In this context, media relations

may be of a lower
priority. More research is needed to understand the role played
by the face-to-face
approach in dialogic communication, as discussed by
McAllister-Spooner (2009) who
suggested that dialogic theory could benefit from further
exploration of media choice
and effectiveness.
The findings of this study are limited to a sample of NGOs from
India. Future
research should address more diverse samples and employ
qualitative research
approaches to understand more fully the dynamics of media
relations in NGOs,
and how their patterns of media relations, use of information
subsidies, culture and
media choice shape news coverage and their subsequent efficacy
in developing
civil society.
References
Aronoff, C.E. (1976), “Predictors of success in placing news
releases in newspapers”, Public
Relations Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 43-57.
Asian Development Bank (2009), Overview of Civil Society
Organizations: India, ADB
Nongovernmental Organization and Civil Society Center,
available at: www.adb.org/
Documents/Reports/Civil-Society-Briefs/IND/CSB-IND.pdf
(accessed December 15, 2011).
Blood, R. (2005), “Should NGOs be viewed as political
corporations?”, Journal of Communication

Management, Vol. 9 No. 20, pp. 120-133.
Bortree, D.S. and Seltzer, T. (2009), “Dialogic strategies and
outcomes: an analysis of
environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles”, Public
Relations Review, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 317-319.
94
JCOM
18,1
Botan, C. (1997), “Ethics in strategic communication
campaigns: the case for a new approach to
public relations”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 187-201.
Bruning, S., Dials, M. and Shirka, A. (2008), “Using dialogue
to build organization-public
relationships, engage publics, and positively affect
organizational outcomes”, Public
Buber, M. (1967), The Knowledge of Man, Harper & Row, New
York, NY.
Cancel, A.E., Cameron, G.T., Sallot, L.M. and Mitrook, M.A.
(1997), “It depends: a contingency
theory of accommodation in public relations”, Journal of Public
Relations Research, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 31-63.
Chia, J. (2005), “Is trust a necessary component of relationship

management?”, Journal of
Communication Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 277-285.
Desiere, S. and Sha, B.-L. (2007), “Exploring the development
of an organizational approach to
media relationships”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 96-98.
Freedom House (2011), “Freedom of the press”, available at:
www.freedomhouse.org (accessed
December 15, 2011).
Gandy, O. (1982), Beyond Agenda Setting: Information
Subsidies, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Ghosh, B. (2009), “NGOs, civil society and social
reconstruction in contemporary India”, Journal
of Developing Societies, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 229-252.
Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations,
Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
New York, NY.
Gupta, S. (2007), “Professionalism in India public relations and
corporate communications:
an empirical analysis”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 306-312.
Hindustan Times (2011), “America to certify, rate Indian
NGOs”, Hindustan Times, December 15,
p. 7, available at: www.hindustantimes.com/world-
news/Americas/America-to-certify-rate-
Indian-NGOs/Article1-782533.aspx (accessed December 15,
2011).
Hon, L.C. and Grunig, J.E. (1999), Guidelines for Measuring

Relationships in Public Relations,
The Institute for Public Relations, Gainesville, FL.
Hunt, T. and Grunig, J.E. (1994), Public Relations Techniques,
Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, TX.
(The) Indian Express (2010), “First official estimate: an NGO
for every 400 people in India”,
(The) Indian Express, July 7, p. 3, available at:
www.indianexpress.com/news/first-
official-estimate-an-ngo-for-every-400-people-in-india/643302/
(accessed December 15, 2011).
Jo, S. and Kim, Y. (2004), “Media or personal relations?
Exploring media relations dimensions
in South Korea”, Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 81 No. 2,
pp. 292-306.
Kang, S. and Norton, H.E. (2006), “Colleges and universities’
use of the World Wide Web:
a public relations tool for the digital age”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 426-428.
Kent, M. and Taylor, M. (1998), “Building dialogic
relationships through the World Wide Web”,
Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 321-334.
Kent, M. and Taylor, M. (2002), “Toward a dialogic theory of
public relations”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Kent, M., Taylor, M. and White, W. (2003), “The relationship
between website design and
organizational responsiveness to stakeholders”, Public Relations

pp. 63-77.
Kinser, K. and Fall, L. (2006), “A Dr Doolittle primer:
determining how American zoos use public
relations membership techniques as effectiveness customer
relations strategies”, Services
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 91-114.
95
Non-
governmental
organizations
Ledingham, J. (2003), “Explicating relationship management as
a general theory of public
relations”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 181-198.
Ledingham, J. and Bruning, S. (1998), “Relationship
management in public relations:
dimensions of an organization-public relationship”, Public
Relations Review, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 55-65.
Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (2000), “A longitudinal
study of organization – public
relationships dimensions: defining the role of communication in
the practice of relationship
management”, in Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (Eds),
Public Relations as Relationship
Management: A Relational Approach to Public Relations,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Inc, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 55-69.
L’Etang, J. and Pieczka, M. (2006), Public Relations: Critical
Debates and Contemporary Practice,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
McAllister-Spooner, S.M. (2009), “Fulfilling the dialogic
promise: a ten-year reflective
survey on dialogic internet principles”, Public Relations
pp. 320-322.
Naude, M.E., Froneman, A. and Johannes, D. (2008), “The use
of internet by ten South African
non-governmental organizations: a public relations
perspective”, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 87-94.
Pearson, R.L. (1989), “Business ethics as communication ethics:
public relations practice and the
idea of dialogue”, in Botan, C. and Hazleton, V. (Eds), Public
Relations Theory, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 12-25.
Reber, B.H. and Kim, J.K. (2006), “How activist groups use
web sites in media relations:
evaluating online press rooms”, Journal of Public Relations
Research, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 313-333.
Reber, B.H. and Kim, J.K. (2009), “How activist groups use
websites in media relations:
evaluating online press rooms”, Journal of Public Relations
Research, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 313-333.

Rouner, D. and Camden, C. (1988), “Not-for-profits appear to
lack PR sophistication”, Public
Rybalko, S. and Seltzer, T. (2010), “Dialogic communication in
140 characters or less: how
Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using twitter”,
Public Relations Review, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 336-341.
Seo, H., Kim, J. and Yang, S.-U. (2009), “Global activism and
new media: a study of transnational
NGOs’ online public relations”, Public Relations Review, Vol.
35 No. 2, pp. 123-126.
Shaw, M. (1996), Civil Society and Media in Global Crisis:
Representing Distinct Violence, Pinter,
London.
Sheth, D.L. and Sethi, H. (1991), The NGO Sector in India,
Indian Council of Social Science
Research, Delhi.
Shin, J. and Cameron, G.T. (2003), “Informal relations: a look
at personal influence in media
relations”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 No.
3, pp. 239-253.
Singh, R. (2000), “Public relations in contemporary India:
current demands and strategy”, Public
Sriramesh, K. (1992), “Societal culture and public relations:
ethnographic evidence from India”,

Sriramesh, K. and Vercic, D. (2003), The Global Public
Relations Handbook: Theory, Research and
Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Stewart, J. (1978), “Foundations of dialogic communication”,
Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 64
No. 2, pp. 183-201.
96
JCOM
18,1
Sudhaman, A. (2010), “Focus on India’s public relations
market”, PR Weekly, February 8, p. 1,
available at: www.prweek.com/uk/news/981890/Focus-On-
India/ (accessed March 22,
2010).
Taylor, M. (2000), “Media relations in Bosnia: a role for public
relations in building civil society”,
Taylor, M. (2004), “Media richness theory as a foundation for
public relations in Croatia”, Public
Taylor, M. (2009), “Protocol journalism as a framework for
understanding public relations-media
relationships in Kosovo”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35 No.
1, pp. 23-30.
Taylor, M. and Napoli, P. (2008), “Public perceptions of how
media and NGOs contribute to civil

society in Croatia’s accession to the EU”, International Journal
of Communication, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 1226-1247.
Taylor, M., Kent, M. and White, W. (2001), “How activist
organizations are using the internet to
build relationships”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 263-284.
Viswanath, P. and Dadrawala, N. (2004), “Philanthropic
investment and equitable development:
the case of India”, in Geithner, P., Johnson, P. and Lincoln, C.
(Eds), Diaspora Philanthropy
and Equitable Development in China and India, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 45-67.
Yoon, Y. (2005), “A scale for measuring media relations
efforts”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 434-436.
Zoch, L. and Molleda, J.C. (2006), “Building a theoretical
model of media relations using framing,
information subsidies and agenda-building”, in Botan, C. and
Hazleton, V. (Eds), Public
Relations Theory II, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 56-78.
Further reading
Rounner, D. and Camden, C. (1989), “Not-for-profits appear to
Lack P.R. sophistication”, Public
Taylor, M. and Kent, M.L. (2000), “Media transitions in Bosnia:
from propagandistic past to

uncertain future”, Gazette, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 355-378.
Taylor, M. and Napoli, P. (2003), “Media development in
Bosnia: a longitudinal analysis of
citizen perceptions of media realism, importance and
credibility”, Gazette, Vol. 65 No. 6,
pp. 473-492.
Appendix 1. Dialogic communication
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Bridge building
1. Public relations is a bridge-building profession where bridges
are formed between
organization and public
2. Bridge-building and generating dialogue between
organization and public is always best
External threats
3. My organization is often unable to engage in dialogue with
stakeholders because of
government regulation
4. When faced with potentially damaging publicity I am
unlikely to engage in dialogue with
those opposed to my organization’s stance
5. I am unlikely to engage in dialogue with a stakeholder whose
position threatens my
organization’s reputation in the eye of our publics
External publics
6. The number of members in a group would be likely to affect
whether I would engage in

dialogue with that public
(continued)
97
Non-
governmental
organizations
Appendix 2. Media relations knowledge, action and strategy
7. The degree of credibility the group has would be likely to
affect whether I would engage in
dialogue with that public
8. The level of commitment and involvement of the group’s
members would be likely to affect
whether I would engage in dialogue with that public
9. I am more likely to engage in dialogue with publics that
know of the organization and like
representatives of the organization
10. I am more likely to engage in dialogue with publics that the
organization knows of and likes
the representatives of
Organizations characteristics
11. I may be more likely to engage in dialogue with a public if
my colleagues work well together
at the organization

12. The age of my organization is likely to affect whether I
would engage in dialogue with a
public
13. The economic stability and capacity of my organization is
likely to affect whether I engage in
dialogue with a public
14. I am more likely to engage in dialogue with a public if my
organization has an open and free
culture where everyone’s voices are heard
Public relations department
15. The number of trained public relations practitioners in our
organization would affect the
likelihood of my engaging in dialogues with a public
16. I would be more likely to engage in dialogue with a public
if public relations is represented in
my organization’s top decision-making structure
17. The experience level of the public relations practitioners in
dealing with conflict would likely
affect whether I engaged in dialogue with a public
18. The amount of resources, such as time, personnel and
money, available for dealing with
external publics is likely to affect whether I am willing to
engage in dialogue
19. The position of public relations as a separate department
and not under marketing or
communications would likely affect whether I engage in
Dominant coalition

20. I am less likely to engage in dialogue with a public if my
organization’s management style is
domineering
21. I am less likely to engage in dialogue with a public if my
organization’s management style is
laid back
22. I am more likely to engage in dialogue with a public if my
organization’s management has an
understanding of public relations
23. The frequency of external contact with publics is likely to
affect my likelihood of engaging in
24. The existence of ideological barriers between my
organization and public is likely to affect
my willingness to engage in dialogue with a public
25. I usually will not engage in dialogue with a public if doing
so may result in economic loss for
my organization
26. I usually will not engage in dialogue with a public if doing
so may result in marring of
employees’ and/or stockholders’ perceptions of the company
Media relations knowledge: how important is it for your
organization to y
1. Follow the deadlines provided by the media
2. Know the kind of angles of a story regarding your
organization that journalists would use
3. Know how the media thinks
4. Have a database of journalist contacts

5. Know how to reach particular journalists for specific kind of
stories (i.e. via phone or e-mail)
(continued)
98
JCOM
18,1
Appendix 3. Organization-media relationship
6. Provide quick responses to any media query regarding your
organization
7. Train members of the organization in media relations
8. Have good relationships with journalists
9. Make journalists key members of your organization
10. To use media relations to fulfill your organization’s
objectives
Media relations action: how often does your organization y
11. Track the media to find articles or coverage on your
organization and its cause
12. Find stories about your organization and its activities in the
media that have not been
pitched by your organization
13. Find stories about your organization and its activities in the
media that have been pitched by
your organization
14. Organize press/news conferences
15. Send out press releases
16. Personally invite the media to your events and program

launches
17. Prepare a press kit (i.e. package of background information,
press release and extra
materials regarding a new service or topic of concern) for the
media
18. Arrange for interviews between members of your
organization or publics and the media
19. Get queries from journalists regarding your organization
20. Answer queries of journalists regarding your organization
21. Update your journalists’ database of contacts
22. Train your members on communicating with the media
23. Maintain a web site about your organization
24. Update your web site regularly
25. Provide a media section on your web site
26. Use online social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Hi5,
MySpace, YouTube, etc.) to reach out to
your publics
27. Use different types of media for different types of publics
Media relations strategy: to what extent does your organization
y
28. Use media relations to promote our NGOs image
29. Use the media relations for fund raising
30. Use media relations to engage and interact with the general
public
31. Use media relations to forge and facilitate networking with
other NGOs
32. Use media relations to provide journalist with easy access to
materials about our NGO
33. We use media relations to facilitate dialogue between our
NGO and our various publics
34. We use media relations to build and maintain relationships
with our publics
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

1. We treat the media and journalists as equals (i.e. not inferior
or superior)
2. When making important decisions we keep the media in mind
3. The media can rely on us to provide information regarding
our organization and its services
4. We can rely on the media to publicize our cause and our
activities
5. We rely on the media to help us reach out to our publics
6. When making decisions for our organization we take into
account various opinions
presented by the media
7. The media demonstrates that it is confident in our
organization’s abilities
8. Through our interactions with journalists and the media we
ensure that we do as we say
9. Our organization and the media are attentive to what each
other say
10. Our organization believes that the opinions of the media
regarding our organization are
legitimate
11. Our organization really listens to what the media has to say
in terms of our cause
(continued)
99
Non-
governmental
organizations

Corresponding author
Dr Seow Ting Lee can be contacted at: [email protected]
12. Our organization gives the media enough say in the
decision-making process at the
organization
13. Our organization is trying to maintain a long-term
commitment with the media through
constant interaction and exchange of information on our cause
14. We make a conscious effort to maintain relationships with
the media by staying in touch
with journalists
15. There is along-lasting bond between our organization and
the media that we have been
maintaining
16. We value our relationship with the media
17. The media is generally happy with our organization
18. We are generally happy with the media
19. We and the media both benefit from our relationship
20. The media is relatively happy with their interaction with our
organization (i.e. response rate,
providing information and answers to queries)
21. We are generally happy with our interactions with the media
(i.e. journalists show interest in
the stories we pitch to them, the media comes to our events,
etc.)
22. Generally speaking, our organization is happy with our
relationship with the media
23. The media is very concerned about the welfare of our
organization
24. Our organization takes advantage of the services the media

can offer
25. The media helps our organization without expecting
anything in return
26. The media compromises with our organization when they
know they will gain something in
return
27. We help the media without expecting anything in return
28. We compromise with the media when we know we will get
media coverage in return
29. The media expects something in return for their
contributions to our organization despite
our long-lasting relationship
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
100
JCOM
18,1
reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Effective public relations - a model for business: MRN
Kline, Robert S
Management Research News; 1996; 19, 6; ABI/INFORM
Collection
pg. 55
First impressions: US media

portrayals of public relations in
the 1920s
Timothy Penning
School of Communications, Grand Valley State University,
Allendale,
Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The paper traces negative and limiting media
depictions of public relations (PR) to their
origins in the 1920s in order to determine whether modern
media characterizations of “public
relations” are new or a legacy of the past.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative content analysis
was used in order to look more
deeply at media characterizations of public relations. The New
York Times and Time magazine were
chosen to sample because of their dominance and unique
reflection of the era, respectively.
Findings – Reporting about “public relations” was primarily
fair. Early practitioners were often
quoted defining the profession, including “great men” of PR
history and more common practitioners.
These practitioners of PR are as much to blame for confounding
the terms “public relations” and
“press agent” as are the media of the 1920s.
Practical implications – This historical study sheds a light on
and provides context for both the
media and society’s understanding of public relations today.

Originality/value – While much research has looked at media
portrayals and public perceptions of
the public relations field, few if any have traced attitudes about
the profession to the decade when the
term “public relations” was first popularized. The paper
remedies this deficit.
Keywords Public relations, Public opinion, Mass media, Culture
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Well into the first decade of the twenty-first century, the public
relations industry does
not enjoy a favorable public opinion. As Coombs and Holladay
point out in their recent
book, the term “public relations” is misunderstood, tainted
negatively, and regarded
with suspicion by the public (Coombs and Holladay, 2007).
Contemporary attacks
accuse the profession of surreptitiously exploiting an untrained
and unsophisticated
populace (Ewan, 1996; Stauber and Rampton, 1995). Even some
public relations
professionals are distancing themselves from the term “public
relations” because of a
perceived negative public opinion about it (Brody, 1992;
Sparks, 1993).
Meanwhile, those who teach and practice public relations have
tried to clarify
misperceptions by defining the profession. While the definitions
still vary somewhat,
one of the more common ones used in textbooks is that public
relations is “the
management function that identifies, establishes, and maintains

mutually beneficial
relationships between an organization and all the publics on
whom its success or
failure depends” (Cutlip et al., 2000). As Coombs and Holladay
point out, the idea of
“mutually beneficial relationships” is what has come to
dominate modern definitions of
the profession (Coombs and Holladay, 2007).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-254X.htm
JCOM
12,4
344
Journal of Communication
Management
Vol. 12 No. 4, 2008
pp. 344-358
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1363-254X
DOI 10.1108/13632540810919800
The disconnect between how the public relations profession
defines itself and the
way the public understands it can be explained to large degree
by the media portrayals
of public relations. Inaccurate perceptions and negative
attitudes about any profession
result from simplifications and inaccuracies in media portrayals

(Cameron, 2003). In the
case of public relations in particular, most people learn about
the field and term from the
media, which tends to focus on some types of public relations
practice and ignore others
(Coombs and Holladay, 2007). Various studies have shown this
to be true. Studies of
newspaper (Bishop, 1988) and television (Keenan, 1996)
portrayals of public relations
found the profession is consistently cast as nothing more than
attempts to gain publicity.
In a sample of three newspapers, studies of media depictions of
PR show not only a
limited view, but a negative one. A study of print media
determined that 83 percent of the
references to public relations were negative (Spicer, 1993). A
1998 review of 100 popular
press articles found that only 5 percent used the term “public
relations” accurately, and
only 7 percent referred to public relations with a positive
connotation (Henderson, 1998).
A later study found 12 percent of stories presented public
relations in a positive light, 47
percent as neutral, and 41 percent as negative, with negative
depictions more likely
when the specific organization in question was a corporation or
the government
(Samsup, 2003). The same study concluded that public relations
is generally associated
with image building, reputation management, and persuasion. A
study by media
analysis firm CARMA, in association with the industry journal
PR Week, shows a high
volume of news stories about the profession carrying negative
themes such as “PR
distorts reality,” “PR just means publicity stunts,” or “PR pros

are just spin doctors”
(Frank, 2004). The study analyzed content of 698 print and
broadcast media stories from
January through July of 2004. A qualitative textual analysis of
136 articles from The New
York Times during a one-year period in which the term “public
relations” or “PR”
appeared showed that “public relations” was frequently used as
an adjective to ascribe
negative meaning to the noun it modified in these articles
(White and Lambert, 2006).
The entertainment media has been as inaccurate as the news
media regarding
depictions of public relations. A 1996 analysis of 11 television
programs with public
relations professionals as characters found three dominant roles
portrayed: publicist,
political communication consultants, and negotiators (Choi,
2006). Another
longitudinal study of 51 books and 67 movies from 1930-1995
showed that
inaccurate and negative stereotypes of public relations have
persisted in film and
fiction for decades (Miller, 1999).
As the latter study shows, negative media portrayals about the
profession that
claims to be expert in gaining positive publicity have, perhaps
ironically, persisted
over time. This begs the question: how and why did such
negative media portrayals of
“public relations” begin? For that, it is instructive to look at the
beginning. That
beginning, for various reasons, is the 1920s.

Why the 1920s
The 1920s were a perfect storm of cultural changes that led to
the occupation called
public relations coming into the media spotlight. After World
War One, the country
made a shift to a consumer culture. Along with this shift came a
fascination with the
notion of public opinion and formalized attempts to influence it.
Also, there were
significant changes in the media landscape that reflected and
enhanced the other
First impressions
345
cultural changes. (see Appendix for a timeline reflecting some
of these historic
milestones of the 1920s).
Consumer culture and advertising intertwined
One of the reasons the 1920s were called “roaring” was because
of the newfound
prosperity in post first world war America. Even before the war,
at the turn of the
century, mass culture and advanced capitalist society evolved
together. Mass culture
has been defined as “voluntary experiences . . . produced by a
relatively small number
of specialists . . . for millions across the nation to share . . . in
similar or identical form
. . . either simultaneously or nearly so . . . with dependable
frequency . . . (shaping)
habitual audiences . . . around common needs or interests . . .

and it is made for profit”
(Ohmann, 1996). More specifically, the post-war culture has
been called a consumer
culture because of the way corporations began more
aggressively encouraging people
to buy brand-name products on installment plans (Wilner,
2006). The consumer culture
was facilitated by a simultaneous increase in the number of
professional-managerial
jobs and efforts of companies to advertise products nationally
(Ohmann, 1996).
It was because of this cultural shift that advertising, a field
often associated with
public relations, became accepted as a normal part of the
business process in the 1920s
(Stole, 2006). Companies began to see advertising as a
mandatory business expense to
maintain their market share, and the public saw advertising as
the forum in which they
were made aware of the bounty of new products becoming
available to them each year.
Of course, the acceptance of advertising was not total. The
Federal Trade Commission
had been formed in 1914 to protect consumers from advertising,
and a 1912 law required
all paid media content to be labeled “advertising” (Sloan, 2005).
Further evidence of the
proliferation of advertising and a consumer culture in this era is
seen in the advertising
industry’s own efforts to both defend and regulate itself because
they noted a wariness
on the part of some segments of the public with regard to
deceptive advertising
practices. Better to regulate themselves, advertisers thought,
than be subject to overly

restrictive government regulation. Various public relations
efforts were engaged on
behalf of the advertising profession. The American Association
of Advertising Agencies
(called the 4As today) was formed in 1917 with 1400 agencies
as members. In 1929, the
Advertising Federation of America (AFA) was formed to
promote the profession and
standardize policies. The national Better Business Bureau that
started to handle
consumer complaints in 1925 was actually set up by local ad
clubs across the country
(Stole, 2006). Public suspicion of the business claims of
advertising, which culminated in
consumer activism in the 1930s, may have seeded skepticism
about public relations in
the 1920s among a public that likely saw little distinction
between advertising and
public relations when it came to corporate messages.
For various reasons, historians have noted that the 1920s was
the decade when
advertising matured from handbills and small text ads with
simple information to
more sophisticated formats with persuasive message strategies.
The maturation in the
1920s is seen in the form of ads: 40 percent of all print ads were
full-page; three-fourths
of the ads focused on product benefits, but many focused on
intangible appeals – a
reflection of increasing affluence of the public; sex appeal was
a common theme in a
quarter of all magazine ads (Sloan, 2005). The growth of
advertising can be seen in
economic terms as well: ad revenue as a percent of gross
domestic product went from

0.3 percent in 1865 to 3 percent in 1920, a level at which it has
remained since (Stole,
JCOM
12,4
346
2006). Thus, as the 1920s dawned, the stage was set for a new
consumer culture
interdependent with advertising:
By the early 1920s, commercial values had permeated most
aspects of society. The mass
media, leisure activities, and even to some extent education all
were becoming dependent
upon, and influenced by, advertising.
Growing fascination with public opinion
The proliferation of advertising in the 1920s coincided with an
increased academic and
scientific interest in the concept of public opinion. There were
28 books on the subject
published between 1917 and 1925 (Cutlip, 1994). It was in 1923
that Claude Hopkins
wrote his landmark book Scientific Advertising to equate
advertising with science:
The time has come when advertising has in some hands reached
the status of a science. It is
based on fixed principles and is reasonably exact (cited in
Sloan, 2005, p. 408).
Of course, the social science with regard to the media and

public opinion was in its
nascent stage. Media scholars at the time were advocating the
hypodermic needle or
magic bullet theories, which assumed that people could be
“uniformly controlled by
their biologically based ‘instincts’ and that they react more or
less uniformly to
whatever ‘stimuli’ came along” (Lowery and DeFleur, 1995).
One of those stimuli that scholars recognized and began
discussing thoughtfully
was the “press agent”, also called “publicity man”, of the
decade. Walter Lippmann
connected public opinion to public relations in his writings. His
analysis of the
emerging profession in the 1920s was thoughtful and nuanced,
expressing both
benefits and consequences for society. His landmark book
Public Opinion expresses
both praise and fear for these early forms of public relations
practitioners. He saw them
as helpful by providing a clear picture and information and
therefore saving reporters
trouble. At the same time, Lippmann recognized that the
publicity man would act as
“censor and propagandist” and provide only what he wanted the
public to see:
Were reporting the simple recovery of obvious fact, the press
agent would be little more than
a clerk. But since, in respect to most of the big topics of news,
the facts are not simple, and not
at all obvious, but subject to choice and opinion, it is natural
that everyone should wish to
make his or her own choice of facts for the newspapers to print.
The publicity man does that

(Lippman, 1922).
A few years later, Lippmann expressed doubt that the public is
capable of resisting
efforts to manipulate public opinion. In his 1927 book The
Phantom Public, he asserted
that the public is a myth and that public opinion is not a valid
representation of their
voice (Bybee, 1999). That same year, philosopher John Dewey
responded with his own
book, The Public and Its Problems, and argued more
optimistically that the public could
be more cohesive and engaged in public opinion with improved
communication (Bybee,
1999). Also in 1927, Harold Lasswell wrote Propaganda
Technique in the World War,
which expressed a fear that propaganda would harm an
unthinking public (Davis and
Barton, 1981). Lasswell and others characterized propaganda in
negative terms as
sophisticated, organized attempts to deceive the public and
exploit public opinion. For
this reason it was unfortunate that Edward Bernays, whose name
was already
becoming synonymous with public relations, titled his second
book Propaganda –
only one year after Lasswell’s critique – and spoke neutrally of
propaganda in a
First impressions
347
denotative sense as efforts to propagate or spread a message

throughout society.
Regardless of his intentions, Bernays associated public relations
with propaganda and
may have in turn influenced the media’s negative perception of
the profession (see
below for more about Bernays’ efforts to define the profession).
Media in the 1920s
One of the “problems” Dewey ascribed to the public was the
distraction caused by
proliferating media in the 1920s. Indeed, tabloids, movies, and
radio were all relatively
new media in the 1920s. The year 1919 had seen the
introduction of Joseph Medill
Patterson’s Daily News in New York, which opened the door to
other tabloids reaching
large audiences. Movies went from silent to “talkies” and from
10 million to 100 million
fans during the decade (Wilner, 2006). Radio entered the fray in
1920 when the first
commercial station broadcast in Pittsburgh in 1920. By March
of 1923 there were 556
radio stations and 600,000 radio sets owned throughout the
nation (Emery and Emery,
1978). By the end of the decade, more than 10 million
households had radios (Sloan, 2005,
p. 350).
While magazines were not new, the 1920s saw the emergence of
more of them as a
primary vehicle for brand advertising (Ohmann, 1996).
Magazine content also
increasingly included coverage of public opinion, social issues,
and leisure for busy
people. New magazines in the decade included Reader’s Digest
in 1922, Time, in 1923,

and the New Yorker in 1925 (Mott, 1968).
Newspapers, meanwhile, were questioning their role in this era
of public opinion. In
his 1923 book Some Newspapers and Newspapermen, Oswald
Garrison Villard indicted
the press by “claiming that newspapers too often had deserted
their leadership role in
molding public opinion and instead appealed to public tastes”
(Start and Sloan, 2003).
Such professional introspection had been evident for 20 years
previously in the pages
of the journalism profession’s trade publication, Editor and
Publisher, which raised
concerns about press accuracy as well as propaganda (Rodgers,
2007). State press
association codes of ethics in the 1920s specifically singled out
the increase in the
number of public relations practitioners as a concern (Cronin
and McPherson, 1995).
Perhaps because of this concern, two national journalism codes
of ethics emerged in the
1920s. The American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1923
adopted the first
nationwide code of ethics for the newspaper industry (Rodgers,
2007). In 1926, the
Society of Professional Journalists adopted its own “Canons of
Journalism” that, among
other things, advocated remaining independent from “so-called
news communications
from private sources” (Center for the Study of Ethics in the
Professions at IIT, n.d.).
It was into this era of increasing consumerism, concern for
public opinion, and
journalistic introspection that “public relations” emerged as a

concept and formal
occupation. It would be met with the same skeptical eye
viewing journalism and the
state of democracy itself at the time.
“Public relations” enters the public stage
Public relations historian Scott Cutlip points out that “the use of
communication to
influence public opinion and human behavior is as old as
civilization” (Cutlip, 1994,
p. xiv). But, he notes, industrialization moved public relations
from an activity to a
full-time occupation. What makes the 1920s a germinal decade
for public relations is its
recognition as an occupation, the popularization of the term
“public relations,” and
JCOM
12,4
348
some significant events associated with pioneer practitioners.
Among them was the
effort to distinguish “public relations” from “press agentry,” as
the profession was
more commonly known at the time.
Public relations began to be formalized as a vocation at the turn
of the century.
While the work was often called “publicity” and those doing the
work “press agents”,
the term “public relations” was seen already in the early 1900s.
George Parker and Ivy

Lee established a firm in 1904. Their famous “Declaration of
Principles” – sent to
newspaper editors to promise accurate information to the press
and public – was
created in 1906. The material Lee sent to editors was laid out in
newspaper column
galley sheets, which were labeled “public relations” across the
top (Cutlip, 1994). A
1907 AT&T annual report was titled “public relations,” in
which company president
Theodore Vail used the term to describe building good will
(Griese and Arthur, 2001).
However, the term was used sparsely until the 1920s. John Hill,
co-founder of the
modern public relations firm Hill and Knowlton, noted that
when he opened an office in
Cleveland in 1927 he was “going into corporate publicity; the
term ‘public relations’
was in scant use at the time” (Cutlip, 1994, p. 420).
Ivy Lee has been credited with regularly using the term “public
relations” as a
blanket description for his work beginning in 1916. In 1917 he
began to make the
distinction between public relations and publicity when he
wrote an article in the
Electric Railway Journal:
The advisor in public relations should be far more than a mere
publicity agent (Hiebert, 1966).
But it took a while for that distinction to be practical. It was ten
years later that he
announced in a staff meeting at his firm that he would like to
stop doing publicity and
focus on policy for clients (Hiebert, 1966). In a 1928 letter to

MBA 525 – Review of Literature Assignment Description .docx

MBA 525 – Review of Literature Assignment Description .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MBA 525 – Review of Literature Assignment Description .docx

Similar to MBA 525 – Review of Literature Assignment Description .docx (16)

More from ARIV4

More from ARIV4 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MBA 525 – Review of Literature Assignment Description .docx