The Power Of Pr
Eviscerator
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Shaping minds past, present, and future</div> Here's an interesting book review:
<a href='http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html' target='_blank'>The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays & The Birth of PR</a>
It's a book about Ed Bernays, nephew to Sigmund Freud, who is considered the father of public relations. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi PR officer, kept copies of Bernays' writings in his personal library. I haven't read the book yet, but I'm planning on it. The most interesting quote from Bernays is the following:
<i>"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."</i>
It is fairly easy to find countless numbers of examples where successful PR campaigns have achieved their goals, and then some. This includes all facets of life, not just political. From Cabbage Patch Kids to Beanie Babies to Tickle Me Elmo to Furbies, you can find any number of commercial PR campaigns that influence a great number of people. People are so easily manipulated that they will actually pay thousands of dollars for a tiny stuffed plushie with a true material value of only a few pennies. If anyone is old enough to remember the Cabbage Patch phenomenon in the 80s, there were people literally fighting with each other to get the dolls shortly after a new batch hit store shelves. I vividly remember the video of toy store employees tossing the dolls over a wall to a huge crowd of people like animal trainers throwing chickens into a pen of alligators.
My questions to you: do you agree with the power of PR in modern society? Do you consider this tool to be potentially dangerous when used inappropriately? How would you spot something that was potentially dangerous and prevent it from taking hold? In a day and age where television and mass media are omnipresent, can there ever be a separation between PR and public opinion? How can a supposed democratic society ever be able to actually think for itself?
[edit] Added to the quote
<a href='http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html' target='_blank'>The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays & The Birth of PR</a>
It's a book about Ed Bernays, nephew to Sigmund Freud, who is considered the father of public relations. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi PR officer, kept copies of Bernays' writings in his personal library. I haven't read the book yet, but I'm planning on it. The most interesting quote from Bernays is the following:
<i>"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."</i>
It is fairly easy to find countless numbers of examples where successful PR campaigns have achieved their goals, and then some. This includes all facets of life, not just political. From Cabbage Patch Kids to Beanie Babies to Tickle Me Elmo to Furbies, you can find any number of commercial PR campaigns that influence a great number of people. People are so easily manipulated that they will actually pay thousands of dollars for a tiny stuffed plushie with a true material value of only a few pennies. If anyone is old enough to remember the Cabbage Patch phenomenon in the 80s, there were people literally fighting with each other to get the dolls shortly after a new batch hit store shelves. I vividly remember the video of toy store employees tossing the dolls over a wall to a huge crowd of people like animal trainers throwing chickens into a pen of alligators.
My questions to you: do you agree with the power of PR in modern society? Do you consider this tool to be potentially dangerous when used inappropriately? How would you spot something that was potentially dangerous and prevent it from taking hold? In a day and age where television and mass media are omnipresent, can there ever be a separation between PR and public opinion? How can a supposed democratic society ever be able to actually think for itself?
[edit] Added to the quote
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you consider this tool to be potentially dangerous when used inappropriately?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think as soon as the power to control the way people think and act is crossed with the desire for money or power then PR has become a dangerous thing. Obviously there are degrees to this, I would class the desire for money (advertising) well below the desire for power (government), purely because of the end effects each achieves. while advertising is a good shaper of social thoughts (you must use products x,y and z else you will be unatractive and unloved, change the way you look/possibly behave, whatever) it doesnt compare to the 'reality warping powers' of most government PR. PR in government is far more dangerous, especially as many people take whats fed to them as gospel.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How would you spot something that was potentially dangerous and prevent it from taking hold?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when your an adult, I think you should be able to see past BS adverts for one thing. again governmental PR is another matter as its largely a matter of figures versus reality, trust comes into it alot.
you could be very questioning in all aspects of your life. try to examine and educate yourself to the best of your abilities (possibly the best defence against PR).
children are another matter, not so questioning, must more believing, and worryingly alot of the time, well produced PR will carry through into adulthood.
this is why I think advertising aimed at children is out of order (Mcdonalds for example are evil when it comes to this).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In a day and age where television and mass media are omnipresent, can there ever be a separation between PR and public opinion? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
only if advertising was banned and governments stopped lying.
alternatively people could chose to switch off their idiot boxes and read a book.
I think the majority of people will never turn off the TV or stop believing everything they are told, so no, PR IS public opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can a supposed democratic society ever be able to actually think for itself? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
since democracy is all about the majority, and the mass majority is pretty gullable (or chooses blissfull ignorance, depending on how cynical you are) there will always be a nice mass of people for manufacturing concent on whichever evil nation is next, or whatever...
<i>"While he had, over a lifetime, written extensively about democracy, and had sermonized on the important role that public relations plays in a democratic society, Bernays, himself, was clearly no democrat. He expressed little respect for the average person's ability to think out, understand, or act upon the world in which they live.
...
As a member of that intellectual elite which guides the destiny of society, the PR 'professional,' Bernays explained, aims his craft at a general public which is essentially, and unreflectively, reactive. Working behind the scenes, out of public view, the public relations expert is 'an applied social scientist,' one educated to employ an understanding of 'sociology, psychology, social psychology and economics' in order to influence and direct public attitudes. Throughout our conversation, Bernays' hallucination of democracy was one in which a highly educated class of opinion-molding tacticians were continuously at work, analyzing the social terrain, and adjusting the mental scenery from which the public mind, with its limited intellect, would derive its opinions."</i> - <a href='http://www.adbusters.org/oldwebsite/Articles/bernay.html' target='_blank'>Visiting Edward Bernays by Stuart Ewen</a>
This sounds very much like what our Founding Fathers felt about the role of the general public. Hence the reason behind why they defined the U.S. Constitution in terms of a Republic. So in a society, how do you prevent someone or some group from abusing the tremendous power of public opinion? Examples would be the Nazi Propaganda machine during the 30s in Germany. Not speaking on an individual person-by-person level, since any single person does not make a useful majority. Rather, how do you prevent a small group with an agenda from being able to persaude an entire nation?
To take an example... was WW2 avoidable? Could something have stopped the Third Reich far before they started planning to reclaim lost land that they felt was rightfully theirs? Or was it inevitable given their knowledge of propaganda techniques and the environment in which they planned to use them? They knew how to mold public opinion and were very successful at manipulating a depressed, angry, and vindictive German society. How does someone or some group that might wish to prevent such a horrible thing from happening stand a chance against those who are able to manipulate public opinion?
That sounds like it might work for any one individual looking to see past the propaganda. But that one person can't do much to stop it, especially if the vast majority of the populous prefers to turn a blind eye to it. I was looking more towards methods for fighting a propaganda war to prevent the manipulation from taking hold. Or is that not even possible? Obviously it takes someone or some group to see past the rhetoric, but then how do you proceed from there? I firmly believe given any society you will always have the majority preferring to have its opinion given to it rather than force them individually to make up their own minds.
i totally agree with this.
and while this is true it follows from the sentament that knowledge is power, that there is little the accepting majority can do to prevent a well staged 'propaganda war'.
perhaps the best a society could do is to have a strong independant media, constantly voicing and hopefully exposing propaganda for what it is.
Read Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders." It talks about subliminal advertising. Better to scratch at the surface and strip the gold plating than to hammer straight in.
I think we're on to something here. An independent media. There are FCC rules that prevent any single entity from owning too many mass media outlets. Of course, there are attempts in progress right now to relax most of those restrictions here in the U.S. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has resulted in 4 companies owning 90% of the advertising revenue. Clear Channel Communications is one such giant, owning some 1200+ radio stations across the country. Ownership is becoming more and more centralized. The information spewed forth is created, censored, and churned over by a select few companies. This is the exact opposite of an independent media, and it appears that it will only become even more centralized. Does anyone consider this is a good trend?
I mean, for good half year people interpreted Fox News as an "alternative" news source.
EDIT: not to say independent media isn't any good.
I mean, for good half year people interpreted Fox News as an "alternative" news source.
EDIT: not to say independent media isn't any good. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's more along the lines that ALL media should be independent.
I mean, for good half year people interpreted Fox News as an "alternative" news source.
EDIT: not to say independent media isn't any good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's more along the lines that ALL media should be independent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple economics proves that can't be real, tragically. Besides, having "completely independent" media would mean limitations on the effects of a given media source... they can only go so far by running by themselves. Unless you think this should be government funded instead.
Not sure I understand how that can't be real. This massive centralization of ownership did not take place until very recently when the FCC regulations were relaxed. Enter stage left the June 2003 relaxation and you've essentially paved the way for even more centralization. Are you saying that mass media was a doomed industry throughout the 20th century, and that centralization is the only way to keep it alive? I sincerely doubt this is the case. I believe mass media did just fine when it was more independent than it is today. No... I think centralization has more ulterior motives.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes yes yes
sry no long answer ^^
/me rubs hands together with great malevolence
Moohaa... moowaaha... mooowwaahahahahaha.... AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
And now she's actually speaking out against the media frenzy around her, saying that her story was deliberately twisted to support the goals of the government/media.
I'm still undecided over whether the american media is a direct pawn of the government, or whether the media was simply working as a business and trying to be the first with a story (preferably as sensational as possible) to boost ratings, but either way it leads to the death of truth.
You can't spin everything to everyone, always.
I did see that. Interesting stuff.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm still undecided over whether the american media is a direct pawn of the government, or whether the media was simply working as a business and trying to be the first with a story (preferably as sensational as possible) to boost ratings, but either way it leads to the death of truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think there's a mix of both. And I don't think media is a direct pawn, it's more of a "mutual friend" relationship. IE, the same powerful corporations that fund and lobby government officials also have ties to the media, or are the media themselves. These power brokers can then flex their muscles when needed to squelch a damning story or do the reverse and help expose a minor offense of a competitor. What's good for them is good for business. Politician A calls up his friends at company B and says there's some story that will be coming out that will be very harmful to his career. Politician A says it would be in Company B's best interests if they could do something to repress the information for a little while or kill it altogether. Company B is more than happy to oblige, knowing that a favor done will earn them many times that in return. I think everyone would agree this sort of thing happens all the time.
Then the flip side is done for those cases where politicians can't fix the story. Or one side wins out over the other because the competition is offering more. Here the media frenzy goes nuts and you get sensationalism. Look no further than the Clinton sex scandals for a glaring example of this. Republicans gave Kenneth Lay $40 million to run his little game to slam Clinton. Really Gore and the 2000 election was the target... guilty by association. Countless more was spent by the media to run this story into great detail for more than a year. Compare that to the fact the budget for investigating 9/11 was locked at $3 million and you find a disturbing discrepancy in what the government deems worthy of expending money and effort.
To me it seems the only way to cure this problem is to have a media outlet that is completely free of business pressures. No advertising, no corporate ties, just pure journalism looking to find and then report the truth. But how do you achieve such a lofty ambition? Can you guarantee that all of the employees will remain corruption-free? Who would be able to fund and then run such an organization? Can't let the government do it, as they'll surely influence it. Perhaps the government should fund it via taxes but have it be run privately by a non-profit organization. I guess then you have NPR.
Most of the people who don't simply follow the mainstream media are far to individualistic to go and actively recruit people for their causes. If I don't want to be told what to think, I'm sure as heck not going to tell others what they can and can't do. I'll say that I disagree with them and I think they're wrong, but I won't tell them they can't think that.
For profit media is certainly hurting the quest for the truth. On CNN and Fox News alike, commentary has started becoming the name of the game. You have Larry King and Bill O'Reilly delivering opinions as if they were fact. 24 hour news channels are constantly looking for the next big story to pull in ratings. You stop reporting facts and you start catering to a demographic. A good example of this is Fox News during Gulf War II. Blatent displays of American symbols covered everything. Eagles, flags and patriotic sound clips. I'm surprised they didn't put some apple pie up. I used to watch Fox for a while, but now I only watch O'Reilly when I want to see teh funny. On the other hand, you have people openly criticizing Reuters for trying to maintain its impartiality.
National or International news agencies can offer many benefits, especially in large countries like America. My local paper isn't going to do a lot of coverage on the goings on in Oregon or Utah. National papers like the NY Times or USA Today get me information from around the country. However, with that dependence on a source for national news, comes the ability of those sources to manipulate how the events are perceived.
It's kind of a lose-lose situation.