جنگ و مبارزه روابط عمومی: کلیشه روزنامه نگاری و پتانسیل موجود برای حل تعارض

The association of public relations with images of hostile relationships and metaphors of violence in the Canadian print news media was explored. A search of the on-line data base Canadian Newspaper Source provided a sample of articles which used the terms public relations battle or public relations war to describe a variety of communications between organizations and publics; analysis suggests the phrases were inflammatory, and often did not accurately reflect intent and/or reality. The implications of journalists’ use of these metaphors of violence were discussed in the context of public relations as a means of bringing about harmony in relationships.

One of the more common images of public relations in North American culture concerns violent confrontation.1 Journalists are a common source of this imagery when they associate public relations with heightened conflict by using such phrases as public relations battle and public relations war to describe a wide range of discussion on public issues and disagreements or negotiations between organizations and their publics. At the same time, public relations scholars and professional associations have argued that collaboration is an essential value of public relations and that mutual understanding and harmony between an organization and its publics are legitimate goals of the public relations function. 2 Some scholars have argued that public relations is a potential means of conflict resolution. 3 Public relations scholars and practitioners regularly bemoan the journalistic portrayals of public relations which create negative images of the practice as unethical and manipulative.4 Little analysis has been undertaken to date to explore the extent to which public relations is associated with metaphors of violent conflict. This study closely examines the contexts in which journalists use the terms public relations battle and public relations war in Canadian newspapers, and speculates on the influence of these descriptors on the potential of public relations to mitigate conflict between organizations and their publics.

The preoccupation of public relations practitioners and scholars with the media portrayal of the public relations profession as manipulative and unethical may have diverted attention away from an equally troubling hypothesis. Intentionally or not, the media have contributed to an unfortunate perception of the profession by framing public relations initiatives in language that contradicts any intent towards negotiation or conflict resolution. Repeated media use of militaristic phrases such as public relations battle and public relations war may well negate efforts by ethical practitioners to inform, raise awareness, or negotiate. Furthermore, the militant language may even have the opposite effect of practitioners’ intent, by either entrenching a potential disagreement, or worse, by deepening misunderstanding.27 Ways of effecting an alternative approach may warrant further research. To be sure, as citizens repeatedly express their dissatisfaction with journalism practices, those very practices may gradually change such that the conflict frame is replaced with a less inflammatory, more accurate approach.28