PR Perceptions in Media and Fiction

Running Head: PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS IN MEDIA
AND FICTION
Perceptions of Public Relations Practitioners in Media and Fiction:

New Guidelines to Counter Outdated Perceptions
Taylor Newcomb
Master’s Candidate
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK
(478) 335-8952
DTNewcomb44@gmail.com
Public Relations Professionals Perceptions in Media and Fiction 2
Abstract
Public relations professionals have found themselves in a situation where their
profession of public relations is portrayed as a negative in popular culture. Television,
books, and movies over the years have helped to create attitudes about public relations
professionals and the field that is far from the truth and filled with manipulative spin-
doctors. This study looked at short history of the profession of public relations and its
pioneers and then the history of these negative perceptions and how they have affected
the field and the public relations professionals and how past scholars have suggested on
how to reverse these attitudes. The study then focused on the aspect of how films have
portrayed public relation professionals using Miller (1999) and the researchers own
analysis of six films over the ten-year period after the publication of Miller’s article. The
article then discussed the findings from the analysis and how it has not changed
dramatically over the decade. Using this information, the researcher created a list of five
guidelines aimed at reversing these negative perceptions and cultivating a new image of
public relations professionals that would help the shed the truth about the profession and
its practices, hopefully aiding the end of the negative perceptions that have hurt the field
over it’s existence.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the public’s eye, public relations practitioners tend to only be seen as unethical
and deceptive minions of some greater evil. Practitioners are somewhat analogous to
those monsters in fantasy movies such as Lord of the Rings. They are disgusting, ugly
creatures that aim only to destroy and pillage. In some ways, public relations practitioners
are seen similarly by the publics, the stakeholders, and, possibly, even by their own
organization. Throughout the years, public relations professionals have been given a bad
reputation through media and fictional accounts. This has harmed the profession because
it makes the public relations professionals seem like bloodthirsty, cold-blooded monsters
whose only good traits are spinning disinformation to the publics and making them
believe anything.
A Brief History
Anderson (2001) traced the history of public relations back to the middle of the
19th century. The industry had its infancy in early 20th century. At that time, men like
Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays were at the forefront of the newly minted industry.
Understanding how these forefathers viewed public relations a century ago is
instrumental to seeing how the practice diverged from their ideals and ended as a
negatively perceived profession.
Bernays started his public relations career during 1910s and grew into one of the
prominent thinkers of the field. One of Bernays’ more important works, Propaganda
(2004), discussed what he thought were the correct ways to use public opinion and
manipulation in a plethora of situations. He termed this as ‘propaganda’ in an effort to

show that the term does not only have negative connotations. “Modern propaganda is a
consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the
public to an enterprise, idea or group” (Bernays, 2004, p. 52). In an effort to get things
done, the public opinion needs to be influenced, or manipulated. Due to this, public
opinion was an important concept for Bernays. “Narrowly defined, public opinion
represents the thought of any given group of society at any given time toward a given
object. Looked at from the broadest standpoint, it is the power of the group to sway the
larger public in its attitudes toward ideas” (1928, p. 959). Bernays basically stated those
in power need to listen to publics to gauge their opinion about an item. However, this
idea of one group swaying another group’s opinion is also this concept that has started
the backlash against the profession (Tye, 1998). Tye contended that Bernays’ work and
his tactics have contributed to the negative tactics of the public relations professional and,
because of Bernays, the publics are manipulated in a way to get their approval for an
action or event that should not be approved.
Ewen (1996) also studied how Bernays influenced the legacy of public relations
and, like Tye, was not complimentary to Bernays’ influence on the profession. For Ewen,
the practice of public relations is something insidious that manipulates the publics.
“While some have argued that public relations is a “two-way street” through which
institutions and the public carry on a democratic dialogue, the public’s role within that
alleged dialogue is, most often, one of having its blood pressure monitored, its
temperature taken” (Ewen, 1996, p. 10). Ewen noted the only role the public plays in the
world of public relations is to be the complacent receiver of a public relations
professional’s manipulations.
However, Bernays was only one of the pioneers of the field. Several other minds
preceding and concurrent with Bernays influenced the profession of public relations,
including Bernays’ wife, Doris Fleischmann. Seital (2007) described her as the mother of
public relations, helping to create a field in which women have a dominant influence.
Fleischmann was a former reporter who helped establish Bernays’ firm and played an
equal role in all of its operations (Wilcox & Cameron, 2006, p. 57). Bernays once even
stated that she was the balance in the wheel of the firm’s operation (p. 57). As noted
earlier, one of the pioneers included Ivy Lee. Lee started his own public relations firm,
one of the first of its kind. “Lee’s emphasis was on the dissemination of truthful, accurate
information rather than the distortions, hype, and exaggerations of press agentry”
(Wilcox & Cameron, 2006, p. 52). Wilcox and Cameron stated that Lee is remembered
for four major contributions to the field. The first was the aligning of corporate and
industrial interests with that of the public. The second was ensuring that every campaign
has management approval. The third contribution was having open communication with
the media. The final contribution was bringing about equality between the business and
its customers, employees, neighbors and humanizing it (p. 53). Another famous pioneer
was George Creel, a former newspaper reporter. At that time, President Woodrow Wilson
tasked Creel with the public relations effort concerning the mobilization of the war effort
during World War I. Creel assembled a team of minds that succeeded in getting
newspapers and businesses to assist in selling war bonds. Creel was also instrumental in
spreading Wilson’s message of making the world safe for democracy and emphasizing
loyalty to America and its system of government. “The massive publicity effort had a
profound effect on the development of public relations by demonstrating the success of

these techniques. It also awakened an awareness in Americans of the power of mediated
information in changing public attitudes and behaviors” (p. 55).
Another pioneer of the field was P.T. Barnum, the famous theatrical agent of the
19th century. He was noted for using, “gross exaggeration, fraudulent stories, and staged
events to secure newspaper coverage for his clients; his American museum; and, later, his
circus” (Campbell, Martin, & Fabos, 2009, p. 432). One of his tactics was to keep a story
alive by sending in letters to editors under assumed names that questioned the
authenticity of the story/client Barnum was pushing (Newsom, Turk, & Kruckeberg,
2010, p. 28). This, however, led to some of the earliest criticisms of the field that would
be known as public relations. “Self-respecting public relations professionals despise the
legacy of P.T. Barnum, who created publicity through questionable methods” (Seital,
2007, p. 28). Barnum was one of the pioneers, but whose legacy is questionable for the
tactics he advanced throughout his career. Practitioners like these could be said to
influence popular culture portrayals.
Public relations professionals being portrayed as people who should be scorned is
not too difficult to find, especially in fiction. For instance, Christopher Buckley
frequently satirized and criticized the public relations professionals in his numerous
novels. “PR types tend as a rule to be godless, unless there’s money to be made, in which
case they can become very pious indeed” (Florence of Arabia, 2004, p. 78). This is just
one of the many times Buckley mocked the public relations professional and their
profession. These perceptions have helped contribute to how the publics and stakeholders
think of public relations professionals.

The researcher’s study will attempt to counter those perceptions to alter the
publics and media’s attitudes towards public relations professionals and the profession.
This study will work to show that public relations is not malevolent, but desires to create
relationships that can benefit the publics. Countering these negative perceptions is
important because the less time the public relations professional has to deal with them;
the easier it is to create mutually beneficial relationships that benefit both the publics and
the organization. Countering these perceptions is also important because the public
relations professionals and the public relations field have been on the wrong side of
negative attitudes for several years. As a future public relations professional, the
researcher would prefer to enter a climate where he would be respected and treated as
equal to others. All future public relations professionals would also probably like to be
respected and treated as equals instead of having to deal with the journalists’ sense of
superiority, the publics’ cynicism, and the author’s poisoned pen.
This study will look at recent fictional film accounts that include public relations
professionals and discuss their perceptions about the field of public relations and the
public relations professionals. Using all of this data, the researcher will create a set of
guidelines that will help public relations professionals counter the negative attitudes and
perceptions that cause problems the public relations professionals have to face everyday.
The researcher hopes that the guidelines will make it easier for the public relations
professional to accomplish what their main goal is—creating mutually beneficial
relationships between their organizations and the stakeholders.
The second chapter looked at the previous literature that has studied the
perceptions of public relations professionals. It noted the varying attitudes held towards
public relations professionals by the media, the publics, and, finally, fictional accounts in
movies. The third chapter explained the author’s methods and how the research was
completed. The third chapter also discussed the results of this research and what the
author found regarding the perceptions of public relations professionals. The final chapter
suggested the guidelines for public relations professionals to use to counter the negative
perceptions held of them by the media, the publics, and fiction.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will thoroughly review the literature describing how the media,
publics, academics, and fictional accounts perceive the role of public relations and the
public relations professional. This is an important process because it gives background to
what one must know about the attitudes and perceptions of the field and its practitioners.
With this information in hand, one can then determine how a public relations professional
can address these attitudes that hamper the field. This chapter will be divided into four
sections. The first section will examine the overall perception of the field according to
scholars and how it has affected the public’s perception. The second section will look at
how the media perceives the field and how their perceptions can affect the non-media
publics. The third section will take a look at the public’s perceptions of public relations.
The final section will then review how public relations has been portrayed in fictional
accounts.
Overall Perceptions of Public Relations
There have been numerous articles over the years discussing the perceptions of
the public relations professionals, but only a few of which are important and crucial to
understanding the current perceptions of public relations professionals (Brody, 1992,
1994; Callison, 2004; Henderson, 1998; Miller, 1999; Ryan & Martinson, 1994). This
study will concentrate on those articles that have the most relevance to the topic of
negative perceptions about public relations and its practitioners. This will help focus the
study on those negative perceptions. Before delving into the literature, the fact that even
the term ‘public relations’ is becoming problematic to use must be examined. Sparks
(1993) noted that public relations professionals are starting to use other terms to denote
what they do—such as public affairs, public communications, and marketing
communications. The term is undermining the inherent credibility the public relations
professionals need to get their job done. “In an industry so dependent on public opinion,
the lack of credibility is deadly” (Sparks, 1993, p. 27). Public relations professionals are
changing the terms to avoid having credibility snatched away from them. “In an effort to
disassociate ourselves with the industry, we are calling ourselves everything but public
relations professionals” (p. 27). Those who are undertaking this move hope the new
nomenclature will avoid credibility issues. Sparks believed public relations professionals
embracing their titles and duties could halt this rebranding effort. They should confront
the credibility issue and work toward resolution. Sparks also stated the term could be
restored if more public relations professionals became accredited. She also suggested that
reviewing and changing the educational curriculum as needed, and working toward a co-
disciplinary approach that involves problem solving and learning among other items.
Sparks believed that taking these steps could restore the field to one where public
relations professionals are not afraid to use the term ‘public relations (pp. 27-28).’ While
Sparks’ article is dependent on what the perceptions of the term and public relations
professionals are, Callison (2004) has worked toward detailing the negative perceptions
of the field.
Credibility of Public Relations Professionals
Callison (2004) measured the perceptions of public relations professionals
through telephone surveys and source manipulation. Callison employed surveys and
opinion polls to ask about what people thought of public relations professionals (p. 371).
“Both have labeled practitioners as spokespersons whom the public highly doubts and
have ranked them behind almost every other information source imaginable, including
pollsters, student activists, and funeral directors” (p. 371). The reasons for these
perceptions are dependent on public relations professionals getting paid by the
organizations they are representing.
Callison claimed people do not blame the public relations professionals for having
a bias to their organization, “but it should come as no surprise that spokespersons who are
paid to present their employers in the best possible light are not always seen as stalwarts
of honesty, which often leads to motives being questioned” (p. 373). This creates a
situation where the public relations professional is already working at a deficit when
dealing with the media and the publics. The article cemented that idea by showing that
public relations professionals are consistently seen as people who should not be trusted in
releasing truthful information. “Any organization-positive communication stemming
from an organization itself, and especially from a public relations practitioner employed
by the organization, would seem to be unquestionably perceived as lacking credibility”
(p. 374). During the study’s experiments, the hypothesis concerning the lack of
credibility and honesty among public relations professionals was confirmed. However, it
was also shown that any source affiliated with an organization was seen as not a credible
source (p. 380). For example, when the source was attributed to the CEO or a corporate
lawyer, the statistics hardly changed. These numbers showed there is a broader problem
than just the public relations professionals.
Callison did find a silver lining in his study. “In fact, taking into account that a
lower score is more positive on the measures of uninformed, dishonest, unethical, and
biased, public relations practitioners scored better than the midpoint on all items other
than virtuous and biased” (p. 381). The public relations professionals may be uninformed,
dishonest, biased, and unethical, but at least they’re not as uninformed, biased, dishonest,
and unethical as the other members of their organization. However, this still reinforces
the problem that public relations professionals are not to be trusted. The study did show
that independent sources scored higher than the public relations professionals and other
affiliated sources (Callison, 2004, p. 384). This was due to the trust that the publics have
in those they see as not having a financial interest in the organization. However, this
approach has drawbacks. “Because ethically and practically a company spokesperson
cannot disavow any connection to the company represented, it seems that any attempt to
communicate on an organization’s behalf from the organization’s own pulpit is doomed”
(p. 384). Callison also noted that organizations might fare best if they hired outside
experts that support the organizations stances because they are right (p. 387). Yet,
Callison, himself, admitted that his study does not offer any solutions to the problem (p.
388). Unless organizations can influence or hire outside experts or have public relations
professionals that can come across as honest and truthful, then there will be no
progression towards a state where perceptions are no longer negative.
Callison (2001) dealt with the same subject in an earlier article. In that piece, he
asked, “Do PR practitioners have a PR problem?” (Callison, 2001, p. 219). “Although
most public relations practitioners work toward maintaining a favorable image of a client,
the profession seldom works on its own behalf to campaign for the image of public
relations itself” (p.219). Callison used a 2x2 factorial experiment to determine how
people felt about the public relations professional. In this experiment, Callison used a
similar message topic, but changed the source attribution. “The research was focused on
determining the influence of associating the words public relations practitioner with a
person’s name” (p. 224). Callison hypothesized that people with the identifier of public
relations professional would garner more negative attitudes from the test subjects. His
results supported the hypothesis. He found that sources identified as public relations
professionals were more likely to be seen as lying or not trustworthy. Callison also found
that companies identified in the message by the public relations professional suffered the
“most negative blow” (p. 227). This result showed that companies associating themselves
with public relations professionals are less likely to come across as positive and
trustworthy. “Specifically, damage resulting from association with the words “public
relations” befalls the organization that uses these spokespersons more so than it does the
source itself” (p. 230).
Yet, companies entrust public relations professionals with helping them maintain
a good public image. What does this result say about the field of public relations when
companies that use public relations professionals suffer negatively? The answer would
have to be a refusal. Callison found, that despite the connection to public relations
professionals, the research participants still found that the companies had good intentions.
However, to answer the question that Callison started with, “Do PR practitioners have a
PR problem?,” the answer is yes. “Taken as a whole, the data confirm earlier suggestions
that public relations professionals are faced with credibility problems that affect not only
themselves, but also the organizations they represent” (p. 231). Callison recognized this
study alone could not be considered comprehensive for the profession as a whole and the
negative attitudes here may not be indicative of the greater population. However, he was
confident enough to state that there is a lack of trust in the public relations profession and
the companies that use public relations professionals as spokespersons. Callison also
noted that when delivering negative news, there was nothing organizations and public
relations professionals can do to reverse the attitude that the company was hiding facts.
This article showed that for the profession as a whole, it seemed that their best efforts to
create a positive relationship between the organization and the publics was already
hindered. The lack of trust was even worse during the instances the organization would
need the public relations professional the most, crisis or other event, which created
negative press. The public will only saw that the organization is hiding information, and
act accordingly in dismissing the organization or punishing it. Callison’s article showed
the efforts could be almost pointless to send a public relations professional out to
communicate with the publics because this effort at communication will hardly change
the status of the relationship between the organization and the publics. Yet, the study
showed that other sources have as little credibility. This could show that the problem is
the message and not the messenger. If the message is the problem, then the receivers of
the message must be made knowledgeable of that. However, as Coombs and Holladay
will explain, the receivers themselves see problems with the messengers.
Public Relations in Society
Coombs and Holladay wrote a book about the profession of public relations in
American society (2007). They discussed how public relations affects society, who
practices public relations, and why society needs public relations. In the first chapter,
Coombs and Holladay discussed the image problem that public relations professionals
face. The authors stated that the public does not understand public relations, and the
media is partly to blame for this misunderstanding. How the media affects the publics’
perceptions of public relations is an important factor in understanding how to correct
those problems. “It is important to consider seriously these portrayals of the uses of
public relations and its professionals because they shape people’s perceptions of what PR
is, when it might be used, what PR professionals do, etc.” (Coombs & Holladay, 2007, p.
7).
Coombs and Holladay contend that the media does not correctly use the term ‘PR’
when they do use it. For instance, Coombs and Holladay stated that the media would use
the term ‘PR’ when the item they are labeling could not be considered public relations
work. The authors also claimed that the media attaches negative connotations to public
relations and stated that there is empirical evidence to support these connotations.
Coombs and Holladay did not limit their discussions on the perceptions of public
relations solely to the media, but also discussed how popular press books can have a
negative influence on how the publics view the profession. Coombs and Holliday
referenced negative books about public relations to show how there is a perception that
public relations offices are the malevolent tentacles of an evil corporation. These books
can influence how the public sees the profession. When both books display the profession
as the wicked child of predatory corporations, it plays to the part of people that distrust
corporations and see only ill intentions. Staubert and Rampton’s book, Toxic Sludge is
Good for You! (2002), was especially troublesome, Coombs and Holladay noted, because
those authors make claims that shed light toward the profession. For instance, in one part
of Staubert and Rampton’s book, the authors claim that the tools and tactics of the public
relations professional have greatly harmed the democratic process. Those authors also
claimed that the industry is more powerful than people think and has only bad intentions.
Coombs and Holladay also stated that all of the negative attitudes towards the
public relations profession have six items in common when discussing how the field is
evil. These themes are 1) the public is purposely being kept ignorant, 2) the field can not
escape its insidious roots, 3) the profession is the cause of the vast amounts of power held
by giant corporations, 4) the field works for the wealthy and thus undermines the
democracy, 5) the power of public relations can be weakened (and democracy saved!) if
the public is educated in how to resists PR tactics, and 6) the entire field is only publicity
(Coombs & Holladay, 2007). Public relations seemed to be a far worse threat to
democracy than Nazi Germany or communism ever was, if one believed what authors,
like Staubert and Rampton, had to say. Another obstacle that public relations
professionals need overcome, besides popular press authors, are the perceptions of the
field from the mainstream media.
Public Relations Professionals as Seen by the Media
Media portrayals are one of the major factors contributing to the perceptions of
public relations professionals. “According to cultivation theory, massive exposure to
television’s reconstructed realities can result in perceptions of reality very different from
what they might be if viewers watched less television” (Cohen & Weimann, 2000, p. 99).
The cultivation theory has a place here because journalists and other media personnel
treat the public relations professionals and the public relations field with antagonism
(Henderson, 1998; Ryan & Martinson, 1988; Spicer, 1993). Spicer (1993) noted that this
negative perception was more acute than the other negative perceptions that are held of
public relations professionals by the publics. “Nowhere are these negative perceptions
more apparent than in the relationship between the public relations profession and the
news media” (p. 48). For the purpose of his study, Spicer assessed the various definitions
of public relations and public relations (p. 48). Spicer found the antagonism to be rooted
in the perceptions of the profession of public relations. According to his statistics, Spicer
found that journalists believe that public relations was unequal to their trade and that
public relations professionals rank toward the bottom of the status of the profession (p.
48). “It seems reasonable to suggest that a reporter’s assumptions about public relations
may well influence his or her ability to interact objectively with public relations
practitioners” (p. 49). Due to this, Spicer contended, the reporters could also influence
how the publics see public relations professionals and the field of public relations (p. 49).
If a reporter makes a public relations professional look bad in a story, then the publics
will see that public relations professional as being unethical, dishonest, or any of the
other negative stereotypes. According to the National Credibility Index, reporters for TV
stations or newspapers rate much higher in credibility (Budd, 2000, p. 24). Due to this
credibility gap, reporters have an edge over public relations professionals in gaining the
trust of the public.
Spicer completed a content analysis of newspaper stories to look for any instances
of the terms ‘PR’ and ‘public relations’ and then determining how the context in which
those terms were used (Spicer, 1993, pp. 51-52). “The terms public relations and PR are
often used to indicate that the reporter perceives that someone is trying to obfuscate an
issue/event or deflect the reporters (and by inference the public’s) interest in the issue”
(p. 53). This seemed to be a common thread among the journalistic accounts that Spicer
read. Spicer also found that public relations fall into one of seven categories: distraction,
disaster, challenge, hype, merely, war, and schmooze (p. 53). Under ‘distraction,’ the
public relations professional's main function was to use current trends or fads to hide
organizational misdeeds or problems (p. 53). The profession was also seen as nothing
more than an effort to “instantly make right or fix previous actions of a dubious and
detrimental nature—public relations as a ‘quick fix’” (p. 53). Under ‘disaster,’ public
relations was associated to an unwise decision that led to a disaster (p. 54).
The challenge, as Spicer stated, faced by public relations professionals was the
effort to be genuine. “By genuine, I mean that the reporter writes as if the public relations
person or organization under scrutiny is not trying to distract, deflect, or avoid an issue or
event but is honestly attempting to deal with whatever public relations aspects related to
the event may arise” (Spicer, 1993, p. 55). ‘Hype,’ also known as a pseudo-event, was
using public relations to give importance to an event that does not deserve importance (p.
55). When journalists act with condescension in covering the actions of public relations
professionals as a shallow replacement for the real event this is noted as ‘Merely Public
Relations’ (p. 56). ‘War’ was public relations being shown, “as an ongoing battle or fight
to gain positive public opinion or perception” (p. 57). The final category, ‘schmooze,’
was the continuation of the idea that public relations professionals are “glad-handing,
smooth-talking, personally charming front man or woman” (p. 57).
In totality, Spicer found that the most negative sounding categories (disaster,
distraction, merely) account for a majority of the mentions of public relations in the
media accounts (p. 58). He also found that when the terms ‘PR’ or ‘public relations’ are
mentioned in a news account, they are not there to make the public relations professionals
or their organization look good. “All too often, the terms are used to indicate, if not a
flagrant disregard for the truth, a willingness to engage in communication activities to
hide or obscure the truth” (pp. 59-60). The media is the main channel for public relations
professionals to get the organization’s message out to the key stakeholders and publics,
yet the media is also among the public relations professional's greatest critics. This makes
for a very strained relationship, especially when it affects the relationships public
relations professionals try to establish between organizations and their stakeholders.
Henderson (1998), like Spicer, examined the term and the media connotations
surrounding it. Henderson looked at the various ways the term was used, such as public
relations as a corrupter or public relations as a sleight of hand (p. 45). Henderson cited
Spicer’s (1993) article and wrote his study as an extension of the view that has become a
common thread among public relations scholars. Henderson examined at least 100
articles and 254 uses of the term ‘public relations’ and found that only 5.2 percent of the
time ‘public relations’ was used in a positive meaning (p. 48). Henderson’s study showed
the problems public relations professionals have when only 12 of 254 mentions of the
term ‘public relations’ have a positive use. “‘Public relations’ was used correctly only
about 5 percent of the time, when the goal would be 100 percent. Apparently only a
minority of the people who are writing for the mass media understand the phrase and the
profession, at least well enough to use them correctly” (p. 51). Henderson did offer
suggestions on how public relations professionals can counter this problem with the
journalists. She suggested that the “obvious” solution is to educate the journalists and let
them see how public relations really work (p. 53). However, she did mention that it could
backfire because the journalists might not like being told how they are wrong and how to
fix it (p. 53). To counter the drawbacks, Henderson suggested a one-on-one approach
between the journalists and public relations professionals or one of the public relations
associations, such as Public Relations Society of America or the International Association
of Business Communicators (p. 53). Public relations professionals should also have an
op-ed piece countering false information about public relations on hand and ready to go
(p. 53). “The incorrect use of a term in the mass media serves no one. Journalists and
public relations practitioners alike should support accuracy in journalism” (p. 53).
Keenan (1996) studied how network television covered public relations and the
effects that it had upon the audience. The author started the article by noting that the
relationship is in need of maintenance. “While there is a certain amount of co-dependence
between the two professions, there are also serious disputes and frictions regarding their
perspective roles and activities” (p. 215). Keenan cited several surveys in which
journalists ranked public relations professionals as last or next to last that deserves
respect and esteem. This showed that journalists have already come to a conclusion that
public relations professionals are not worthy of their time or effort. In one anecdote
Keenan related, the Washington Post banned public relations professionals from their
editorial pages claiming that it was a hustle (p. 216). Keenan then researched how public
relations was treated on television over a 16-year period. He found that public relations
was portrayed negatively in 29 television segments, but was portrayed neutrally in 43
segments. When looking at the number of stories that portrayed public relations
positively, Keenan found only seven such stories. The neutral stories show that the
network was not trying to cover public relations in a negative manner. However, the fact
that there are four times as many negative stories about public relations as compared to
positive stories show that it still had a tendency to go negative.
Keenan also cited Spicer’s (1993) article about the negative perceptions of the
profession. This study was useful here because it gave a counterpoint to some of Spicer’s
main contentions. Keenan found Spicer’s article was a poor representation of the attitudes
toward public relations because of Spicer’s methods for determining the tone of the news
story. Another item that Keenan discovered was that mainly governments and political
leaders are portrayed to be the main users of public relations. He noted that it was
interesting that networks “portrays public relations as something practiced by foreign
(and often enemy) governments, by presidents, and by federal bureaucrats” (p. 226). Each
of those can inspire negative feelings in the audience, especially when it was in
connection with one of our enemies. Overall, Keenan determined that there was a
difference in how network media and print media felt toward the profession of public
relations. Networks tended to be more objective and less antagonistic in their coverage
(p.228). Keenan’s study was limited by the tendency for networks to cover public
relations as it relates to governments, but not on how coverage relates to corporations and
business. Still, it was beneficial for public relations professionals to understand how they
are perceived across the different mediums. Knowing that they can garner more positive
(or even neutral) coverage through the networks than through print media can affect
whom they reach out to for coverage. Keenan (1996) was helpful in that it gave public
relations professionals an out for knowing whom they can talk to when their organization
needs coverage. Caution must be exercised regarding this article as it was over a decade
old, and predates the birth of the 24-hour news channel.

Ryan and Martinson (1988) have also noticed the antagonism between public
relations professionals and journalists. The authors’ goal was to find why the relationship
has become very antagonistic. Ryan and Martinson couched the relationship between
public relations professionals and the media in the idea of a love/hate relationship. The
journalists and editors love that they can get stories and other space fillers from the public
relations professionals, while the journalists and editors hate that the public relations
professionals are even around (p. 131). The authors also looked at several studies, all of
which the journalists responded in a manner in which they doubted the public relations
professionals profession and their priorities (pp. 131-132). “The evidence is quite clear:
Journalists do not have great respect for practitioners in general and they consider
themselves superior in many ways to public relations persons. Perhaps most important,
journalists cannot predict practitioners’ views accurately” (p. 132). These attitudes
created a situation in which the journalists found themselves in a difficult spot.
Journalists need those stories and leads, but they refuse to believe that public relations
professionals are capable of doing the job right or being trustworthy. Ryan and Martinson
noted that the journalists held negative attitudes because they have had negative
experiences with public relations professionals. On the flip side, the public relations
professionals felt that the journalists came across as treating journalism as much more
important than public relations activities (p. 134). However, one important finding was
that public relations professionals felt that the field of public relations itself was
responsible for the negative relationship. The public relations professionals felt that the
field has failed to police itself and thus allowed bad public relations professionals to
foment (pp. 134 & 136). The public relations professionals also felt that they failed
personally in fixing the relationship because they never bothered to define public
relations for journalists (p. 136). These articles about the negative perceptions have not
gone unquestioned though. Other scholars (Bishop, 1988; Brody, 1984) have suggested
that the relationship between public relations professionals and the media has been
exaggerated.
Contrarian Arguments to Negative Perceptions
Despite the evidence of the last few articles, not all public relations scholars
believed there was such a large gulf between public relations professionals and
journalists. Two scholars, Bishop (1988) and Brody (1984), believed the problems
between the two professions to be exaggerated. However, these articles, despite being
over two decades old, were the latest the researcher was able to find that took a contrarian
stance. In Bishop’s article, he studied how many times ‘public relations’ was mentioned
in news stories. He found that in a study of 16,000 articles, there were never any
mentions of public relations or any of its synonyms, such as press relations and
government information (p. 50). The only constant term that Bishop found was
‘publicity,’ which he determined to be used positively in the majority of stories in which
it was mentioned (p. 51). In the case of Bishop’s article, there was no reason to stir up
conflict over the problem between journalists and public relations professionals because
it does not really exist. If over 16,000 stories can be published and only a small fraction
of them contain any mentions of public relations, then there might be a case that the other
scholars were turning a molehill into a mountain.
Brody’s (1984) article attempted to dispel the notion that there was antipathy
between the public relations professionals and the journalists via an experiment in which
Brody surveyed both public relations professionals and journalists to find out how they
felt about each other (p. 12). He found the results to be contrary to popular belief.
“Expressed attitudes on both sides thus appear more a function of mythology than
reality” (p. 11). Brody also looked at past studies and determined that the antipathy has
been exaggerated. His main contention was that those studies were flawed because they
were limited to print media and small populations (p. 12). The dominant channels of the
media in those other articles were print. Yet, the attitudes of the people the media was
reaching out to is also problematic for the public relations professionals.
Public Perceptions of the Public Relations Professionals
Budd (2000) studied how the publics perceived the public relations professionals
in relation to other professions. Budd felt that the tactics the field upheld; trust, truth, and
transparency; were actually damaging the field (p. 22). “…through misuse and overuse,
they are becoming clichés, buzz words indiscriminately tossed about as randomly as a
suburban gardener sows seeds. This was robbing these once forceful nouns of vitality and
persuasiveness” (p. 22). Accordingly, credibility was a very powerful word that is
“concrete, non-ambiguous, immediate” (p. 22). Public relations professionals need
‘public relations’ and the concept that goes with it in order to accomplish their goals and
create relationships between their organizations and the publics. In his article, Budd
discussed an item called the National Credibility Index, the purpose of which was to rank
the public’s belief in the credibility of 44 leaders and public figures (p. 23). Budd’s
interpretation was that the Index shows that the publics are very discerning in whom they
find credible. “It gives, or holds back, granting the benefit-of-the-doubt in judgmental
ways that polls and surveys have thus far ignored” (p. 23). It also showed that the publics
are not as cynical as once believed (p. 23). However, when looking at the index printed in
the article, one would notice that ‘public relations specialist’ was near the bottom of the
list, above only ‘famous entertainer’ and ‘TV or radio talk show host’ (p. 24). When the
index was split up by the ethnicity of the respondents, ‘public relations specialist’ has the
lowest score among Caucasians and fares only somewhat better among African-
Americans (p. 23). However, Budd did not offer any statistical analysis as to why
minorities scored the index differently from Caucasians. It was seemingly left up to the
reader to determine why the perceptions are different.
Budd claimed that the Index showed that increased volume and two-way
discussions are not good solutions (p. 25). “It ultimately comes down to who is saying
what on which issue and to whom” (p. 25). Accordingly, Budd came up with seven
presumptions about what the Index said and what it meant to public relations
professionals. Among these was the idea that localized communications and grass root
efforts are rather useful and important because those involved score high in credibility.
Another presumption was that public relations professionals needed to research an issue
to figure out who would be the most credible spokesperson for that issue. Public relations
professionals would find including the Index during communication planning meetings to
be useful. A final presumption was that any attempt to inform the publics would fail
because they are far too idiosyncratic (p. 25). The publics, according to Budd, are not that
cynical, yet they still find public relations professionals to have little credibility.
The media may be an important stakeholder, but the publics are likely the most
important stakeholders for organizations. The stakeholders decide whether the
organization has legitimacy and trust. Without a strong relationship with the publics, the
organization will find itself in a difficult spot. With those factors in mind, one would
have to look at how the publics see the field of public relations and the public relations
professionals. Sallot (2002) found that the publics see public relations professionals in
either a positive or negative light based on the circumstances. Publics are more likely to
trust an accredited public relations professional who is engaged in two-way symmetrical
communication for altruistic means (p. 161). Conversely, the publics distrust a public
relations professional who is unaccredited and uses one-way communication for selfish
goals (p. 161). Licensing was a recurring topic and was a possible forum to create a better
attitude towards public relations professionals. “Subjects supported the licensing of
practitioners and the hiring of licensed practitioners because they believe that licensing
enhances credibility, professionalism, and prestige of the field, just as the supporters of
licensing claim” (p. 161). Sallot noted that licensed professionals expect to be seen as
more reputable than their unlicensed counterparts (p.154). In spite of the information
about the effectiveness of licensing public relations professionals, there were not tangible
affects on the claim that public relations professionals were an effective communicator
with a set of certain motives (p. 161).
Sallot did find danger in licensing public relations professionals in that it could
license bad public relations professionals and create an “unearned aura of respectability,
strong enough to even counteract and compensate for selfish motives” (p. 162). In spite
of the licensing argument, the publics will see public relations professionals in a positive
light if the public relations professionals deserve to be seen in a positive light. “Overall,
among the general public, the reputation of public relations is better than what many
think” (p. 163). The publics are able to make up their mind without the influence of the
media. This was an important factor given the relationship status between public relations
and journalism. More impetus was given to the idea that public relations professionals
need to start reaching out more directly to the publics instead of mainly through the
media. In the end, the public’s opinion of public relations may be more important than
opinions held by the news organizations.
Bowen (2003) also studied the perceptions of the field, but focused on the
preconceptions of the students studying public relations and how that corresponded with
reality. “Public relations targets specific messages to specific publics, but it seem we
have failed to do that for our own major” (p. 209). Bowen felt these preconceptions were
due to ambiguity towards public relations by those outside the field or journalists.
“Ideological confusion among publicity, marketing, advertising, integrated marketing
communication, and propaganda, has further degraded understanding of the function and
purposes of public relations” (p. 200). In Bowen’s study, she found four areas of
misconceptions among the college undergrads she surveyed: negative perceptions, no
management knowledge, no understanding of relationships, and no knowledge about
research (p. 203). For negative perceptions, Bowen found that students viewed public
relations as a course that was not supposed to be challenging. The students did not
understand the amount of writing or theories that go into public relations, but only saw it
as planning events and socializing with clients. The students claimed to have gotten these
ideas from mass media and peers outside the field. There was also a statement among
some students that public relations was an unethical field to be involved with (pp. 204-
205).
Regarding the lack of management knowledge, Bowen found that students did not
know that researching, strategic planning, communication, and evaluation played such
important roles in the field (p. 205). Some students were disheartened by this need for
management knowledge and found public relations to be too business-like, while other
students reveled in the many career opportunities and specialties afforded them. Bowen
then spoke of the failure of the students to understand the importance of relationships in
public relations. “Most participants thought of public relations simply as publicity or
media relations in a one-way flow of communication from the organization to the
publics” (p. 207). Bowen found that the students had a dearth of knowledge regarding the
internal relationship aspects and the external aspects that go beyond speaking to the
media. Most of the students in Bowen’s study also failed to mention the importance of
ethical responsibility and acting as the conscience for the organization. For the final
misconception, no knowledge of research, Bowen found that students did not have an
understanding of the amount of research that goes into public relations work. Bowen felt
that this find was unnerving. “Perhaps if research knowledge were emphasized both
academically and professionally, the major would attract more analytically minded
students” (p. 209). This would attract students who are not allergic to statistics and data
analysis.
Bowen then concluded her study by laying out several recommendations for how
public relations should be taught. This included creating close ties to business programs
and competing with journalism programs over strong writers (p. 210). She also felt that
the public relations programs around the nation should be more “proactive in education
students, administrators, and the campus community about the vast and diverse
responsibilities included in the field (p. 211). Accomplishing this would create a stronger,
more competitive academic program.
Bowen followed up this piece six years later by studying again how students in
the public relations academic study perceived the field (2009). However, Bowen did not
lay all the blame on the students. “Public relations has failed to show its potential as a
valuable contributor in society that helps resolve problems through communication”
(Bowen, 2009, p. 403). Yet, Bowen found that students held four misconceptions about
the field and how it was practiced. The first misconception concerned confusion
involving public relations and marketing. “Many students echoed the general sentiment
that public relations is a marketing support function or is entirely product promotion and
publicity…” (p. 406). This same sentiment also crossed over to how students felt about
advertising and public relations, with public relations being a function of advertising. The
students seemed to consider public relations to be the field for those who cannot get into
business school. The second misconception Bowen found concerned image management.
The students seemed to conclude that public relations was about maintaining a good
image for their clients and “schmoozing” with the publics to obtain that good image (pp.
406-407).
The third problematic conception of public relations was that the purpose of the
field was to lie, manipulate, and hide the truth. “Students seemed to hold the idea that
public relations is manipulative or deceptive by nature” (p. 407). This idea applied to
both public relations and non-public relations students. Bowen discovered that public
relations students did not say that they had to outright lie, but that they had to “omit the
truth” (pp. 407-408). The final point Bowen touched on was how the students ended up
studying public relations. She found that most students did not know how they ended up
in the discipline. Bowen also discovered that a number of students believed that one did
not even have to study public relations in order to enter the field post-college (p. 408). At
the end of the article, Bowen felt that these four items along with all other such examples
of negative perceptions could cause these perceptions to feed each other and thus become
more difficult to overcome. To avoid this, Bowen recommended that public relations
professors and professionals use their skills and knowledge to “conduct public relations
on behalf of the function of public relations” (p. 409). Yet, these perceptions of publics
relations is not only limited to students, the publics and the media, it also includes movies
that have the ability to affect how people see the world.
Public Relations in Fiction
The attitudes and perceptions toward public relations both influences and is
influenced by fictional accounts. As Cohen and Weimann (2000) noted in explaining the
cultivation theory, reconstructed realities can have an effect on how viewers see the
world around them. This would then reinforce the stereotype of the public relations
professional as either malicious or incompetent. Miller (1999) studied fictional accounts
of public relations from 1930-1995 to see how the public relations practice was
portrayed. “The analysis indicates that representations of PR are woefully inadequate in
terms of explaining who practitioners are and what they do, and it shows that writers
dislike primarily PR’s apparent effectiveness” (p. 3). Miller analyzed 51 books and 67
movies and conducted a content analysis of the context surround the public relations
professional in the fictional account (pp. 5-6). Yet, Miller noted that public relations
professional characters having major roles were a rare exception in the sources she
viewed. Miller found eight common traits that a public relations professional in a
fictional account fell under—ditzy, obsequious, cynical, manipulative, money-minded,
isolated, accomplished, and unfulfilled (pp. 8-11). The ditzy characters were shown as
being sympathetic characters but rather shallow and did not find anything “intellectually
stimulating” about their professions (p. 8). The obsequious character was guided by their
desire to please their superiors, no matter what it takes. A cynical character was
“sarcastic, edgy, angry, contemptuous, and driven” (p. 8). The manipulative character did
not have much of a conscience and would do whatever it took to get the job done.
Money-minded characters did not care about the good or bad that can come from their
jobs, but only how much it paid. The isolated character was “ill at ease, naïve, pathetic, a
nun in a whorehouse, a lamb among wolves, a eunuch in a harem, and an outsider” (p.
10). An accomplished character was one that is the perfect public relations professional;
they love their jobs and are great at it. The final archetype, the unfulfilled character, were
good public relations professionals but they did not find this job to be fulfilling. Miller
did note that some of the characters displayed multiple archetypes but would categorize
each one by the trait they displayed most often (p. 6). Miller used the films and characters
she analyzed to give the reader examples of the archetypes.
A public relations professional in the fictional world was not a very good role
model for people who desire to become public relations professionals. The fictional
accounts tended not to define public relations, but in the few times that they do it was not
positive. “A few early novels mention sociology, psychology, and Edward Bernays,
elevating PR to a strategic level, but these references are usually made in a mocking
manner” (p. 12). The fictional accounts also failed to define public relations work. These
accounts just tend to say the public relations professional did a certain activity but ended
it there (pp. 12-13). Miller also found four themes about the public relations professional
—morality, effectiveness, repudiation and redemption, and relationships (pp. 13-22). The
fictional public relations professional tended not to be a moral person, especially when it
came to honesty. Miller found that most of the public relations professionals lied or
covered up items when it came to their job or sex (pp. 14-15). Another theme is
effectiveness, which could be seen as a positive trait among all the bad traits. “Although
practitioners are presented as despicable in many ways, they are at least good at their
jobs” (p. 15). Despite this, there was still a negative attached to it, according to Miller.
“However, effectiveness should not be considered a sign of respect. Quite often, the least
ethical practitioners are the most effective at their jobs” (p. 16).
Another theme that Miller found was that of repudiation and redemption. Miller
noted that 15% of the public relations professional characters committed acts that caused
them to be repudiated either privately or publicly (p. 16). The repudiation took different
forms in the films from being dressed down to being attacked or even death (p. 17).
Another 5% of the characters sought to redeem themselves in order to avoid the
embarrassment of repudiation (p. 16). This took many different forms from investigating
deaths to using their skills for the public good to leaving the field altogether (pp. 17-18).
The final theme concerned the relationships between the public relations professional
characters and their major audiences—the publics, clients/employers, and journalists.
Concerning the publics, Miller found that the relationship evolved over time. At first, the
public relations professionals saw the publics as “ignorant, gullible, and backward” (p.
18). However, the public was then treated with more respect, resulting in public relations
professionals whom denigrate the public being repudiated when they misjudge the public.
As for the relationships between the public relations professionals and their
clients/employers, the relationships were more strained and the public relations
professionals tended to look down up the clients/employers as being “brainless and
essentially interchangeable” (p. 18). It was due to this view that the clients/employers
must be manipulated by the public relations professionals in order to be helped. Miller
only found a few examples where there was respect for the clients/employers by the
public relations professionals, such as The Missiles of October where the public relations
professional character deferred to the president’s wishes (p. 20). Commenting on the
relationships between the public relations professional characters and the journalists,
Miller stated that it reflected the symbolic antagonistic relationships in real life (p. 20).
The journalists disliked the public relations professionals because the journalists felt the
public relations professionals would do anything to garner coverage for their story. It did
not help that the public relations professional characters would aggravate the journalists
by obstructing their access to sources (p. 21). However, the public relations professionals
understood how the relationship between them and the journalists worked. As one of
Miller’s film characters stated (The P.R. Girls) the journalists need the public relations
professionals more than the public relations professionals need the journalists (p. 21).
Miller was not the only scholar to study these fictional portrayals of public relations
professionals and the attitudes shown toward the field and it’s practitioners.
Lee (2001) also studied how public relations and the public relations professionals
were portrayed in films. However, his focus was slightly different than Miller’s. For Lee,
the films he used primarily involved public relations professionals in the role of working
for the federal government or one of its many arms. “Finally, he was as often the good
guy to be cheered by the audience as a bad guy to be jeered” (p. 297). This determination
is already a split from what Miller found. However, Lee did make a distinction between
the public relations professionals that work for the government and those public relations
professionals who worked for public relations firms. “In many of these movies, the
negative depiction of the private-sector public relations professional is explicit and
consistent” (p. 299). Lee noted some films, Sweet Smell of Success and The Barefoot
Contessa, where the PR characters or other characters stated that the public relations
professionals are paid to be nice and that those in the profession often do things to be
punished by the law. Lee also noted several characteristics of public relations
professionals in these films. One notable observation that Lee made was that the public
relations professionals served mostly a media relations function, which is how
Hollywood sees the profession. “The image of the PR professional as a mere press agent
appears to be a lingering and powerful stereotype” (p. 309).
In the movies, the public relations professionals are pretty much the megaphones
for their executives. “This role can sometimes lead to carping by reporters who suggest
that the PR staff are interposing themselves between the media and the agency’s top
officials in order to prevent direct access to those leaders” (Lee, 2001, p. 309). The public
relations professionals did not create a relationship between the two parties in these
depictions; they make it a one-way street. In his conclusion, he noted that there have been
few studies on how public relations professionals are portrayed in films. He felt that this
was an under utilized parameter in understanding how others see the role of the public
relations professional. Lee also noted that the films he reviewed undermined his original
suppositions for how public relations professionals are portrayed. “Considering the
negative images of both public relations and government bureaucracies in popular
culture, it is surprising and edifying to find a modicum of positive depictions of the
government spokesperson in movies that include such a role” (p. 311). This article
showed that such positive depictions do exist, but there are not that many. Still, as Lee
noted, it raises spirits that not all public relations professionals are seen as the enemy.
In his 2009 follow up, Lee noted seven more films that depicted public relations
professionals. These films ranged in dates from the 1960s until 2005 and each, as in
Lee’s earlier piece, had public relations professionals acting as spokespersons for a
government agency. Lee found that the most common agency to which a public relations
professional was attached was NASA. “It could be that the ‘voice of NASA’ role in the
space program during the 1960s left a deep impression on popular culture. As with real
life, NASA’s cinematic PR men understood the professional ethos to be authoritative and
truthful” (Lee, 2009, p. 161). However, Lee also noted that the NASA public relations
professionals chose their agency over the publics when it came to honesty and truth, “an
image that captures popular culture’s suspicion about the profession” (p. 161). Overall,
Lee found that negative portrayals of public relations professionals were evident in six of
the seven movies he reviewed and that they were consistent with the results of his 2001
study.
Tavcar (1993) wrote a short article mentioning 17 films that had public relations
professionals portrayed in them. His article predated Miller and Lee by several years and
gave an early look at how scholars felt about portrayals of public relations professionals
in fiction. Tavcar analyzed the films and wrote a short analysis about what he thought of
the public relations professional portrayals he noticed. He did find some characteristics in
his article. “More often than not, they’re [public relations professionals] cast in an older
mold—as press agents and publicists” (1993, p. 21). Tavcar also noted that some of the
films he watched, although he did not specify, should not be “watched after a tough day
in the PR trenches. They require some armor on the psyche” (p. 21). The reader should
expect these films to include unpleasant views of the role of public relations and the
public relations professional. The article, overall, was short and did not inform the reader
of why public relations professionals were portrayed as they were. It only helped in that it
gave another view of how certain movies portrayed public relations professional
characters.
These fictional accounts could also be a major warning signal for public relations
professionals. “If film and fiction representations of PR reflect or generate public
perceptions any way, the reputation and understanding of the field are in even worse
standing than Spicer (1993), Keenan (1996), and other studies of the news media have
suggested” (Miller, 1999, p. 22). This could be a very real concern for public relations
professionals and scholars in the field. These fictional accounts could make the building
and maintaining of relationships harder because the publics do not respect or understand
the field. Miller also noted that it would be pointless to change the name of the field
because the problem is not the term but the motivators behind the term (p. 23). Fictional
accounts of public relations professionals would be hard to counter because they are more
prevalent than any other medium. However, the public relations professionals would have
to understand the fictional accounts and take the effort to show that the fictional accounts
are just that—fictional.

Journalists also did not escape how films perceived their profession. Ehrlich
(2009) looked at the study of journalists in popular culture. Ehrlich stated that the
theoretical function of journalism according to popular culture is to keep democracy
running (p. 1). However, journalism has not lived up to this in practice as, Ehrlich noted,
critics have stated the culture has forced journalists to find the big stories faster than
possible or that the business side of journalism has undermined the profession. Films
have touched on both sides of this view, as there have been films about journalists saving
the nation or journalists creating a web of lies in their stories. Ehrlich did want the reader
to note that movies are there to foremost relieve boredom and make money, that can
create a memorable film at their best (p. 3). “Even not at their best, they tell morality tales
about what is good and bad, what should be valued and not valued” (p.3). The film
versions of journalists are created not entirely on real life, as Ehrlich discussed, but on
several factors, such as what the creator wants to accomplish, how the genre defines that
particular story, and the need for the industry to make money (p. 3). Overall, Ehrlich
made two statements that relate to this researcher’s study. “One should look beneath the
surface and ask what is really being suggested about what the press is and has been, what
it could be and should be. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that one is in fact
studying a movie or novel or video game” (pp. 4-5). Ehrlich was saying that those who
watch movies that portray journalism should question what the producers want them to
see about journalism, but also realize that it is a film and not real life. Ehrlich further
expanded on this point. “As such, it is never just about journalism; it is addressing
popular tastes, hopes and fears. It is also the product of a particular medium produced in a
particular time, place, and fashion for a particular audience” (p. 5). The films that Ehrlich
mentioned were more about what the public felt about the profession than the actual
profession. The films studied by Miller (1999), Lee (2001, 2009), and Tavcar (1993)
could be seen as an extension of this finding by Ehrlich. One must note that the films are
just that—films, but they are also representations of what the publics perceive about those
professions.
In Summary
Overall, this review showed how public relations professionals and the field of
public relations is perceived by several different publics. The study started simply at the
designation ‘public relations.’ When even the name causes negative reactions, the field
and its practitioners have a problem. As shown earlier, publics trust a spokesperson more
when they are not identified as a public relations professional. The field needs to rebrand
itself in the aftermath of such an ingrained negative attitude toward it and its public
relations professionals. This negative perception can seemingly be traced back to those
six themes that Coombs and Holladay (2007) found in their book. The themes of Coombs
and Holladay can instill in the publics the idea that public relations professionals are
looking for a way to undermine them. The media, which has had an antagonistic
relationship toward the profession throughout its history, does not help in the effort to
portray the field positively. As past scholars noted, public relations was placed in the
position as the opponent or the obstacle to some good news or events. This also extends
into the world of Hollywood, because it rarely portrayed the public relations
professionals as good, competent, efficient professionals. Throughout the numerous
movies reviewed by scholars, they found that public relations professionals were
marginalized into inherently negative categories. As Ehrlich (2009) stated this could be
seen as a representation of how the publics feel about the profession. As this information
concerning perceptions of public relations professionals in films has aged, an update to
whether it is still this way would be beneficial. Therefore, there are three research
questions this paper will work to answer:
1) How has the portrayal of public relations professionals evolved or
devolved based on Miller’s (1999) framework?
2) What new frames have emerged?
3) How can Miller’s system be modified to include the recent portrayals
of public relations professionals?

CHAPTER III
METHODS
This section reviewed how Miller (1999) completed her analysis of fictional
representations of public relations professionals and then used a similar process to
analyze possible changes in perceptions towards public relations professionals since the
publication of Miller’s study. This research is important to understand how the film
portrayals of public relations professionals have evolved since Miller’s study because it
will give direction as to how the field is perceived a decade later. Films are important
because of their immediacy and relevance to real life characters and situations (Cohen &
Weimann, 2000). They also saturate the publics in ways novels and television shows
might not be able to compare. This paper aimed to replicate Miller’s 1999 study on a
smaller scale in order to see whether Miller’s results have evolved or devolved in the
following decade.
Sample
The researcher gathered the names of several movies that included public
relations professional since 1998 for review. This search was conducted through several
means. The first method was canvassing of peers to discover if they had seen and could
name any films in which there was a public relations character. The second method
included a search on IMDB.com (Internet Movie Database) using the term ‘public
relations’ and looking through the results for viable options. The third method of
selecting films was from personal experience of seeing movies in which there was
portrayed a public relations character. From these methods, the author obtained a list of
six movies to review for the study. These movies are from several different genres—
satire, drama, superhero action, and historical.
Miller noted in her study that she was unable to complete a comprehensive review
of all movies that had a public relations professional character, as her method of
gathering titles, asking friends and students, was open to errors. These movies cannot be
considered a comprehensive list of all possible movies in the past decade to have feature
of public relations professional. “A drawback to the convenience sample is that, although
numbers are provided for comparison purposes throughout the article, the reader should
bear in mind that interpretations based on the sample may not be generalizable to all such
characters” (1999, p. 5). These are only the ones that turned up in searches and were
known to have public relations professional characters in the film.
The sample included in this study consisted of:
1. Wag the Dog (1997)—The film is a satire about how a “spin doctor” creates a
fake war to divert the public’s attention from a sex scandal about the
incumbent president days before the general election.
2. Jersey Girl (2004)—The film is the story of a public relations character, or
media publicist, who gets carried away in his work as a form of counseling to
the detriment of his daughter.
3. Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)—This film concerns a public relations
practitioner who is deceived by his former employer and has to turn to crime
with his wife in order to make ends meet.

4. Thank You for Smoking (2006)—The film is about a tobacco industry
spokesperson that works to dismiss claims of tobacco being unhealthy while
dealing with problems in his personal life.
5. The Queen (2006)—This is a biographical film about the days following the
death of Princess Diana and how the British royal family responds to the
tragedy.
6. Hancock (2008)—The film focuses on Hancock, a superhero, whose actions
damage the city more than help it and the efforts of Ray Embry, a public
relations professional, to change Hancock’s image.
Category Definition
To determine whether the character in the movie could be considered a public
relations professional, the author followed Miller’s definition. This included self-
identification, identification as a public relations professional by other characters, and
their job functions included “publicity, political campaigning, public opinion polling, and
other tasks related to the practice of PR” (p. 5). The characters could also range from
minor to major parts of the film. The films are also not necessarily about public relations,
but they involve characters that complete some public relations function that relates to
one of the other characters.
The next step undertaken was the analysis of the public relations professional
characters in the films. Again, this study used Miller’s same standards in an effort to
replicate her findings:

Instead the following items were noted about each source: publication
information, name of the character, sex, title, age, physical characteristics,
clothing and style, background information, area of PR practice,
relationship to management, relationship to news media, truth-telling,
effectiveness, and words or phrases used in the text to describe the
characters. (p. 6)
However, some of these characteristics were voided due to this study being concentrated
only on films. Miller’s study was split between celluloid and book portrayals of
characters. The void characteristics are “publication information” and “words or phrases
used in the text to describe the characters.” Miller did caution that all of her
characteristics were picked due to personal interest, but may not provide valuable insight
to the characters. This study considered the same limitations when analyzing the films.
Miller also created a list of archetypes, or stereotypes, in which to categorize the
public relations characters she read or saw in her study. This study followed the similar
archetypes. Her method involved “inductive analysis, with archetypes emerging from the
research” (p. 6). Miller’s method involved delaying until she had finished with one
fictional account and then determined how that public relations character should have
been quantified, instead of creating a set of categories in which to categorize each
character. “Instead, I simply looked for traits repeated throughout the sources to identify
characteristics that are frequently associated with practitioners” (p. 6). The researcher’s
study used the archetypical characteristics Miller created to identify those that most relate
to the current study’s characters. The researcher looked toward creating a new set of
frames to determine whether new frames had developed since Miller. However, the
researcher did not find enough evidence to substantiate such an action. The researcher
also paralleled Miller’s tactic of categorizing each character by the trait they display the
most often.
Data and Analysis
The final tool Miller used was to write extensive notes about several different
parameters of the sources, including plot, dialogue, and characterizations. Miller used
these to provide “insight into PR definitions, responsibilities, and strategies and tactics
employed” (p. 6). Miller also looked for the relationships between three key groups, the
public relations professionals’ clients, the press, and the publics. This was an important
area of focus for the researcher’s study as well. In her study, Miller found that
antagonism was the most common trait between these three groups. This study looked
toward whether that is still the prevalent characteristic of the relationships or to see if it
has evolved. Finally, Miller looked toward other themes that included morality,
effectiveness, repudiation and redemption. These are also important items to take into
account. In summary, the purpose of this study was to replicate Miller’s study and to
determine how things have either changed or stayed the same. By replicating Miller’s
study, this ensured that the researcher was able to answer the research questions.
In this study’s effort to replicate Miller’s study, the researcher included the
following steps. First, that the researcher took notes during the course of each film. The
researcher noted the tone of the film towards the public relations professional character,
the character of the public relations professional character (such as is this a intellectual
person looking to do good, or a shallow person wanting to get paid), interaction with
other characters and their attitudes towards those other characters, and how the character
fitted into the plot of the movie (are they a good or bad character). These notes were
similar to the code sheet, but much more detailed.
The researcher tested intercoder reliability using the Internet-based ReCal
(Reliability Calculator). To control for intercoder reliability, the researcher along with
two peers coded a sample (N=3). Due the brief nature of the code sheet, if intercoder
reliability fell below .80 (80 percent), then the code sheet and its operationalized
definitions were to be adjusted. The first test of intercoder reliability allowed the author
to see several faults within the design of the code sheet. In this pilot test, the researcher
found that the coders fell short of the researcher’s self imposed .80 standard, scoring a
reliability factor of .66 (66 percent). The code sheet was then re-crafted taking into
account the first intercoder practice session and suggestions made by the coders. The
second test of intercoder reliability with the altered code sheet scored a reliability factor
of 1.00 (100 percent).
To determine how to answer the RQs, the author matched the answers to the code
sheets with the RQs (Appendix I). To answer RQ1, the author questioned whether
Miller’s archetypes were still present in films that have been released since her study.
There was also a brief summary to add how the character fits into one of Miller’s
archetypes. This helped the author understand if Miller’s archetypes still applied to recent
movies and, thus, whether the same assumptions about the negative perceptions of public
relations professionals are still relevant. RQ2 were answered using four possible
archetypes created by this author. The new archetypes came from determining polar
opposites, or antonyms, to Miller’s archetypes. The possible archetypes were also tested
during the pilot study to check possible validity. The author created these four new
archetypes because seven of Miller’s eight archetypes are negative. These four new ones
were positive in their perceptions of the public relations professionals. This created a
contrast the overly negative archetypes that Miller created. ‘Heart of Gold’ is a take on
the literary cliché of the hooker with the heart of gold. These are characters that, on the
outside, seem undesirable but actually harbor good motives and wish to help others.
‘Idealistic’ public relations professionals pursue ideals which they consider to be good
but are discouraged or insulted by others and because others view these activities as a
waste of time. Public relations professional characters that are ‘Moralistic’ have a strong
set of morals, which govern how they practice and for which they will not bend to
anyone’s will. The final new archetype, the ‘Respectable’ public relations professional
characters are respected by their peers and strive to live up to that respect. These new
archetypes would have helped determine if the portrayals of public relations professionals
have changed in the years since Miller’s study and to see if new frames, such as these,
have emerged. However, if any of these archetypes do not have evidence to support their
inclusion, the researcher changed or eliminated them. To determine a better fit, the
coding data was compared and analyzed to see if other types of archetypes better fit the
data.
All archetypes, Miller’s and the potential new ones, taken together with other
questions answered RQ3. The code sheet asked an additional question, which this author
found to be vital, “Are the PR characters static or dynamic?” In Miller’s original study,
this factor did not play a part, as all characters seemed to be static. Considering these
items taken into issue helped to determine whether Miller’s study continues to be a
valuable lens to understand the recent slate of movies with public relations professionals
in them. This analysis helped determine whether public relations professionals now play
a larger role in films. It determined whether they are now becoming the faces of films and
have roles as either the antagonist or the protagonist. The information coded helped
conclude where public relations professionals stand in relation to their roles in films, and
whether they evolved or stayed static. Using these frames, the author was able to see
where the portrayals and attitudes towards public relations professionals stand in relation
to popular culture in the form of movies. With this information in consideration, the
author was then be able to craft a set of guidelines to help the public relations
professionals try and influence the publics into not abandoning the stereotypes of the
cynical, money-minded, manipulative characters that have been crafted by filmmakers.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Background on the Films and Characters
The films used this study were Wag the Dog (1997), a satire about the creation of
a fake war to prevent a presidential sex scandal; Jersey Girl (2004), a film about a New
York music publicist; Fun with Dick and Jane (2005), a story about a former
communication vice president dealing with unemployment; Thank You for Smoking
(2006), a film about a spokesperson for a tobacco lobby; The Queen (2006), a drama
about the British Queen dealing with the death of her son’s ex-wife; and Hancock (2008),
a movie about a superhero who has a bad attitude and the public relations efforts to
change his image.
Genres and Roles
After the completion of the coding, the researcher was able to determine answers
to the research questions. Six films were coded, including satire (n=3), drama (n=2), and
action (n=1). On the question of whether the characters were major or minor, 83% (n=5)
of the characters had major roles in the film as opposed to one character (n=1) that had a
minor role in the film. These characters with major roles tended to have the most time on
screen, and even in scenes without the character they were the subjects of discussion. Due
to the limited sample size, the researcher cannot say as to whether public relations
professionals have become the focus of more films over the past decade, but these major
films have seen public relations professionals as integral to the story. However, since the
majority of the films with major public relations professional characters are also satires
then it displayed the current attitude about the type of movies that are acceptable outlets
for the portrayal of public relations professionals.
Motivations and Tactics
On the question of whether the character was good or bad (that being whether the
character had altruistic motives or selfish motives), the answer came out as half (n=3)
being altruistic and half (n=3) being selfish. All the characters performed at least one of
the duties that Kent listed in ‘Typical Public Relations Activities, Strategies, and Tactics’
(Appendix III) (Kent, in press). The most common public relations duty was holding a
press conference or setting up a press conference. The press conference duty of a public
relations professional appeared in every film.
Evolution of Characters
On the question of whether the character was static (the character did not change)
or dynamic (the character changed over the course of the film), again the films were
evenly split. Half (n=3) of the characters did not change nor develop over the course of
the film, while the other half (n=3) showed at least some type of dynamic change, even if
it did not affect their public relations characteristics. Nearly all of the dynamic changes
affected the personal lives of the public relations professionals as opposed to their
professional lives. In those movies, the professional lives were static as the attitudes and
beliefs of the public relations professionals concerning their field remained unchanged.
RQ1 asked how has the portrayal of public relations professionals evolved or
devolved since Miller’s (1999) framework. The evidence appeared to trend toward the
archetypes remaining the same. At least one of Miller’s eight archetypes tended correlate
with nearly every character coded in the films. The most popular archetypes were
manipulative (a character without a conscience willing to do whatever it takes to get the
job done) [n=2] and cynical (a sarcastic, edgy, angry and driven character) [n=2]. There
was no evidence that Miller’s findings had evolved or devolved in the past decade.
Some of the characters did display characteristics from several archetypes, but
this tended to be overshadowed greatly by one specific archetype. For instance, one
character displayed both the manipulative and accomplished archetype, but the character
spent far more time on screen displaying the former as opposed to the latter.
Masters of manipulation. The kings of manipulation were Nick Naylor from
Thank You For Smoking and Conrad Brean from Wag the Dog. Both of these characters
are the best examples of Miller archetypes. They each fulfill Miller’s definition of doing
whatever it takes to get the job done, and ignoring their conscience in the course of their
duties. Naylor, who is referred to as the Chief Spokesman for the fictional Academy of
Tobacco Studies, is shown at the beginning of the film as a master manipulator. As he
stated near the end of the film, “Michael Jordan plays ball, Charles Manson kills people, I
talk. Everyone has a talent.” In the film’s opening scene, Naylor appeared on a daytime
talk show with three anti-smoking advocates and “Cancer boy.” To quickly gain control
of the situation, Naylor raised his hand and gave this speech: “Joan, how on Earth would
big tobacco profit off of the loss of this young man? Now, I hate to think in such callous
terms, but if anything we’d be losing a customer. It’s not only our hope, it’s in our best
interest to keep Robin alive and smoking.” Naylor then went on to win grudging respect
of the crowd while making the government bureaucrat the villain instead of him. As he
said of his skill, “I don’t have an M.D. or a law degree. I have a Bachelor’s in kicking ass
and taking names.” Throughout the movie, he demonstrated his capacity to manipulate
the situation to his advantage, a skill that “requires a moral flexibility that goes beyond
most people.” Naylor demonstrated to the people that watched this film that in order to be
a successful public relations professional as he was, they must be willing to shed morals
that may hinder them. Naylor even shed some of his own morals when he felt uneasy
about bribing a former iconic cigarette spokesman/mascot to hide the man’s diagnosis of
lung cancer. Naylor was uneasy about bribing the man, but shunted those uneasy feelings
aside and accomplished the feat. At the end of the film, after Naylor underwent a
dynamic change he still saw his job as that of helping others to manipulate a situation. In
the epilogue after a speech on being responsible to those who depend on you, Naylor
created his own firm and one of his first clients were a trio of cell phone executives. If
one had expected Naylor to strive toward responsibility he may have advised them to not
obfuscate information about the link between cell phones and brain cancer. But he told
the trio, “Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror: Although we are
constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone
usage to brain cancer.”
However, the character that exceeded even Naylor’s abilities was Conrad Brean
from Wag the Dog. He was never referred to specifically as a public relations
professional, but his duties showed him acting as a “behind the scenes” public relations
mastermind. When hired by the White House to fix a presidential sex scandal, Brean’s
first idea was to create a fictional war. Brean just needed this news item to last eleven
days until the election so that the President could be reelected. Among his first acts was
to start the White House Press Corps dropping out seeds of misinformation. He shared
this conversation with John Levy, one of the minor White House public relations
professionals:
BREAN: And it’s most certainly not about the B-3 bomber.
LEVY: There is no B-3 bomber.
BREAN: I just said that! There is no B-3 bomber. I don’t know how
these rumors get started.
Levy followed Brean’s lead and dropped this reference into the next press conference and
the media pounced on it as Brean thought they would. Brean’s manipulation of the
American public led him to hire a movie producer, Stanley Motss. Motss then put
together a production that featured an actress who appeared, with the help of computer
technology, to be running and hiding during the outbreak of hostilities in Albania, the
country Brean chose for the ‘war.’ Throughout the film, several situations arose where
Brean’s manipulation looked as though it was nearing disaster, such as the opposing
candidate declaring the war had ended. However, Brean, with the help of associates, was
able to find ways to keep it going. This included the creation of a story in which a
serviceman was left behind. Brean was able to get away with the manipulation of the
public because he knew exactly how he could manipulate the media into doing what he
wanted, as shown by the earlier example with the B-3 bomber. Brean had this to say
about the media, “What difference does it make if it’s true? If a story breaks they’re
gonna run with it.” Brean took full advantage of this to continue with the ‘war.’ Brean
also ordered the Secret Service to murder Motss at the end of the movie. This public
relations professional was not afraid to kill someone to ensure that his tightly packed web
of lies was not torn apart. Lee (2001) discussed how characters in one of his films (The
Barefoot Contessa) noted that public relations professionals would sometimes do actions
that were punishable by law. Brean did many actions that were punishable by the law, but
since he worked for the President of the United States his actions were acceptable. These
manipulative characters, Naylor and Brean, never seem to be sarcastic, edgy or angry, but
enjoyed their duties. These feelings were left to those characters that approached their job
and life with cynicism.
The cynics among us. The next most common archetype was cynicism, which
Miller had defined as a public relations professional who was sarcastic, edgy, angry,
contemptuous and driven. The characters Ollie Trinké from Jersey Girl and Alistair
Campbell from The Queen portrayed this archetype. Before discussing Trinké, it should
be noted that he started the movie in the accomplished archetype before quickly changing
to the cynical archetype after the death of his wife. However, this archetype was the one
primarily displayed by Trinké in relation to his public relations duties. He was quick to
anger with his subordinates and found his clients were not worth being built up. In the
rant that caused Trinké to be fired, he said to a packed room of journalists at the Hard
Rock Café in New York City: “Would you people just shut the hell up with the Fresh
Prince already? A two-bit TV actor won’t be around any longer than it takes for the ink to
dry on the pages of the worthless rages you jerk offs write for!” This type of disdain for
others was seen up until the moment he arrived at his father’s house in New Jersey after
being laid off. This cynicism, however, is evident throughout the way he looked at his
profession. Trinké referred to his employees at the beginning of the movie as, “my fellow
flacks and spin doctors.” Watching this character, one would also need the Tavcar (1993)
suggestion of armor of the psyche with the way Trinké acted toward his own profession.
Alistair Campbell from The Queen had cynicism that pervaded every one of his
scenes. Campbell’s first scene on screen was after the car crash of Princess Diana as
Downing Street was waiting to hear the latest news. He had already begun drafting the
speech Blair was to give when Diana passed. The most evident factor of his cynicism was
how he felt in relation to the Royal Family. He dropped remarks throughout the movie
showing how cynical he felt toward Queen Elizabeth. When Blair was about to speak to
the Queen about the death of Diana, Campbell joked if he would ask her if she greased
the brakes of Diana’s car. In another scene, he referred to the Queen as “the old bat.” In
that same scene, Campbell also stated after revising the Queen’s speech: “I phoned them
with a couple of suggestions to make it sound like it came from a human being.” The
man’s cynicism toward the Queen achieved such great depths that Blair scolded him in
front of a room of people as the Queen prepared to give a speech to the nation after
another quip. Campbell reveled in all of the opportunities that gave way to Blair being
shown in a good light, while the Royal Family was shown in a negative light. These were
those most readily apparent and popular of Miller’s archetypes, however two other
archetypes created by Miller appeared in 33% (n=2) of the films.
The other archetypes appear. The other archetypes of Miller’s to show up in these
films are obsequious (desiring to please superiors no matter the consequences) and
accomplished (characters who are good at their jobs and love it). The character of Dick
Harper from Fun with Dick and Jane was a perfect example of the obsequious archetype.
Harper made sure he acted in a way to please his superiors, including long laughs at their
bad jokes. Harper acted in this way because he felt in competition with both his neighbors
and his fellow public relations professionals to have the best job and greatest amount of
material wealth. The path to obtaining the best stuff for Harper was to grovel to the
bosses in order to obtain his goals. Harper does get his chance at the beginning of the film
when he was promoted to Vice President of Communication. Unbeknownst to Harper
was that his bosses did this to use him. The first job his bosses entrusted Harper with was
to appear on a fictional news show to discuss his company, Globodyne. As it became
evident that the host knew the truth of the company’s illegal practices and Harper did not,
he still tried to control the situation in order to not fail at his new position. “I can only say
that in my estimation that Globodyne is completely transparent and that we’d be ready
and willing to share any and all documentation.” Harper was blindsided by the interview,
but tried his best to show that his bosses were right to entrust the job with him.
The final archetype of Miller’s to be portrayed in the films was accomplished.
This was seen, as noted, by Trinké in Jersey Girl. His daughter stated in the voiceover
narration at the beginning of the film that he was the “youngest and most successful
music publicist in New York City.” He was portrayed as a great public relations
professional, and Trinké stated several times how it was “the thing he was ever the best
at.” The job was a rush for him, giving him satisfaction that nothing else could seemingly
give him. Because of this, Trinké loved his job and found great joy in working with
clients and his fellow public relations professionals. During the search for a new job,
Trinké only considered working for public relations firms, as this was his career and his
livelihood. Trinké seemed to feel empty without the ability to be a public relations
professional and he admitted several times that he was very good at the job.
Evidence of New Characteristics
RQ2 asked what new frames have emerged since Miller. However, no new frames
have consistently appeared. Of the six films coded, the public relations professional
characters tended to stick with the Miller archetypes. Of the hypothesized frames that
could emerge, only responsible and idealistic appeared in the films. The researcher did
find it necessary to edit one of the possible new frames. After the coding of Thank You
for Smoking, the evidence showed that the public relations professional character, Nick
Naylor, would fit better into a responsibility (which would be defined as the character
accepting they can affect others and desiring to act responsibility because of this)
archetype than a respectability (the character is well respected and works to live up to
this level of respect) archetype into which the pilot test coded him. This is due to the
character giving a speech at the end of the movie discussing how one is to live life
responsibly because others count on you. The change was caused by listening to what
Naylor said and understanding that his word more powerful than the original choice. The
other new frame was the idealistic (a character who pursues ideals which are good but
not realistic in their position) archetype portrayed by Ray Embry in Hancock. Embry
believed in helping others to be loved by the public through such actions as donating
drugs to those who cannot afford them. This was his primary motivation in helping
Hancock, Embry wanted to garner Hancock the love and the support of the Los Angeles
citizens. “They should love you,” Embry noted.
RQ3 asked how Miller’s frames could be modified to include the new portrayals.
The evidence showed that only two possible changes would have to be made to Miller’s
archetypes with the possible inclusion of the new archetypes idealistic and responsibility.
However, without concrete evidence for their inclusion, their inclusion is not certain.
The researcher did determine four threads/commonalities among the films in
regard to public relations professionals. These threads did not appear in all of the films,
but the four to be discussed were evident in at least 33% (n=2) of the movies, which is an
important element to map. These threads include 1) character change versus professional
change, 2) the use of the term ‘spin,’ 3) treatment of and by the public relations
professional characters, and 4) Hancock’s Ray Embry versus Thank You for Smoking’s
Nick Naylor and Wag the Dog’s Conrad Brean. These threads portray the perception
filmmakers have of public relations professionals and are important to discuss in the next
chapter.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The results of the content analysis showed that the negative attitudes toward the
field as discussed in the literature review remain the same. Of the six public relations
professional characters coded in the films, 83% (n=5) of the films portrayed at least one
of Miller’s negative archetypes. The field was also displayed as a negative profession in
the same films. The movies also showed that the main duty of the public relations
professional was to set up and hold press conferences. The films made it seem that public
relations only causes trouble and problems instead of alleviating them. This finding gives
credence to the question Callison (2001) asked discussing whether public relations has a
public relations problem. Only one of the films, Hancock, has public relations portrayed
in a positive manner.
These portrayals even affected the terms used by public relations professionals to
describe themselves. Only Embry used the term “public relations” in discussing what he
did. The other characters used such terms as “communications,” “publicity,” “flack,” and
“lobbyist.” As Coombs and Holladay (2007) discussed in their book, the public relations
professionals are seen through a negative light throughout their appearances in the films.
This returns to the themes that Coombs and Holladay determined to be presumed about
the field of public relations. Those themes most relevant would seem to concern how the
field cannot escape its negative roots and that the field is mostly just publicity. In fact,
publicity was one of the favored words used by several of the public relations
professional characters to describe what they accomplish. This coincided with Tavcar
(1993) discovering that the films he studied also portrayed public relations professionals
as simply being publicists.
This chapter will discuss the subject of personal vs. professional dynamic
character change, the terms used concerning public relations, relationships between the
public relations professional characters and their peers, and the dichotomy of Ray Embry
vs. Nick Naylor and Conrad Brean.
Personal vs. Professional Dynamic Change
An unexpected element to come out of the coding was the idea of personal vs.
professional dynamic change. For the purpose of this study, change was defined as the
character accepting at some point in the films that the current course that they are on is
wrong or negative and that they desire to change course and became a better person. This
definition of change was framed more completely by Reissenweber (2003). “Change is
particularly important for a story’s main character. Just as the desire of a main character
drives the story, the character’s change is often the story’s culmination” (Steele, p. 34,
2003). However, in Jersey Girl, Fun with Dick and Jane and, to a less extent, Thank You
for Smoking this change only affects their personal side, it does not seem to affect their
professional career. The most interesting instance was that of Jersey Girl’s Ollie Trinké.
At the beginning of the film, Trinké was an accomplished public relations professional
that became cynical at the death of his wife, and his feelings toward his field are negative
throughout the film. However, as the film progressed, Trinké discovered the true
importance behind family and one’s true home. He decided to become the best father he
could be about a quarter of the way through the film. At the end, he reiterated the stance
of being a great father and showed both his love interest and his father that Trinké was
staying in their hometown. The movie ended with Trinké becoming a well-rounded
character, except when it came to his chosen profession. He referred to himself as a
“flack” and his duties as weaving “a web of bullshit.” This view never changed. In one
conversation, it came across that lying was an important part of being a public relations
professional. The best example of his static attitude toward public relations was a scene
where Trinké was in the lobby of a potential employer and ended up sitting next to Will
Smith (playing himself). The duo has this conversation:
SMITH: …You know anything about these guys?
TRINKÉ: Only that they’re the fastest growing firm…
SMITH: In the business. Yea, I read that article too.
TRINKÉ: Well, you know as much as I do.
SMITH: I guess that means they know what they’re doing.
TRINKÉ: I suppose, unless these publicists hire other publicists to get
the word out for them.
SMITH: Right, and then those publicists hire their own publicists to
help spin the good publicity they created for these publicists.
TRINKÉ: Of course, knowing publicists, they probably hired publicists
to promote the fact that they spun the publicity they hired the other
publicists to spin.
Trinké and Smith are inferring that the field of public relations was a monster geared to
helping their own cause over and over, without regard to the cause of their client. It was a
very cynical way to look at public relations. This scene was during the 82nd minute of a
102-minute movie. This was the last mention of public relations in the film. It showed
how Trinké changed as a person, but his views toward public relations did not change and
did not deserve to change given the way public relations was shown in the movie.
Throughout the entire movie, the director and the characters made it known that public
relations (or publicity as it was referred to by the characters) is a business meant for only
the self-advancement of the public relations professional or their firm. The clients are the
cannon fodder to move ahead. Trinké embodied this attitude with the way he treated the
media, his clients, and his field. He envisioned the receptors of the message to hold
opinions he has to change by any means. The way to accomplish this was BS and lying
because that was what public relations seemed to be about. This view was supported by
his having advanced as fast as he did within his firm.
Another instance of this change was that of Dick Harper in Fun with Dick and
Jane. Again, Harper changed as a person. He found the real happiness to life meant his
family and providing for them, while escaping from his public relations background.
However, it is never shown that he gained any respect for his field throughout the movie.
Instead, he felt as a “corporate puppet” used by his superiors. They promoted Harper
solely for the purpose of scapegoating him when the truth about Globodyne’s business
practices came out. The film seemed to portray public relations as a function to use each
other, especially for the advantage of one person over another person. The movie started
with McCallister using public relations to cast Harper as a scapegoat (He is under threat
of indictment later in the movie) and then ended with Harper using public relations to
trap McCallister into a situation where he has to give away his money. The ending is the
comeuppance for McCallister, but it used public relations in an unsatisfactory way.
Nick Naylor was the final example of that archetype. As mentioned before, he
changed from the archetype of manipulative to responsible. However, the extent to which
he changed is subjective. It was evident that he changed in the effort to not negatively
affect those that depend on him and be more responsible. It came across as sounding that
this was an action he meant to take in his career, in that Naylor would be a more
responsible public relations professional. However, as noted earlier, Naylor had a
meeting with cell phone executives in an effort to help them avoid negative publicity
associated with cell phones and cancer. This scene was one of the last of the movie. It
had the affect of making it very ambiguous as to how Naylor was going to affect this
change that he talked about. A more responsible public relations professional would not
have used the same tactics with cell phone companies as with the Academy for Tobacco
Studies, and yet that is how it came across in his short line to them. The extent of the
personal vs. professional change is thus very hard to determine and is left up to the eye of
the beholder. As for how this attitude change affected his personal life, the filmmaker did
not have any scenes to show him being a more responsible father to his son. This action
could contribute to the idea that his change did not extend entirely as it showed Naylor
was still comfortable with manipulating facts in a way to help executives and possibly
harm regular people, such as his son.
A pattern emerges. Using these three films, one can notice a pattern that involved
how the producers of the films may have felt about the field of public relations. In these
films public relations was a field with only negative affects, consequences, and
practitioners. The path to becoming a good person was to escape the field, as Trinké and
Harper did at the end of their respective films. Naylor did not escape the field and it came
across as his effort to be more responsible might be left up to that “moral flexibility” he
discussed earlier in the movie. As these were the only films coded to show any dynamic
change, they act as the standard bearers for which to determine this connection. Public
relations professionals who watched these movies and took them seriously would learn a
couple of lessons. The first would be that public relations is a field whose only aim is
self-advancement. The second is that if a public relations professional ever hopes to be a
good person then he/she must find a different job. Miller (1999) found a similar motif
among the fictional works of her study. “Only when confronted by certain death can Bob
Jones leave PR and therefore become a whole, fulfilled person” (p. 18). Neither Trinké,
Harper, nor Naylor faced a certain death that caused them to leave public relations
(Although Naylor did face death, he stayed in the field), yet they each saw the same
necessary decision as the Bob Jones from A Really Sincere Guy. Miller did not continue
to expand on this development. However, this researcher found it an important concept to
develop more fully. This negative view could extend into the area of the words the
several characters across all the films were constantly using about the practice of public
relations. Taking this into consideration with what the scholars said about the perceptions
of the field and it would be hard not to believe leaving the field would be the best choice
for any current or future public relations professional. Budd (2000) noted that public
relations professionals on the National Credibility Index rank just about talk show hosts
and famous entertainers. Ryan and Martinson (1988) and Keenan (1996) both stated that
journalists have little respect for the field or it’s practitioners. Coombs and Holladay
(2007) noted those themes that are found through their survey of the perceptions of the
field. Callison (2004) found that there was little credibility given to public relations
professionals when they are tasked with delivering a message to the public. All these
items can go in conjunction with the portrayals of Trinké and Harper and it would make a
person very weary of entering the field. Persons, becoming like Trinké and Harper, are
finding their only means of escape from all those problems by leaving the field. This
action would then seem to greatly improve their relationships. These characters and their
films were also guilty of using negative terms toward their field as noted in the next
section.
Spin and Other Less Savory Terms in the Movies
Another trait found in half of the movies was the use of the term ‘spin.’ This
seemed to be the word of choice when a public relations professional is tasked with
dealing with the public and the media. Trinké referred to his employees as “spin doctors.”
Naylor was referred to as the “Sultan of Spin.” Harper was instructed by his bosses to
“get our positive spin out there.” In those movies it came across as the field of public
relations only being ‘spin.’ In one case, Naylor referred to it as being the whole point of
his job. “We’ve got spin control,” he said to the camera. This reoccurrence of the term
seemed to push the point across that public relations is spin and spin is public relations. It
was, however, possibly the nicest term used throughout on of the movies as Trinké once
referred to what he does as weaving BS. This was how another character, Trinké’s father
referred to it as well. “As a guy who used to sling bullshit for a living, I nominate you,”
the elder Trinké said as they were deciding who should speak to a group of angry citizens
at a town hall meeting. The term was also used when referring to Naylor. Movie
antagonist Senator Finisterre said, “The man shills bullshit for a living.” This facet was
left out of the Miller study, but it provided an interesting facet on how public relations is
viewed in the world of Hollywood. These examples portrayed characters that seemingly
bought into the negative associations of public relations, despite working in the industry
and having first hand experience to understand whether these attitudes are relevant. The
public relations professional characters just seemed to accept that their field was spin and
BS and that those who understood it were the best at it. There are no efforts on display in
any of the films where a character chastises another character for saying public relations
is spin and BS, instead it is accepted as an universal truth. Callison (2001) would even
note that those characters were a good example of how public relations has a public
relations problem. He also stated that the term of ‘public relations’ is just as damaging to
any organization as using public relations professionals. Yet, these alternate terms used in
the films would likely not help the effort to relieve the public relations problem of public
relations. However, this could also be said about how public relations professionals treat
others and how they are, in turn, treated as the next section demonstrates.
Relationships between Public Relations Professionals and Public
One thread that appeared in all the movies was how the public relations characters
treated others and how they were treated. Their relationship with the media would partly
fit in this thread. As Henderson (1998), Ryan and Martinson (1988) and Spicer (1993)
each found, there was a deep antagonism between the public relations professionals and
the journalists. The media felt that little respect was to be held for public relations
professionals and that the media’s work was more important to the public. The study
showed the researcher the way Hollywood thought about public relations characters and
their personal interactions. In all of the movies, most of the interpersonal relationships
were negative. The only exception was when a public relations character dropped his
public relations tactics and then was accepted positively. When a public relations
professional character stopped spinning or lying, then the media would see them as
someone that could be trusted and willing to go against the public relations establishment
for the sake of the truth.
In Jersey Girl, as was noted earlier, Trinké referred to the media as “jerk offs.”
This same attitude pervades every personal relationship he had when working as a public
relations professional. He treated those he viewed beneath him with almost subtle
contempt, especially his father. The only characters that see him positively when showing
off his public relations skills are his fellow public relations professionals. The public
relations professionals at a firm where Trinké interviewed were very proud to meet him
because of Trinké’s outburst. They referred to him as a “god” who said what they all
wanted to say to the media and about their clients. They even named it after him, i.e.
“pulling a Fresh Prince.” The Kevin Smith production made it clear to those watching the
film that the public relations professionals held everyone with an attitude that they were
“jerk offs.” However, Trinké’s relationships with those who were not public relations
professional characters improve vastly once he is no longer a practicing public relations
professional. He even comes to see the worth of these people he previously held in
contempt.
In Thank You for Smoking, everyone except for his fellow public relations
professionals and his son hate Naylor. As one character said to Naylor, “It’s your job to
be hated.” Naylor was also the subject of a death threat on a television news show hosted
by Dennis Miller. At the beginning of the film when Naylor was on the talk show, he was
introduced to hisses from the crowd. Naylor also practiced his skills as a public relations
character when dealing with interpersonal relationships. At one point, Naylor was trying
to convince his ex-wife to let him take his son to California. She rebuffed him by saying,
“Don’t smooth talk me.” Naylor never left his skills behind and constantly tried to use
them when interacting with the general public. He saw it as his duty to spin tobacco
during any moment that opened itself up. This included a scene in an airplane when
Naylor noted that he is there to convince people to start smoking. This plan became
inflated with his efforts to get a smoking scene into a Hollywood blockbuster and thus,
“put the sex back into cigarettes.” Naylor only saw people as potential customers and
nothing else. This was how he was able to deftly deal with the Cancer Boy situation.
Naylor even imparted his knowledge of how to deal with a situation to his son, Joey, who
then used it successfully to convince his mother to allow the California trip. The film
came across as showing that a successful public relations professional is one who is
hated, knows it and uses that to their advantage.
Fun with Dick and Jane was another example of the interpersonal relationships
between the main characters and the others. One of the most recurrent examples was how
Harper talked to his wife, Jane. When they had important talks, Harper tended to use
what one could call “public relations” jargon to deal with the unhappy situation. There
were two notable examples of this. The first was after Globodyne went under and Harper
was without a job. At dinner that night, Harper said to his wife, “It turns out that a very
wonderful opportunity has just presented itself in the form of me not necessarily working
at Globodyne anymore.” The other example is when the Harper’s have realized that their
funds are starting to run dangerously low. Harper said to his wife, “Well sure, our
financial bounce back is taking a little longer than expected. You know that’s natural.”
The public relations jargon continued until they were faced with a desperate situation
after finding out their house was worthless. The Harpers then turned to robbery. After
this, Harper started to treat his wife less like a member of the public to be appeased and
more like a wife. This allowed their relationship to heal and for Harper to become a
seemingly great husband.
In a situation parallel to that of Jersey Girl, Harper was trying to find a new job
and potential employers treated him as a sort of god/hero. This was due to his
embarrassing performance on the talk show. However as with Trinké, this also led to his
not being able to procure a job. In another parallel, when Harper put an end to his public
relations treatment of those around him, the relationships vastly improved. This affect
could show public relations professionals how they could or should treat their clients. The
movie showed that when Harper stopped being a public relations professional to his wife,
their marriage improved. Instead of relentlessly speaking double talk and equivocation,
treat clients like people who matter. This could teach public relations professionals that if
they never fall into a situation where they are being characters like Harper at the
beginning of his film and refrain from putting up fronts to clients and peers, then
relationships would vastly improve. If this is already being done, show the public that it
is standard operating procedure so they stop believing this is how public relations
professionals treat everyone.
With Wag the Dog, Brean treated everyone as malleable minds open to being
manipulated. This was his underlying assumption for the entire plan with the fake war
and then the lost soldier. He likened the war to being like the Oscars, “it’s a pageant.” If
it looked good enough for the public and had one defining moment, the there would be no
questions, just mindless acceptance. An assumption proven true by the way the public fell
for the entire ‘pageant.’ Embry in Hancock was treated as some sort of fool by potential
clients for his desire to do good. In The Queen, Campbell treated the Royal Family with
such absolute contempt that he was called out for it and dressed down by Blair. These
relationships affected how the public relations professional characters treated others.
However, no characters affected those around them as much as Embry, Naylor, and
Brean, but vastly different approaches and mindsets were employed.
Dichotomy of Embry vs. Naylor/Brean
In the viewing of the films, a stark contrast was apparent between Ray Embry and
Nick Naylor/Conrad Brean. The former believed in the idea that he could do good, while
the latter believed in manipulating the public to think that what is being done is good.
This is an important distinction to note in that it gives viewers a choice between what
kind of public relations professional for which they would want to strive. The evident
choice would be Embry, but the films make a distinction in who is more successful.
Brean was hired by the White House and given all the resources he could use, including
the ability to end a man’s life. Naylor was able to start his own firm at the end of the film
and was already reigning in top clients, such as the cell phone executives. Embry’s fate as
a public relations professional is left unknown. He was treated as a joke and looked at
with boredom/contempt in the eyes of both of the boards that asked him to make a pitch.
At the end of the film Hancock tattooed the “All Heart” symbol that he had been pitching
onto the moon, but that did not mean he would still be a success. The only type of success
Embry experienced was getting the girl. This was an interesting choice offered by
Hollywood. The only way to achieve true success would be garnered through
manipulation, but a person loses their soul in the process. The three characters are all
parts of a sliding scale of this. Brean would be at the far end. During the course of his
long career, he determined that the best and most effective efforts were also the most
morally empty. He had no qualms about creating a fake war or ordering the Secret
Service to kill a man. Naylor would likely be in the middle. He sees where he has gone
wrong when he spoke of responsibility to those around him, such as his son. However, he
still worked toward the manipulation of the public by the cell phone executives so one
can see that he has a soul but it might be hanging on by threads. Embry would be at the
other end. His only concern was helping people, either those who cannot afford medicine
or a jerk superhero. He saw the good in everyone and found that it was his duty to show
that good. These threads contribute to the image of the public relations professionals in
the films. However, two of the films also had scenes that attributed to the media’s
portrayals.
The Media Does Not Go Unscathed
In Wag the Dog, the media is also portrayed as a mindless horde. They get hooked
into every story line that comes out of the White House without questioning it. If the real
media were like their fictional counterpart, one would wonder if Watergate would have
happened. There was no independent thought among the journalists until the end of the
movie when a roundtable discussed how the President was a commercialized product.
This seems to be true in real life as it was in the film. However, the media’s complete
lack of journalistic inquiry sheds just as negative a light on this profession as it did on
that of public relations.
Thank You for Smoking also portrayed the media in a negative light. One of the
supporting characters, Heather Holloway, used sex as a reporting tool. She started a
sexual relationship with Naylor as opposed to regular methods. “If you wanted to talk on
a plane, or at a movie, or over dinner that would have been fine. But you wanted to f--k
[expletive modified by researcher], that’s fine by me.” For Holloway, this was a perfectly
acceptable way to gain information, as there was no ethical dilemma in it. However,
Naylor rightly burned her later by saying, “This experience has taught me an important
lesson, having sexual affairs with members of the press is just unfair. It’s not unfair to
me, mind you, but to all in my life whose only crime is knowing me.” This statement
likely ended the career of Holloway as she practiced an unethical newsgathering trick
without remorse, so the film at least showed how this tool could have negative side
effects. However, there is also a scene where the media comes racing down steps like a
pack of ravenous hounds waiting for the story. These moments showed that some
producers at least felt that public relations was not the only negative profession in
America.
Guidelines for Public Relations Professionals
The results of the content analysis lead the researcher to determining the
guidelines that a public relations professional can follow when dealing with the public
and the media. The filmmakers are the change agents whom public relations
professionals are trying to reach and affect a change. The guidelines will help the public
relations professionals see that the filmmakers as change agents are false change agents.
These filmmakers create a purely fictional representation of public relations professionals
and this supposition should be defeated at every turn. The guidelines can go toward
defeating these false change agents and create an atmosphere where public relations
professionals are not seen in the light portrayed by the films, but by the actions of the
public relations professionals themselves. The fictional accounts help to cultivate the
images of public relations professionals that people have, as the Cultivation Theory
explained (Cohen & Weimann, 2000). These representations, as Ehrlich (2009) stated,
contain the perceptions of the field. It is because of this, that real-life, non-fictional public
relations professionals need to strive and reverse these images. By cultivating positive
portrayals of public relations professionals in real life, then the fictional public relations
professionals would eventually have to change to in order to continue their relevance and
help draw people in. The first and second guidelines were influenced by the themes
concerning the development of the public relations professional characters and how they
treated others in their respective films. The third guideline was influenced by the thread
concerning the use of terms like ‘spin’ and BS in the films when referring to the practice
of public relations. The thread concerning the relationships between the public relations
professionals and the public influenced the fourth guideline. The last thread, concerning
the dichotomy of Embry and Naylor/Brean, influenced the final guideline.
The guidelines are:
1. Treat your profession with respect. One completes this by not referring to
the stereotypes as truth. It means not acting as if being in the field is
degradation and an obstacle to a better career.

2. Treat the Media/Clients with respect. Do not treat them as the enemy or
idiots who do not deserve any respect. Public relations professionals should
best accord these people the respect that they expect from media and clients.
3. Watch how you refer to your given profession. Using the terms ‘spin’ and
‘BS when discussing what you do will only lead others to believe that is how
public relations actually is, nothing but spin and BS.
4. Watch your tactics. Pay attention to the tactics that are shown in Kent, but
also make sure to not use any tactics that would have peers cringe or could
possibly have negative perceptions or consequences. If it seems unethical or
illegal, avoid it.
5. Most important: Be Ray Embry. Embry is the best public relations
professional in all of the films. He cares about helping others. Embry does not
look toward making a quick buck, nor is he willing to shed his ideals. He
looked for the good in people; he worked for the good of people through his
efforts to have medicine given out for free by pharmaceutical companies. If all
public relations professionals acted like Embry, then the negative attitudes and
perceptions would not have any legs on which to stand.
Films such as these have influenced the attitudes of an average person when
dealing with public relations professionals, according to the Cultivation Theory.
However, the ability to reverse these attitudes also depends on how public relations
professionals view their field. If they view it as a service-oriented profession, as Tsetsura
(2010) found among Russian women practitioners, then the field would be constantly
working to prove that their profession is valuable and worthy of respect. Yet, this service
orientation viewpoint would also mean that public relations professionals are seen as
being completely subservient to their clients. This could also have the negative affect of
presenting the field as unimportant and undermine the seriousness of the public relations.
“Practitioners who enter the profession in newly emerging markets need to realize which
stereotypes and perceptions exist about the profession so that they can effectively address
them” (p. 80). This study of Tsetsura helped to show there is a connection between how
public relations professionals perceive their own field and, thus, how they act toward
their own field. The professional discourse of the public relations professionals also
helped shape the realties of their peers, clients and the publics. Following the Cultivation
Theory, the way public relations professionals discuss or construct the realities of their
profession can have an effect on how others see it. If public relations professionals
watched how they acted toward their own profession and avoided chiding it or treating it
as nothing but spin, then it would help toward rehabilitating the profession and cultivate a
new image of public relations professionals in the minds of the publics. Guidelines 1 and
3 would help address the possible disconnect in the public relations professionals
professional discourse. However, they are not the same idea with different words. Public
relations professionals may act as complete professionals, doing their jobs successfully,
but talk with peers about how they “spinned” a company out of trouble that day. On the
other side, public relations professionals may talk about how their profession does not
involve spin or manipulation and defend it to detractors, but act in a way that is either
unethical or does involve manipulation. It depends on the public relations professional
and how they act and speak towards their profession.

If public relations professionals were to counter those perceptions by following
these five guidelines, then the profession could start reversing the negative attitudes that
have grown over the past decades. This would then, hopefully, create a situation where
public relations professionals and the public/media/stakeholders can work together
without having thoughts as to whether the person they hired is a Nick Naylor or a Conrad
Brean. Instead, it would be preferable to understand that their public relations
professional resemble Ray Embry in all areas. A man/woman like Embry would be the
person to go to ensure that the publics know the organization is socially responsible and
also influence the organization to be responsible. “However, public relations practitioners
should proceed humbly in this task, appreciating that their professionalized occupation
has inordinate influence, not only over their clients and these clients’ publics, but also
over society-at-large” (Tsetsura & Kruckeberg, 2009, p. 2). However, as the authors
noted the organizations and public relations professionals must understand that this does
not guarantee profits or a positive response from the publics. However, it would be a
great steppingstone in creating beneficial relationships. Public relations professionals like
Embry would have to sell this to potential clients that they may not make great profits,
but it would go a long way toward creating more positive relationships, though it may
take time.
These guidelines also somewhat reflect the code of ethics in the professional
organizations. The Public Relations Society of America requires in its code provisions
that public relations professionals must enhance the image of their profession, be able to
define public relations activities with accuracy, teach those beneath them proper ethical
decision making, and report ethical violations. These would mostly correlate with the
fourth guideline about the tactics used by public relations professionals. The International
Association of Business Communicators’ code of ethics also discusses how public
relations professionals should act within their profession. The public relations
professionals must not be dishonest or misleading to their clients. However, neither
professional organization disseminates points in their code of ethics that are similar to the
guidelines, which provide a situation where these guidelines could be an add-on or
attachment to the respective organizations.

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The films are an important measuring stick due to what Cohen and Weimann
(2000) noted about cultivation theory. They stated that reconstructed realities affect the
way people see the world around them. In essence, media messages construct our
realities. Ehrlich (2009) also noted that the public’s perceptions of a profession feed into
how that profession is portrayed on film. As nearly every scholar noted, public relations
and public relations professionals are seen in a negative light. The portrayals of public
relations professionals by the media, popular press books, and Hollywood have a way of
cultivating the way we see the field. These films are one of the most widespread and
popular forms of reality reconstructing. According the films, this reality is a negative one
for public relations professionals and the field, and this is why it is important to discuss
and study the films.
In order to fight this, public relations professionals have one possible way to
shape the field, which also spawns from Cultivation Theory. If the practitioners help
reconstruct the realities to show the truth about the field instead of what films portray,
then it would positively affect how public relations is perceived. Public relations
professionals can do this through all the means they have at their disposal. One needs to
only look at Kent’s ‘Typical Public Relations Activities, Strategies, and Tactics’
(Appendix III) to note the variety of ways a public relations professional can fight the
perceptions, such as delivering a speech on the field or organize a workshop (Kent, in
press). Ironically, Kent identified press conferences as a tactic, which was also the only
public relations tactic used by the public relations professional characters in the films.
Hollywood seemed to have determined that public relations professionals only set up or
hold press conferences for a majority of their duties. But going through the motions can
only do so much. The guidelines to be presented will help a public relations professional
see how they change the way the public perceives the field. These guidelines in
conjunction with the tools of a public relations professional can mold the public opinion
to note that the field of public relations is an integral part of our lives and that it is not
inherently as negative as portrayed. The obstacles are some filmmakers, along with the
media, who have their own agendas. The films seemed to parallel the negative attributes
the scholars determined when researching perceptions. As noted earlier, five of the six
films portray public relations in a negative light. One would have to wonder what the
scholars would say about Brean ordering a person to be executed. The films just
happened to be a 90 or 120 minute long representation of what the nearly all the scholars
said about the current state of public relations. Callison (2001, 2004), Miller (1999),
Coombs and Holladay (2007) are among those that have demonstrated how the current
public relations professionals are negatively perceived that is put on screen by
filmmakers. However, the scholars work to defeat these attitudes, while the filmmakers
propagate it. The idea is that public relations professionals are out for serving their own
means and those of their companies, as opposed to the public. Since these films have
been made in the decade after the publication of the Miller article, it would seem that not
much has changed in what the scholars determined. For those whose articles have
appeared during the decade long stretch, it just reinforces the status quo concerning the
perception of the public relations professional.

The five guidelines 1) Treat your profession with respect 2) Treat the
media/clients with respect 3) Watch how you refer to your given profession 4) Watch
your tactics 5) Be Ray Embry could change the profession and challenge those negative
perceptions. A world where people see movies similar to those of this study and realize
they have misrepresented public relations professionals would go toward reversing these
negative perceptions. Unless the film is Hancock where the desirable mindset would be
that the public relations professionals are exactly like Embry.

Bibliography
Anderson, W. B. (2001). Creating the national pastime: The antecedents of Major

League Baseball public relations. Media History Monographs, 4(2), 1-27.
Bernays, E. L. (1928). Manipulating public opinion: The why and the how. The
American Journal of Sociology, 33(6), 958-971.
Bernays, E. L. (1935). Molding public opinion. Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 179, 82-87.
Bernays, E. L. (2004 ed.). Propaganda. Brooklyn, NY: Ig Publishing.
Bishop, R. L. (1988). What newspapers say about public relations. Public Relations
Review, 14(2), 50-52.
Brody, E. W. (1984). Antipathy between PR, journalism exaggerated. Public Relations

Review, 10(4), 11-15.
Brody, E. W. (1992). We must act now to redeem PR’s reputation. Public Relations
Quarterly, 37(3), 44.
Bowen, S. A. (2003). ‘I thought it would be more glamorous’: Preconceptions and

misconceptions among students in the public relations course. Public Relations
Review, 29, 199-214.
Bowen, S. A. (2009). All glamour, no substance? How public relations majors and
potential majors in an exemplar program view the industry and function. Public
Relations Review, 35, 402-410.
Buckley, C. (2004). Florence of Arabia. Random House: New York.
Budd, J. F. (2000). The incredible credibility dilemma. Public Relations Quarterly, 45(3),
22-26.
Callison, C. (2001). Do PR practitioners have a PR problem?: The effect of associating a

source with public relations and client-negative news on audience perception of
credibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(3), 219-234.
Callison, C. (2004). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Perceptions of public relations
practitioners. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(4), 371-389.
Campbell, R., Martin, C. R. & Fabos, B. (2009). Media & Culture: An Introduction to
Mass Communication. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Cohen, J., & Weimann, G. (2000). Cultivation revisited: Some genres have some effects
on some viewers. Communication Reports, 13(2), 99-114.
Coombs, W. T. & Holladay, S. J. (2007). It’s not just PR: Public relations in society.
Malden, MA.: Blackwell.
Ehrlich, M. C. (2009). Studying the journalist in popular culture. The Image of the
Journalist in Popular Culture Journal, 1, 1-11.
Ewen, S. (1996). PR! A social history of spin. New York: Basic Books.
Henderson, J. K. (1998). Negative connotations in the use of the term “Public Relations”
in the print media. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 45-54.
Keenan, K. L. (1996). Network television news coverage of public relations: An

exploratory census of content. Public Relations Review 22(3), 215-231.
Kent, M. L. (in press). A rhetorical approach to public relations writing. Boston:

Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.
Lee, M. (2009). Flicks of government flacks: The sequel. Public Relations Review, 35,
159-161.
Lee, M. (2001). The image of the government flack: Movie depictions of public relations
in public administration. Public Relations Review 27, 297-315.
Miller, K. S. (1999). Public relations in film and fiction: 1930 to 1995. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11(1), 3-28.
Newsom, D., Turk, J. V., & Kuckeberg, D. (2010). This is PR: The realities of public
relations (10th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.
Ryan, M., & Martinson, D. L. (1994). Journalists and public relations practitioners:
Why the antagonism? Journalism Quarterly, 65(1), 131-140.
Sallot, L. M. (2002). What the public thinks about public relations: An impression
management experiment. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1),
150-171.
Seitel, F. P. (2007). The Practice of Public Relations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River:
Pearson.
Sparks, S. D. (1993). Public relations: Is it dangerous to use the term? Public Relations
Quarterly 38(3), 27-28.
Spicer, C. H. (1993). Images of public relations in the print media. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 5(1), 47-61.
Steele, A. (Ed.). (2003). Writing Fiction: The Practical Guide From New York’s
Acclaimed Creative Writing School. New York: Bloomsbury.
Tavcar, L. (1993). Public relations on the screen: 17 films to see. Public Relations
Quarterly 38(3), 21-23.
Tsetsura, K., & Kruckeberg, D. (2009). Corporate reputation: Beyond measurement.

Public Relations Journal, 3(3), 1-11.
Tsetsura, K. (2010). How female practitioners in Moscow view their profession: A pilot
study. Public Relations Review, 36, 78-80.
Tye, L. (1998). The father of spin: Edward L. Bernays & The birth of public relations.
New York: Crown.
Wilcox, D. L., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics (8th
ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Appendix I
Film Code Sheet
Name of film_____________________Year___________Company_________________
Genre:
1. Satire (The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, and ridicule to expose stupidity
and vices in context with political or social issues)
2. Drama (An exciting, emotional, or unexpected series of events)
3. Action (A fast paced adrenaline filled film)
4. Historical (A film that has it’s setting in history)
5. Comedy (Professional entertainment intended to make people laugh)
[Definitions for 1, 2, & 3 from the New Oxford Dictionary)
Name of public relations professional Character:

____________________________________________________
Is the character MAJOR/MINOR? Is the character GOOD/BAD?

[For example, does the character have [Is this character trying to help the
other characters or hinder them]
moderate to lot of screen time or is
he/she in 1 or 2scenes and never
seen again.]
Does the character perform typical PR duties: YES/NO (See Kent list attached)
Which of Miller’s (1999) Archetypes does the character fit (Use operationalized sheet):
____Ditzy ____Obsequious ____Cynical ____Manipulative
____Money-Minded ____Isolated ____Accomplished ____Unfulfilled
Brief description of how character displays this archetype:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
If a character does not fit that archetype, what term would you use best describes the
character:
___Heart of Gold ____Idealistic ____Moralistic ____Respectable
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
character:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
character:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
character:
Are the PR characters STATIC or DYNAMIC?
At what point in the movie does the dynamic character CHANGE?
Using the Archetypes from before, what change does the character undergo?
From ______________ To ______________
What are the circumstances surrounding the change?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Appendix II
Use these definitions when watching the films.
Write a number that corresponds to the archetype, a set of characteristics the character
embodies, next to the name of the public relations professional character. If this character
seems to fit two or more definitions, write all numbers but circle the one that most
strongly corresponds to the character.
These definitions could be used to answer the first research question. It would show how
portrayals have evolved or devolved since Miller’s (1999) framework. The movies being
studied will show that either the archetypes have evolved or merged or the archetypes
don’t follow these anymore and have devolved into an amalgamation of the archetypes.
1. Ditzy: Shallow character that’s sympathetic but do not find anything
intellectually stimulating about their job.
2. Obsequious: Have a desire to please their superiors, no matter the
consequences.
3. Cynical: A character who is sarcastic, edgy, angry, contemptuous and driven.
4. Manipulative: A character without a conscience and will do whatever it takes
to get the job done.
5. Money-Minded: Do not care about the ethics/moral of their job, just as long as
it pays.
6. Isolated: A loner who does not fit well into the group.
7. Accomplished: Characters who love their jobs and are great at it.
8. Unfulfilled: A character who is good at their job but finds it unfulfilling.
Due to the negative factor of 7 of those 8, I have come up with four additional definitions
for public relations professional characters to understand if there are more positive
images, or Miller’s archetypes still hold true.
9. Heart of Gold—This character follows the literary cliché of the hooker with
the heart of gold, they seem at first glance to be undesirable characters, but
underneath are wholesome good characters.
10. Idealistic—The characters pursue ideals which are good but are not
realistic in their position
11. Moralistic—The character has a strong sense of morals which they will
not bend for their bosses or anyone else
12. Respectable—The character is well respected by fellow peers and live up
to their being seen as respectable

PR Perceptions in Media and Fiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PR Perceptions in Media and Fiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS IN MEDIA

Perceptions of Public Relations Practitioners in Media and Fiction:

Public relations professionals have found themselves in a situation where their

profession of public relations is portrayed as a negative in popular culture. Television,

over it’s existence.

Understanding how these forefathers viewed public relations a century ago is

negatively perceived profession.

manipulation in a plethora of situations. He termed this as ‘propaganda’ in an effort to

action or event that should not be approved.

world of public relations is to be the complacent receiver of a public relations

profound effect on the development of public relations by demonstrating the success of

these techniques. It also awakened an awareness in Americans of the power of mediated

information in changing public attitudes and behaviors” (p. 55).

be known as public relations. “Self-respecting public relations professionals despise the

influence popular culture portrayals.

Public relations professionals being portrayed as people who should be scorned is

think of public relations professionals.

superiority, the publics’ cynicism, and the author’s poisoned pen.

professional to accomplish what their main goal is—creating mutually beneficial

relationships between their organizations and the stakeholders.

perceptions held of them by the media, the publics, and fiction.

public relations professional. This is an important process because it gives background to

Overall Perceptions of Public Relations

understanding the current perceptions of public relations professionals (Brody, 1992,

what they do—such as public affairs, public communications, and marketing

Credibility of Public Relations Professionals

Callison (2004) measured the perceptions of public relations professionals

perceptions are dependent on public relations professionals getting paid by the

organizations they are representing.

releasing truthful information. “Any organization-positive communication stemming

by the organization, would seem to be unquestionably perceived as lacking credibility”

than just the public relations professionals.

approach has drawbacks. “Because ethically and practically a company spokesperson

communicate on an organization’s behalf from the organization’s own pulpit is doomed”

progression towards a state where perceptions are no longer negative.

asked, “Do PR practitioners have a PR problem?” (Callison, 2001, p. 219). “Although

source itself” (p. 230).

Public Relations in Society

perceptions of public relations is an important factor in understanding how to correct

field from the mainstream media.

Public Relations Professionals as Seen by the Media

public relations professionals. “According to cultivation theory, massive exposure to

trust of the public.

smooth-talking, personally charming front man or woman” (p. 57).

flagrant disregard for the truth, a willingness to engage in communication activities to

relations professionals try to establish between organizations and their stakeholders.

associations, such as Public Relations Society of America or the International Association

relationship is in need of maintenance. “While there is a certain amount of co-dependence

was portrayed negatively in 29 television segments, but was portrayed neutrally in 43

positive stories show that it still had a tendency to go negative.

interesting that networks “portrays public relations as something practiced by foreign

old, and predates the birth of the 24-hour news channel.

created a situation in which the journalists found themselves in a difficult spot.

Contrarian Arguments to Negative Perceptions

‘publicity,’ which he determined to be used positively in the majority of stories in which

scholars were turning a molehill into a mountain.

reaching out to is also problematic for the public relations professionals.

Public Perceptions of the Public Relations Professionals

“concrete, non-ambiguous, immediate” (p. 22). Public relations professionals need

reader to determine why the perceptions are different.

important stakeholders for organizations. The stakeholders decide whether the

trust an accredited public relations professional who is engaged in two-way symmetrical

attitude towards public relations professionals. “Subjects supported the licensing of

with a set of certain motives (p. 161).