The origins of PR and Propaganda

Public Relations have various definitions with so many around it can be hard to define exactly what the role of the Public Relations practitioner is. I looked at the CIPR for a definition they state that “Public relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour”. It would seem sensible to take the definition of a professional body into account however PR can involve so much more than just reputation management it’s hard to put it down just to one definition.

With such a strong influence of reputation and changing the way people behave and form opinions within the industry there is a fine line between PR and propaganda. There is a debate of whether PR practitioners are really just spin doctors made to feed information to the public in the best possible light. So are we always told the truth by PR practitioners or just what they think we should know?

The origins of Propaganda and PR can been during the First World War when PR was used to persuade the public that the war was in their best interests and to encourage men to join the army. Edward Bernays has also used PR techniques to persuade people to smoke. The way in which he did it was to get women to light up during an Easter Parade in New York in 1929 thus making smoking in the streets seem acceptable. He was hired by the tobacco company Lucy Strike however back then the risks of smoking were not yet truly discovered.  Bernays believed “that it was possible to persuade people, but only of what is in their best interest”. But who is it down to decide what is in the best interest of the public? With the knowledge we have today on the dangers of smoking would he still have believed that it was in the best interests of the public? As PR practitioners you are asked to look after the company and portray them in the best possible light but with the topic of persuasion how far would you go if you believed it was against your morals and beliefs?

With PR having such a strong background in propaganda and persuasion does it still filter into the way PR is practised today, is there still evidence of it being used in the media today?