Public relations literacy: Developing critical consumers of public relations

Introduction

An observation and critique of public relations is that it is ‘unseen’. The unseen nature has been noted by proponents of public relations such as Cutlip (1994) and Bernays (2004) as well as critics such as Ewen (1996) and Tye (2002). The idea is that people often fail to realize when they are encountering and being influenced by public relations. Defenders see public relations as naturally invisible because of its early reliance on earned media (earned media has replaced publicity as the phrase to denote news stories generated by public relations efforts). Critics see a purposeful choice to hide the influence attempts of public relations. There is some element of truth to both perspectives. Earned media did evolve as unseen and there have been revelations of deceptive public relations communication practices that seek to hide the true source of the public relations message such as the use of front groups, failure to disclose sponsors and fake blogs (e.g. Edgett, 2002; Fitzpatrick and Palenchar, 2006; Gower, 2006; Hallahan, 2006; Palenchar and Fitzpatrick, 2009).

A central concern to the unseen nature of public relations is that consumers of public relations messages often fail to understand that an issue originated from public relations and the inherent biases in the messages. We are using the term ‘consumer’ in a generic sense to be any person who encounters and attends to a public relations message. Moreover, consumers have the potential to be producers by creating their own public relations messages.

We believe that consumers of public relations messages and society would benefit from a focus on public relations literacy as a specific type of media literacy. Public relations literacy would help people to recognize when they are encountering public relations messages, how to dissect those messages and how to create their own advocacy messages. Public relations literacy is inspired by the insights critical theory has added to public relations. Critical theory has provided a much needed call for reflection on the practice of public relations. We should be concerned about how public relations utilizes power and influence, and its effects on society (e.g. McKie and Munshi, 2007). L’Etang (2005) has argued for a need to extend critical thinking into education. Public relations education can encourage students ‘to be curious, to play “devil’s advocate”, question received truths, and develop moral courage’ (L’Etang and Pieczka, 1996). The calls for a critical theory in public relations education has been echoed in recent writing on public relations pedagogy (Somerville et al., 2011; Strauss, 2011). Public relations literacy is dedicated to bring this critical thinking to the consumer of public relations messages.

Public relations literacy has been conceptualized as ‘the ability to identify, analyze, and evaluate public relations messages’ (Coombs and Holladay, 2010: 10). To be more consistent with media literacy, we add the ability to create public relations messages and understand their role in a democratic society. Thus, public relations messages are not limited to those messages produced by the ‘PR industry’ but also include those messages produced by social movements, organizations, and individuals seeking to persuade others through all forms of media as well as in interpersonal and public contexts. Attention to public relations literacy would benefit consumers of public relations actions and messages because literacy would empower them to be more conscious and critical consumers. We see consumers as active participants in the public relations action. In addition, knowledge of the practice could empower them to create their own public relations messages. Similar to media literacy, developing public relations literacy would not only grant people more control over their interpretations of and reactions to public relations messages (Potter, 2004, 2011) but also empower them to participate actively in public relations message creation (Hobbs, 2011; Mihailidis, 2008). The emphasis on critical thinking is related to critical pedagogy but is not based on any specific theories of critical pedagogy. This article begins by defining public relations literacy and its relationship to media literacy. The focus then shifts to the rationale for public relations literacy. We conclude by extending the conceptualization of public relations literacy by discussing a sample curriculum and how this curriculum might be delivered.

Public relations literacy parallels to media literacy

Coombs and Holladay (2010) observed, ‘To be public relations literate, a person must be able to identify when public relations is being utilized, be aware public relations does impact society and individuals, have frameworks for analyzing public relations efforts, and apply critical thinking skills to their evaluation’ (2010: 312). This conceptualization of public relations literacy parallels what is often called the protectionist or inoculation conceptualization of media literacy. From this approach media literacy focuses on understanding how media industries construct content and how consumers interpret media messages (see also Potter, 2004, 2010, 2011; Rosenbaum et al., 2008; Semali, 2000; Silverblatt, 2008; Silverblatt et al., 1999 for discussions of media literacy). Educational programs may emphasize critical analysis skills and the need for consumers to understand the media in order to protect themselves from potentially harmful effects. In addition, discussions of the content and purpose of media literacy programs may move beyond critical consumption to reflect an empowerment perspective that emphasizes the relationship between media and civil society (Hobbs, 2011; Mihailidis, 2008). The empowerment focus stresses the need for citizens in a democratic society to not only consume but also participate in the message creation process. The protectionist and empowerment approaches are complementary rather than mutually exclusive (Potter, 2011).

The concept of media literacy was introduced in the 1970s and continues to motivate scholarly work as well as applied work in educational settings that incorporate media literacy as a component of curricula at various educational levels around the world. In their review of the media literacy literature, Rosenbaum et al. (2008) observe that definitions, approaches and recommendations for enhancing media literacy are plentiful and are geared toward pedagogical implications (see also Hobbs, 2011; Mihailidis, 2008). They highlight several themes that have dominated scholarly and educational endeavors. These themes consistently emphasize the importance of understanding the media as both an industry and a product, including issues ranging from production processes to economic considerations, to interpretive frames, to individuals’ selection and use of media and message creation decisions.

This section offers a brief overview of information on media literacy to demonstrate connections to the practice of public relations and our conceptualization of public relations literacy. We then argue the need for public relations literacy by noting how biases can be hidden in public relations. We summarize recommendations for the contents of public relations literacy by focusing on critical analysis of public relations messages and proposing general questions that could guide consumers on the path to becoming more public relations literate and empowered to develop their own public relations actions. This section includes a general outline of public relations literacy curriculum intended for college and university-level courses.

Regardless of where media literacy is researched and educational programs are instituted, the fundamental goal is to teach people to be active, critical consumers and producers of messages (Mihailidis, 2008; Rosenbaum et al., 2008). Media literacy empowers people by helping them develop a critical understanding of the media, the techniques used by the media and the potential effects of those techniques (Media Literacy, 1997). Therefore people must be educated to understand issues such as how media institutions operate, factors driving message and media production, factors affecting the interpretation of content, and potential effects on individuals and society, including media’s role in a democratic society.

In their summary of the research, Rosenbaum et al. (2008) identify how the interaction between three major players – the media producers (those who create messages), the media themselves and media users – are linked to areas of study in media literacy. They propose four different processes whereby producers and users interact with the media. First, the media influences producers’ ideas about content. Second, producers construct media content. This includes decision making about content selection and content form. This production process also is influenced by societal, cultural and economic concerns. Third, the media influence users at individual and societal levels. Fourth, users handle the media by selecting media content, managing their media use, mobilizing the media and actively interpreting media content.

Media literacy has widespread support in the USA and Europe, although approaches to implementing educational programs differ (Hobbs, 2011). Macro conceptualizations of media literacy reflect two concerns: (1) protecting (inoculating) and (2) empowering (Hobbs, 2011). The protective approach posits that the media can have a variety of ill effects on its consumers. Media literacy becomes an intervention designed to help protect people from potentially harmful effects of the media (Potter, 2010, 2011). The negative effects caused by the media can relate to violence, body image and sexual behavior. Meta-analyses of media literacy interventions demonstrate an ability to counter these negative effects (Jeong et al., 2012). The empowering approach argues that consumers can become empowered by understanding how the media can be utilized to achieve their goals such as civic and political participation (Hobbs, 2011).

Our discussion of public relations literacy draws upon several themes identified by media literacy scholars (e.g. Hobbs, 2011; Potter, 2004, 2010 Rosenbaum et al., 2008; Semali, 2000; Silverblatt, 2008; Silverblatt et al., 1999) to demonstrate their salience to public relations literacy. Moreover, we feel public relations literacy can serve both protecting and empowering functions. Our discussion highlights selected common concerns but does not offer a comprehensive inventory of all possible parallels between media literacy and public relations literacy. However, we contend that the ambiguous nature of many public relations messages necessitates viewing public relations literacy as distinct from media literacy.

Media literacy involves recognizing that media messages are constructions (rather than reflections of reality) and understanding who does the constructing and for what purposes. This necessitates consideration of the creators of the messages and their motivations, values, and decision-making about contents and forms of messages. When considering public relations literacy, we should encourage people to identify the sources behind the messages and consider how and why those sources benefit by strategically framing specific messages in particular ways. Frames signal how people should interpret messages, and, by implication, what they should do in response to those messages (Entman, 1993; Hallahan, 1999). Public relations messages are strategic; they reflect the particular values and goals of their source and are designed to influence people. Public relations literacy encourages people to interrogate the ways in which public relations messages construct – and perhaps re-construct – situations through framing and how they propose responses or resolutions to the situations. What might the source gain through acceptance of its construction of reality? Are there alternative constructions of reality that could challenge this one? How would recommended responses benefit the source? How would particular individuals and/or society benefit from, and perhaps be disadvantaged by the recommended responses?

Paralleling Rosenbaum et al.’s (2008) category of ‘production context’, the public relations practice in the USA and many other western nations was developed as a corporate construct. While public relations can serve other interests, it is common for public relations messages to be motivated by economic concerns reflecting self-interest, consumerism and capitalist values. We see this focus reflected in the corporate-centric bias of much public relations writing. Exceptions might include those public relations actions and messages created by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other activist organizations and social marketing campaigns designed to challenge corporate-centric messages and/or promote particular values and causes without the trappings of capitalism. As with their corporate counterparts, messages created by activist groups and NGOs are value-laden and reflect a particular set of interests. It would be naive to suggest that public relations message consumers should not also scrutinize their messages in the same way they do corporate messages to reveal the values underlying the messages. Strauss (2011) recommends using messages created by the Yes Men, an advocacy group, to help students understand ethical concerns about public relations. The Yes Men are an activist duo that like to expose what they view as problematic business practices by publicly embarrassing corporations. One common tactic they use is to provide ‘fake’ public relations messages from a corporation. Their fake messages have included websites, media interviews and press conferences. The ‘fake’ nature of their publicity tactics is what provides a stimulating ethics discussion. Strauss’s (2011) point is the need to question the any public relations message regardless of its source. Overall, public relations literacy requires the ability to distinguish between messages created by for-profit and non-profit organizations and to identify the particular ideological and value commitments guiding the public relations efforts. Furthermore, it requires the ability to discern ‘who wins’ and ‘who loses’ in society as well as the marketplace if particular values are embraced.

Because a central concern of media literacy is equipping people to engage in critical thinking, the literature directs attention to personal investigative actions such as consulting various sources to verify the quality of information in messages. This requires assessment of factors such as source credibility, accuracy, timeliness and completeness. Additionally, the content of a particular message should be compared to the message content provided by alternative sources of information (Rosenbaum et al., 2008). An illustration of the close connection between media literacy and the evaluation of sources is the connection between digital literacy and media literacy. Digital literacy is concerned with evaluating messages people encounter online and utilizing online channels for empowerment (Hobbs, 2011). These concerns also are relevant to the examination of public relations messages. It is important to identify message sources and compare the message content to information supplied by competing sources of information that may have fewer vested interests and different interests in the issue. When this type of information is difficult to locate, the lack of transparency itself should signal concerns about the messages. Consulting sources known to critique corporate messages (e.g. PR Watch, CorpWatch, Spinwatch) could be used to assess the quality and ‘truth value’ of messages. For example, consumers could consider the extent to which conflicting messages are communicated by different sources. What biases might underlie these differences in message content? What does this mean in terms of the complexity and contentiousness of the issue? Is the whole story being told? Which sources seem to best represent the receiver’s interests (i.e. are most consistent with the receiver’s values, beliefs, and interests) and the interests of society as a whole?

The rapid development of digital media (including social networking tools and social media such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs and YouTube) may be especially problematic to interrogating information quality, and intensify the need for public relations literacy. This position is supported by the growth of digital literacy (Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, 2009). In the confusing world of digital media, many of the old standards have changed. Compared to legacy media (this phrase that refers to traditional news media including print, radio, and television), digital media often obscures the message creators. Sources may be less visible; their interests and goals may be more opaque. This is especially true because identities can be manipulated or concealed, and leave readers puzzled (or not) about the self-interests of the message sources. The inability to quickly identify information sources and motivations often means only the most vigilant readers will understand the affiliations and intentions underlying the use of new media. The veracity of online information should be interrogated very carefully. Anyone can post anything, generally without the sorts of repercussion that would ensue in traditional media. The online environment is ripe for abuse. Because the credibility of much web-based information is suspect, the pressure on message consumers to verify content is increased dramatically.

We are just beginning to realize the consequences of the digital media explosion for public relations. However, digital media are here to stay, are ubiquitous, and are growing in popularity. The rapid expansion of social media may be especially troubling when its casual, informal content is mistaken for vetted content. ‘Policing’ digital media will not get any easier (Hallahan, 2006). Numerous high-profile exposés have demonstrated public relations professionals are willing to use new media to conceal identities and intentions and thereby distort reality. For instance, Edelman’s construction of fake blogs (flogs) for Wal-Mart drew intense online criticism (Taylor, 2006). As with media literacy in general, public relations literacy should encourage the public to look beyond the surface level content of what they discover online and interrogate all aspects of the messages. The ability to identify the influence of the media on media users is an important theme in the literature. The media influence people’s values, socialize them to be consumers, encourage conformity with mainstream values, and ultimately can shape their views of reality. The same holds true for public relations messages. Consumers of public relations messages need to decode the values that are often implicit in messages in order to resist or endorse those values. Public relations messages can impact individuals by influencing perceptions of reality (e.g. perceptions of which companies pursue a ‘green’ agenda and perceptions of the extent to which ‘green’ practices are needed to preserve the environment), values (teaching people to value ‘green’), behaviors (buying from ‘green’ companies), and ideas (believing ‘going green’ is a good idea). Public relations functions such as issues management and social marketing may influence people at individual and societal levels. For instance, companies may create messages designed to promote ‘green’ as a national concern and encourage individuals to incorporate ‘green’ practices throughout various aspects of their daily life, from recycling to water conservation to using canvas shopping bags.

The issue of how people mobilize the media to influence other media and/or act as message creators themselves is an important concern in this age of social media and citizen journalism. Digital media provides greater opportunities for empowerment and civic participation (Hobbs, 2011). The ability of average persons to produce their own content and voice opinions about the content of media messages expands as the technology is simplified. The topic of mobilizing the media also holds important implications for public relations literacy when we acknowledge that anyone can become an activist and practice public relations in pursuit of a range of selfish or altruistic goals. Digital media options such as non-corporate websites, blogs, tweets and YouTube provide the opportunity for concerned citizens to generate interest in issues such as questionable corporate behavior and to influence others to form coalitions to pressurize corporations to change behavior. Digital media offers people increased opportunities to engage in their own public relations activities. One illustration is the way activist groups have been using digital media in attempts to alter corporation behavior (Coombs and Holladay, 2012; Heath, 1998; van de Donk et al., 2004). For example, in the 1990s a couple in Georgia created the Flaming Ford website. That website was instrumental in ‘convincing’ Ford to engage in a massive vehicle recall (Coombs, 1998). The various communication channels make the internet a perfect place for coalitions to form around issues (Coombs and Holladay, 2012). For instance, the average citizen could create a complaint site targeting an organization’s products, blog negative appraisals of a corporation’s issues management campaign, or question a corporation’s commitment to the environment through a clever YouTube clip. The public relations literate person would understand how digital media empower them to craft and disseminate messages designed to exercise influence. People can learn to harness the power of public relations to participate in civil society and effect changes in the world around them. However, there are no guarantees of success. Any person, group or organization can find their ideas being ignored in the digital world (Coombs and Holladay, 2012).

Although research examining personal motivation is sparser, one’s personal motivation to be a critical media consumer is an important consideration in media literacy. For example, Potter’s (2004) work proposes ‘personal locus’ as an important individual-level factor affecting media literacy, noting that people’s personal abilities and commitment to engaging in critical analysis of the media can vary greatly and are undermined by the sheer volume of messages to which they are exposed. He argues that interactions with the media are largely unconscious and automatic. Being media literate and public relations literate necessitates active involvement in the interpretation process. This requires knowledge of what to analyze as well as a motivation to apply that knowledge to message analysis. This may require more cognitive effort than some people are willing to undertake. Similarly, people may passively consume public relations messages without recognizing them as public relations actions. And although they may have the capability to do so, they may be unwilling to exert the effort required to uncover multiple information sources, corporate self-interests and implications for their own well-being. For these reasons we believe the motivation to be a critical consumer represents a significant component of public relations literacy.

As we have shown, although public relations messages can be seen as part of the media milieu, we believe it is necessary to identify public relations literacy as a distinct component of media literacy in order to direct attention to unique characteristics of public relations, especially as it relates to serving corporate interests. Malmelin (2010) argued that advertising literacy was similar to but should be distinct from media literacy. The intense utilization of advertising and unique context of the industry were central to that argument. We make the same case for public relations literacy being related to, though distinct from, media literacy.

The need for public relations literacy

It is important that we acknowledge the strong persuasive aspect of public relations. Many have sought to cloak public relations in the guise of information by claiming that public relations simply shares information with others (e.g. Grunig and Hunt, 1984). Moloney (2006) has eloquently presented the counter argument that public relations is persuasion. Public relations actions pursue objectives that ultimately do seek to change how people behave. Public relations creates messages that seek to influence people. People have a right to evaluate those messages and decide whether or not to follow the prescribed course of action. Part of this evaluation requires that the message consumer understand the biases behind the message creation. More specifically, people should understand who the persuader is and what the persuader stands to gain in the situation. Evaluating messages becomes problematic when persuader bias is hidden. The message consumers lack the full information necessary to critically evaluate the persuasive effort.

Bias is relatively easy to identify in most public relations messages. We know that the material on an organization’s website or Facebook page is created by the organization and is designed to support its goals. Front groups illustrate the problem of hidden bias. Front groups purposely seek to hide the creator of the message so as to hide the group’s bias – its reason for engaging in public relations. A group tries to appear ‘objective’ or supportive of a particular objective or issue when in fact the group is biased and guided by a much different objective (Palenchar and Fitzpatrick, 2009). The same efforts to conceal bias occur when organizations use fake online personas to post messages in digital media, what can be called a ‘front post’. While we cannot qualify the percentage of public relations messages that seek to hide their bias, the point is that they do exist and can be a threat to democratic society.

Professional public relations organizations, such as the International Public Relations Association, the Institute for Public Relations, the Institute of Public Relations/UK, and the Public Relations Society of America, do recognize the danger of hiding biases and consider it an ethical violation. However, the majority of practitioners do not belong to professional public relations organizations and are not bound by any enforceable codes of ethics. Researchers have documented the problems with professional codes of ethics for nearly over 20 years (e.g. Bowen, 2004; Parkinson, 2001; Wright, 1993). Even being bound to a code of ethics does not ensure compliance. Edelman, a prominent global communication company, pioneered the ethical code of word-of-mouth communication but violated that code to help a client, Wal-Mart, increase sales (Taylor, 2006).

The legacy media illustrate a hidden bias that is naturally occurring. Publicity or earned media traditionally has been valued because of the third-party endorsement effect. When a public relations message appears in a legacy news story, the message appears to be coming from the news media rather than the public relations source. Hence, it has been argued that publicity is more effective than advertising because it appears less biased (Treadwell and Treadwell, 2005). Critics of public relations often use this hidden bias in legacy news stories as evidence of how public relations is harming society (e.g. Stauber and Rampton, 1995). The same argument can be made for blogs or other social media whose content is influenced by public relations actions. The legacy and digital media are free to disclose who influenced their content but often do not. Often it is a function of the process rather than an overt conspiracy.

Whether intentional or unintentional, there are times when the biases in public relations messages are masked in some way. We cannot turn to any single or collection of professional public relations associations to address this problem. They lack the power and reach to be effective. We feel that a more viable option to protect message consumers and society is public relations literacy. People need to be equipped with tools to help them identify the biases in public relations messages, the protecting aspect of public relations literacy. By revealing hidden biases, public relations literacy helps to create more empowered message consumers.

In addition to the ‘decoding’ function of public relations literacy, we believe the empowerment approach to public relations literacy must address the role of public relations in a democratic society. By de-mystifying the practice of public relations as a form of influence, public relations literacy can enable people to create public relations strategies and tactics to pursue goals that contribute to civil society. Milhailidis (2008) synthesizes Masterman’s (1985) work by arguing that media literacy would enhance people’s ‘ability to intelligently use media for personal gains, but also further strengthen their values and beliefs about democracy. In this way, the necessary conversations and discussions about political, social, economic, and cultural issues would be knowledgeable, diverse, and progressive’ (2008: 2). Developing public relations competency is an important step toward contributing to the marketplace of ideas.

The road to public relations literacy is paved with knowledge, skills, and motivation

Public relations literacy should be applicable to a range of issues and activities within the practice of public relations, including activism, media relations, social marketing, reputation management, corporate social responsibility, issues management and public diplomacy. The concept of public relations literacy also should be sensitive to cultural differences that affect messaging, including access to media as well as the government’s relationship to society and to business. . This section presents a basic discussion of the curriculum for public relations literacy and the role motivation plays in public relations literacy.

Curriculum for public relations literacy

The development of the concept of public relations literacy is in its infancy. Coombs and Holladay (2010) have proposed basic questions that provide a foundation for public relations literacy. Although we can use these questions as the basis for building a curriculum for public relations literacy, we need a more specific framework to guide potential educators.

The public relations literacy program is predicated on developing and refining critical thinking skills applied to the analysis and creation of public relations messages. The framework needs to capture the breadth of the public relations practice and address specific message factors to be functional. We envision a curriculum built around three dimensions and two applications forming a 3 × 2 grid illustrated in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Public relations literacy curriculum matrix.

Categories	Application
	Protecting	Empowering
Operational
Tactical
Strategic

The three dimensions are operational, tactical and strategic. The two dimensions are protecting and empowering.

Dimensions

The operational dimension examines public relations as a set of practices designed to influence behavior. Note the focus on influence does provide a chance to include critical theory in the curriculum. The operational dimension examines the dynamics of key public relations functions. We have been using the term ‘public relations messages’ to denote the visible materials that individuals might consume. Public relations messages are part of a strategic process intended to support some larger public relations action. For instance, a website discussing the benefits of tanning can be part of a larger effort designed to prevent the regulation of the indoor tanning industry – companies that utilize tanning beds. On its website, the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) claims it was founded to ‘protect the freedom of individuals to acquire a suntan, via natural or artificial light’ (ITA, n.d.). This one message is part of a larger effort designed to benefit the indoor tanning industry.

One reason public relations is difficult to identify is that it occurs across a wide array of contexts. This is also why public relations is so difficult to define. Public relations involves a set of functions, not just one function. What these functions share is a strategic emphasis – the functions seek to achieve specific objectives. Understanding the strategic nature of public relation process provides a rough guide for those consumers who would like to become producers of public relations actions. The operational dimension of public relations literacy seeks to articulate the primary functions of public relations. By functions we mean the various strategic purposes of public relations including media relations, social marketing, risk communication, reputation management, issues management, crisis communication and corporate. Consumers must recognize that public relations can appear in many forms depending upon the function being pursued. Moreover, consumers should understand they can pursue a variety of functions when they choose to become producers of public relations actions.

Media relations would cover both legacy and digital media. Legacy media would review how public relations seeks to influence (frame) the content of news stories. Media literacy helps people to understand that the news media frame events by how and what information they present in a story (Ognyanova, 2010). Public relations is a part of that framing when practitioners seek to influence the content and presentation of news stories. Again, critics of public relations are upset that video news releases are aired unedited as news stories. The public relations people directly control the content and frame when their message is unfiltered by media gatekeepers. Digital media is the source of ‘hot’ channels for public relations. Various techniques are used in efforts to frame how messages appearing in various social media channels describe an organization, a product or an issue. Practitioners are trying to influence the content and frames of social media messages such as blogs, Facebook posts, and Tweets. In the USA, bloggers must disclose if a company has compensated the blogger in some way, such as paying a fee or providing products (Singel, 2009). This regulation acknowledges public relations efforts to influence social media content and frames.

Social marketing involves pro-social messages designed to improve people’s lives and/or society in some way. An example would be efforts to prevent traffic accidents caused by texting while driving. Social marketing has a clear persuasive component but that can result in a less critical analysis of the messages (Dutta-Bergman, 2005). The strategic focus is on improving people’s lives in some way. Government agencies, NGOs and even corporations are active in social marketing. Reputation management involves efforts designed to understand and to shape how people perceive an organization (Rindova and Fombrun, 1999). There is a strong corporate focus to reputation management though the ideas can be applied to NGOs and even countries. The strategic focus is on creating more positive perceptions of the organization among key stakeholders. An example would be Dow Chemical’s website, which discusses the various ways that Dow products benefit society (Dow, 2013).

Issues management represents organized efforts designed to influence public policy decisions such as regulation or legislation. The earlier example for the indoor tanning industry was part of a larger effort to prevent regulation of that industry. The strategic focus is on creating policy decisions that are either favorable or the least harmful for a particular group’s interests. Both corporations and activists are very active in issues management. Risk communication is a dialogue between risk creators and risk bearers about the risks that bind the two sides together (Palenchar, 2005). The risk creators are primarily organizations such as chemical companies. The strategic focus for risk creators is for risk bearers to tolerate the risk. The strategic focus for risk bearers is to have their concerns heard and addressed in some way by the risk creator (Palenchar and Heath, 2006). Often times risk communication is reduced to perceptions of how bad the risk might be. For instance, chemical companies argue that Bisphenol A (BPA), a component in plastic, is safe for consumers. There are activist groups that counter that BPA is dangerous and should not be used in any food or beverage containers (Paul, 2008). Eventually the fate of BPA resides in who stakeholders believe in this risk communication situation.

Crisis communication involves the words and actions taken by organizations in a crisis to reduce negative perceptions of and reactions to the crisis event and/or the organization in crisis. Crises are negative events and threaten to damage the organization’s reputation, generate anger among stakeholders, and decrease supportive behaviors from stakeholders. The strategic focus of crisis communication is to protect the organization’s reputation, to reduce anger and to prevent stakeholders from reducing supportive behaviors such as purchase intention (Coombs, 2012). Consider a food producer who has a product that contains E. coli. The organization recalls the product, apologizes for any harm, and explains how it is working to prevent a repeat of the problem. The recall and apology seek to reduce anger towards and lessen reputational damage inflicted on the organization. The corrective action seeks to reassure consumers and protect purchase intentions. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) represents voluntary actions designed to reduce an organization’s negative effects and increase its positive effects on society (Werther and Chandler, 2006). Public relations is used to help identify social concerns that are relevant to stakeholders and to communicate the organization’s CSR efforts to stakeholders. The strategic focus for organizations is the financial benefits that can accrue from CSR. The strategic focus for activists is improving society in some way through a combination of reducing negative effects and increasing positive effects from corporate actions. An example would be an organization donating mosquito netting to countries in Africa for the purchase of certain products. The company’s reputation improves because it cares about society and sales should increase because customers want to help others. The residents in the African countries benefit because diseases caused by mosquitoes will be reduced through the increased use of mosquito netting.

The operational dimension details each of the primary functions of publics. The emphasis on strategic nature of the functions paves the way for the discussion of the tactical and strategic dimensions The five core questions Coombs and Holladay (2010) recommend for public literacy are applied to critique the messages created for the public relations functions. Risk communication and crisis communication are used to illustrate how the functions might be presented.

Risk communication messages appear in a wide array of communication channels (the medium through which a message is transmitted) including websites, blogs, town hall meetings, corporate advertising, emails and news stories. Peter Sandman, a noted risk expert and consultant, believes risk is a function of hazard (quantifiable likelihood and consequences of a risk) coupled with outrage (all other elements people relate to risk). Control, the ability of a person to mitigate the risk, is one of Sandman’s outrage factors. Sandman’s nine main outrage factors are presented in Table 2. Risk communication often is about controlling the outrage. There are times when people ignore an important risk so outrage has to be increased. At other times the risk is overstated and risk communication seeks to reduce the outrage (Sandman, 1998, 2003).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Nine key outrage factors from Peter Sandman (1998).

1. Voluntariness: individuals are more accepting of risks they are exposed to voluntarily while coerced risk created outrage.

2. Control: individuals experience less outrage when they feel they have some ability to mitigate the effects of the risk.

3. Fairness: individuals feel greater outrage when they suffer greater risks but not greater benefits than others.

4. Process: individuals feel greater outrage when they are not consulted by risk creators.

5. Morality: individuals reject framing risk as acceptable or in terms of cost–risk tradeoffs.

6. Familiarity: individuals feel less outrage for a familiar risk than for a new risk.

7. Memorability: individuals feel more outrage when they easily imagine and remember the risk.

8. Dread: individuals feel more outrage when the dread aspect of the risk increases.

9. Diffusion of time and space: individuals feel greater outrage when the risk affects clusters of people as opposed to being widely dispersed among the population (Sandman, 2006).

We can translate Sandman’s work into two basic risk communication messages: (1) the need to increase the perceived danger of the risk and (2) the need to decrease the danger of the perceived risk. When a person encounters a message that either promotes or downplays a risk, they need to ask the following questions:

Who created this risk communication message? Finding the source is the first step in identifying a possible bias.

Why did the source create the message? This question moves to an examination of bias. Consider what the source can benefit or whether it can be harmed by the risk. Is the source trying to realize gain or prevent a loss? The idea is to identify what is being advocated in the public relations action.

Who else stands to gain or lose from the perceived risk? This question explores the other interests that may be at work. Consider who else has a stake in the risk and why.

Who is the intended audience for the risk communication message? This question examines who the target is to illustrate further bias. Is there a reason why the specific target audience was chosen? What is the target’s stake in the issue? Does the risk communication help or hinder this stake? The risk communication message may work against the interests of its target. Message consumers should also determine if different messages are being sent to different targets and, if so, why this differentiation is occurring.

Whose voices are heard in and are absent from the risk communication message? This question explores whether more than one view point is acknowledged in the message. Do we hear from more than one side? Refer back to question 3 and determine whose interests are not represented. The message consumer should seek out information from the missing voices to get a more rounded view of the risk communication situation.

We can add to this an examination of the utilization of any outrage factors. Did the outrage factors present the risk fairly or was it used to inflate feelings of outrage?

Crisis messages can appear in nearly any communication channel including YouTube videos, news stories, websites, news releases, public statements, press conferences, micro-blogging, blogs and Facebook posts. Crisis communication seeks to protect public safety and to protect organizational assets. Public safety involves telling stakeholders how to protect themselves physically from a crisis (instructing information) and to help them cope psychologically with a crisis (adjusting information) (Sturges, 1995). After public safety is addressed, crisis communication will seek to protect the organization’s reputation, reduce anger and maintain supportive relationships. Crisis response strategies, what managers say and do after a crisis, are used to protect organizational assets (Coombs, 2007). Table 3 lists the primary crisis response strategies and their utility in protecting organizational assets.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Crisis Response Strategies.

Strategies that serve to separate the organization from any crisis responsibility

1. Simple denial: management claims the organization has no connection to the crisis

2. Shift the blame: management blames some other person or group for the crisis

Strategies that serve to minimize crisis responsibility

1. Accidental: management claims they did not intended for anything bad to happen

2. Good intentions: management claims the initial actions were well intended but when wrong in some way

3. Defeasibility: management claims it could not control the events surrounding the crisis

Strategies that server to reduce the offensiveness of a crisis

1. Bolstering: management reminds people of the organization’s past good works.

2. Minimization: management claims there is very little damage created by the crisis

Strategies designed to help crisis victims and are perceived as taking responsibility

1. Compensation: management gives victims money or goods

2. Apology: management takes responsibility for the crisis, expresses, regret, and asks for forgiveness (Coombs, 2012)

When a person encounters crisis response strategies delivered by the organization in crisis, they need to ask the following questions:

Who created this crisis communication message? In most cases, the organization clearly identifies itself as the crisis communicator (source) because managers are trying to take control of the situation (Barton, 2001). However, other voices can emerge as crisis managers (Frandsen and Johansen, 2010). The source of these other crisis messages must be located in order to assess bias.

How does the organization or other crisis communicators benefit from using this crisis response strategy? This question examines what outcomes are associated with specific crisis response strategies and can reveal the logic behind the choices.

Who else stands to gain or lose in the crisis? The attention should focus on the victims and how their needs are considered beyond safety and reassurance. Also consider how the organization or the entire industry might be affected if the crisis is not handled quickly. Continued attention to the cause of a crisis can result in new regulations or laws (Coombs, 2012). Has the cause been identified and addressed in a systematic fashion or is it a simple, one-time fix. In the long run, effective crisis management might hide a problem with a quick fix. The underlying problem is permitted to fester and additional crises may happen in the future.

Who is the intended audience for the crisis response strategies? Again, the target is another means to explore bias. Is the response helping victims or simply reassuring the government and other non-victims that everything is now okay? Reassurance would suggest little concern for victims and a desire to protect organizational assets.

Whose voices are heard and absent from the crisis response strategies? Do we hear from just the organization or are others represented in the messages? Do we hear from victims or the government officials investigating the organization? Again, additional sources should be sought if a balanced set of voices is not present in the messages.

The tactical dimension focuses on identifying and evaluating information. The emphasis would be on assessing the credibility and validity of information and its sources. People should determine the motives behind a message and have frameworks to help them assess the validity of information and credibility of sources. For instance, how do you evaluate messages from a blog? Readers need to find information about the blog writer that can be found on the blog and from other sources. For instance, what information about the public relations action is available from other sources and, if available, how does this compare to information provided by watchdog groups? The message consumer must determine whether any credible groups are critical or support of the message. If groups are critical, what is the basis for that criticism? The evidence provided to support the message must be evaluated. Can the reader locate the original sources cited for evidence or any other sources that support or refute the key points? If messages lack transparency, what motives may be served?

The strategic dimension examines the persuasive strategies utilized in advocacy and specialized communication strategies found in some of the public relations functions. This section would discuss the strategies, how to identify each strategy, and examples of appropriate and inappropriate uses of the strategies. Persuasive strategies are the base because of public relation’s dependence on influence across functions. The Media Literacy Project has identified 40 separate persuasive strategies. The persuasive strategies are divided into basic, intermediate, and advanced (Language of Persuasion, n.d). Table 4 provides a list of the persuasion strategies developed by the Media Literacy Project. Persuasion is a critical strategic tool in public relations, therefore it warrants specific attention in public relations literacy.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Public relations literacy project persuasion strategies.

Basic strategies

Association

Bandwagon

Beautiful people

Bribery

Celebrities

Experts

Explicit claims

Fear

Humor

Intensity

Maybe

Plain fold

Repetition

Testimonials

Warm & fuzzy

Intermediate strategies

The big lie

Charisma

Euphemism

Extrapolation

Flattery

Glittering generalities

Name calling

New

Nostalgia

Rhetorical questions

Scientific evidence

Simple solution

Slippery slope

Symbols

Advanced strategies

Ad hominen

Analogy

Card stacking

Cause vs. correlation

Denial

Diversion

Group dynamics

Majority belief

Scapegoating

Straw man

Timing

But there are more than just the basic persuasion strategies available to those crafting public relations messages. The various public relations functions frequently have specific sets of strategies. For instance, risk communication has the outrage factors and crisis communication has the crisis response strategies. The outrage factors, listed in Table 2, can be examined to determine whether the risk has been sensationalized and possibly exaggerated for persuasive effect. The crisis response strategies in Table 3 can indicate whether corporate or public interests are being served in the crisis communication. Denial seeks to absolve the organization of all responsibility. Did the organization bear some responsibility when it was engaged in denial? If so, this is a serious ethical breech. When they are available, specific strategies from a public relations function would be included in the strategies dimension section of the curriculum plan.

Once the analysis is completed, the message consumer must decide how to react to the message. Should the message consumer do what is asked, counter the message, or ignore it? When the message consumers decide to counter messages, they become message producers. Message producers must decide how they can use public relations to counter the message. Key questions are ‘What specific public relations strategies and tactics could I enact to advocate for my concerns?’ and ‘How can I ensure my messages are transparent?’

Conclusion

We have advocated for the further development of the concept of public relations literacy because of numerous potential benefits to consumers and democratic society. It represents the beginning of a program of work designed to encourage critical thinking about the practice of public relations. As Malmelin (2010) did when advocating for advertising literacy, we contend that public relations literacy should be considered a form of media literacy in its own right. Unlike paid advertising, the sources of public relations efforts are often obscured and more difficult to identify. It is important to empower consumers by equipping them with the knowledge and evaluation tools needed to identify the good and bad in the practice of public relations. We believe public relations literacy is important to individuals who seek to protect and to promote their own self-interests and to a society that values transparent democratic processes. Consumers bear a responsibility in holding organizations accountable for their actions.

We also hope the concept of public relations literacy encourages practitioners and scholars to interrogate the practice of public relations – it raises issues that may stimulate discussion among practitioners and scholars. We believe public relations literacy holds promise as a new approach to addressing old concerns about the transparency of public relations advocacy, its effects on individuals and society, and its potential to enhance civic engagement and participation.