Another Night
Tommorrow is my first night to attend a class in PR Theory! I'm excited but I feel like I have to shine because PR is my area of study. That and plus my advisor is teaching it.
I've gone through the readings and this is what I think. The first article takes a look at perspectives on PR history. I finally realized that this article is not an overview of PR history but some different views of its history. I understand that Hiebert's perspective outlines how PR is seen as a way to reinforce democracy. The safety of democracy depends on people making sound judgements and these judgements come from information which is supplied by PR efforts. I genuinely agree with this. The focus here is PR as a way to get information to the public. In a large way this is one aspect of public relations. I think this perspective describes journalism more than public relations because it does not take into account the relationship and on going communication with a specialized audience or stakeholders. Under this perspective the focus is more on freedom of the press and free speech rather than the consequence of that speech on a particular audience. I agree with it, I just believe that it is limited.
I am having trouble distinguishing the difference between Pimpott and Tedlow's perspective. Both emphasize that PR's function to adapt and address a changing environment in political, economic, and social spheres. Then they bring the idea that PR is a way for an organization to increase efficiency and productivity. Both marginally support democracy although neither is built upon the ideological principle. I see little difference and would like for someone to clarify that to me.
Then we get into the postmodern views. Smythe sees PR as influencing the agenda of free-lunch. He talks about how the public is aware that big businesses view them as commodities to be advertised to and that it is no longer about mutual understanding. Lastly Olasky sees the work of Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays as trying to influence socialism.
That is all I feel like saying on that.
In recent news Citigroup moves forward on its $45 million jet project saying that it would cost them millions to end the project. Did I mention that the government provided a $50 million bail out. In their defense, they began this project 2 years ago so it is a bit late to end it depending on how far along they are. But still it is hard understand why they need a jet in the first place and why this money could not be spent on bonuses or benefits for its employees. I wonder how much extra it would cost them to end the project probably not nearly as much as they have been bailed out. There is seriously a lack of trust in big business now a days. PR, where are you all. Where is the CSR and where are the ethics? Truth be told from an agency stand point, the client does not have to inform them of their projects. On the client side, no one had to inform the communications manager of what the upper level executives were doing.
Read a little more in American Aparthied. Today's lesson was how because of segregation poor black areas remain increasingly poverty stricken. Whereas the Truly Disadvantaged speaks of how the out migration of the black middle class contributed to the plight of the urban poor, this book argues how residential segregation made it so that blacks are even more isolated. It gave senarios such as how as blacks move into areas whites move out. Because the blacks are paying less in rent the landlord is less obligated to invest in the up keep, which leads to a disinvestment in the community. Another example was how unlike other racial groups when blacks move out instead of other ethnic groups moving in more blacks move in. Cities with high concentration of blacks persisted that way decades prior.
My response to this is why? Just because blacks move in doesn't always mean a disinvestment in the community. I see it take place but this is not true for every case. For an extreme number of cases but let's have some hope. I get how residential segregation keeps blacks out of certain areas and keeps them confined to others, which tend to be the most isolated from other groups and lacking in major resources. It's crazy. The question is institutional accountability. There never was a structure to keep organizations accountable for their discriminatory practices whether covert or overt.
I've gone through the readings and this is what I think. The first article takes a look at perspectives on PR history. I finally realized that this article is not an overview of PR history but some different views of its history. I understand that Hiebert's perspective outlines how PR is seen as a way to reinforce democracy. The safety of democracy depends on people making sound judgements and these judgements come from information which is supplied by PR efforts. I genuinely agree with this. The focus here is PR as a way to get information to the public. In a large way this is one aspect of public relations. I think this perspective describes journalism more than public relations because it does not take into account the relationship and on going communication with a specialized audience or stakeholders. Under this perspective the focus is more on freedom of the press and free speech rather than the consequence of that speech on a particular audience. I agree with it, I just believe that it is limited.
I am having trouble distinguishing the difference between Pimpott and Tedlow's perspective. Both emphasize that PR's function to adapt and address a changing environment in political, economic, and social spheres. Then they bring the idea that PR is a way for an organization to increase efficiency and productivity. Both marginally support democracy although neither is built upon the ideological principle. I see little difference and would like for someone to clarify that to me.
Then we get into the postmodern views. Smythe sees PR as influencing the agenda of free-lunch. He talks about how the public is aware that big businesses view them as commodities to be advertised to and that it is no longer about mutual understanding. Lastly Olasky sees the work of Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays as trying to influence socialism.
That is all I feel like saying on that.
In recent news Citigroup moves forward on its $45 million jet project saying that it would cost them millions to end the project. Did I mention that the government provided a $50 million bail out. In their defense, they began this project 2 years ago so it is a bit late to end it depending on how far along they are. But still it is hard understand why they need a jet in the first place and why this money could not be spent on bonuses or benefits for its employees. I wonder how much extra it would cost them to end the project probably not nearly as much as they have been bailed out. There is seriously a lack of trust in big business now a days. PR, where are you all. Where is the CSR and where are the ethics? Truth be told from an agency stand point, the client does not have to inform them of their projects. On the client side, no one had to inform the communications manager of what the upper level executives were doing.
Read a little more in American Aparthied. Today's lesson was how because of segregation poor black areas remain increasingly poverty stricken. Whereas the Truly Disadvantaged speaks of how the out migration of the black middle class contributed to the plight of the urban poor, this book argues how residential segregation made it so that blacks are even more isolated. It gave senarios such as how as blacks move into areas whites move out. Because the blacks are paying less in rent the landlord is less obligated to invest in the up keep, which leads to a disinvestment in the community. Another example was how unlike other racial groups when blacks move out instead of other ethnic groups moving in more blacks move in. Cities with high concentration of blacks persisted that way decades prior.
My response to this is why? Just because blacks move in doesn't always mean a disinvestment in the community. I see it take place but this is not true for every case. For an extreme number of cases but let's have some hope. I get how residential segregation keeps blacks out of certain areas and keeps them confined to others, which tend to be the most isolated from other groups and lacking in major resources. It's crazy. The question is institutional accountability. There never was a structure to keep organizations accountable for their discriminatory practices whether covert or overt.
Comments