ABSTRACT

W h y have public relations practitioners generally been depicted as low-life liars? Why has a comment such as this been so common: "PR is dangerous. Publicists do not often lie, but telling half the truth is an integral part of their business, and stretching the truth is not uncommon” (Sandman, Rubin, & Sachsman, 1976, p. 367)? Or this: "Public relations works behind the scenes; occasionally the hand of the PR man can be seen shifting some bulky fact out of sight, but usually the public relations practitioner stands at the other end of a long rope which winds around several pulleys before it reaches the object of his invisible tugging” (Mayer, 1958, p. 123). Why have practitioners regularly been labeled “high-paid errand boys and buffers for management,” "tools of the top brass,” “hucksters,” "parrots,” “awed by the majesty of their organization charts,” “desperate,” "impotent, eva­ sive, egomaniacal, and lying” (Henry, 1972, pp. 8 9 -9 0 )? (And those are just the comments from the fans of public relations!)

Some public relations practitioners have argued that the root cause of such

complaints is financial envy, particularly that of lower-paid newspaper folk. There is undoubtedly some truth in that defense, yet contempt for public relations goes far beyond the ranks of potentially jealous journalists. Other practitioners have cited ignorance on the part of the public as to what public relations men and women actually do all day. There may be some truth in that claim too, yet the Supreme Court, which operates with as much secrecy as some public relations departments, is generally revered, while the “PR man” has been equated ethically with that lowly cousin of the chief justice, the local ambulance-chaser.