Public Interest

Public relations practitioners have long realized that their practice could either serve the public interest or be at odds with it. Realizing that, they face two challenges. One is knowing what the public interest is and then knowing how to serve it.

Consideration of what constitutes the public interest is central to discussions of the role of public relations in society and continues to challenge those who craft and implement codes of professional practice. Actual and proposed codes of ethics for public relations practitioners suggest that public relations should be practiced in the public interest. The Preamble to the Public Relations Society of America's Code of Ethics says, in part, “The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is committed to ethical practices. The level of public trust PRSA members seek, as we serve the public good, means we have taken on a special obligation to operate ethically” (PRSA, 2012a). Likewise, textbooks on public relations emphasize that the public relations profession shares with its clients a social responsibility. “Public relations focuses on society in the broadest sense and should work in the [Page 717]greater interest of society rather than the narrow interests of the organizations it serves,” according to Doug Newsom, Judy Turk, and Dean Kruckeberg (2013, p. 15).

There is no argument that public relations should serve the public interest. The challenges arise in defining and describing public relations practice in the public interest. Has the definitional challenge become too much for the profession? The term public interest has all but disappeared from the indices of public relations textbooks, with the concept subsumed under social responsibility. Harold Burson, founder of Burson-Marsteller public relations, fears that the definition of public relations adopted via crowdsourcing in 2012 abandons action in the public interest. Defining public relations as “a strategic communications process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics” (PRSA, 2012b) emphasizes the daily communication activities that practitioners perform while deemphasizing public relations practitioners’ role in decision making, where public relations has traditionally served as the corporate conscience.

Burson says that public relations comprises just two components, and acting in the public interest is the first of them. Burson argues that those who choose careers in public relations “have an implied obligation to what we call the ‘public interest,’” which he defines simply as “to do what's best for society” (Burson, 2012).

Walter Lippmann defined the public interest as “what … [people] would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently” (1956, p. 40).

In contrast to the challenge to be disinterested, public relations professionals are not disinterested; they are partisan. This and the persuasive functions of public relations to crystallize, change, and activate attitudes seem in conflict with Lippmann's definition of the public interest. Nor is it always benevolent, as illustrated by public relations strategies to encourage tobacco consumption while concealing information about associated health hazards. Carried toward what can be called the propagandistic practice of public relations, a professional can aspire to shape attitudes toward the interests of the client. Such efforts may be asymmetrical and counter to the public interest.

...