Privatizing Public Opinion (and “Publictizing” Private Opinion)

Legions of books, articles, feature stories, and editorials have decried the influence that large companies' version of the free market system has on the public opinion of the United States. The proposition that runs through this analysis is that corporate industry has the dollars and incentive to create a public opinion that privileges the role and interests of large companies in society. One of the reasons critics and supporters make this connection is the legion of statements by public relations practitioners and theorists that feature the role of public opinion formation as the essence of public relations and advertising—the outcome of corporate communication.

Out of this discussion arose the concept of privatizing public opinion. On this topic, Michael J. Sproule reasoned: “Organizations try to privatize public space by privatizing public opinions; this is, skillfully (one-sidedly) turning opinion in directions favorable to the corporation” (1989, p. 264). Endless pounding of the public collective mentality by messages supplied by deep-pocket corporations has led members of the public to believe that what is good for industry is good for America. One recalls one of the highlights of American popular culture: “What is good for General Motors is good for America.”

In a sense, this view of public opinion formation opts for what can be called a propaganda approach to the mass communication of messages that shape any society's collective mentality. This line of reasoning assumes that the meaning of society is skewed to the advantage of industry, the private sector against the larger interests of the people of society. What is deemed to be good commercially for industry is good for Americans. Thus, for instance, Detroit automobile manufacturers used publicity and promotion to create a culture of new car ownership. Each fall, with great fanfare, the new models would roll off the design and assembly lines. The new season of automobiles was headline news. It was featured in the newsreels at movie theaters and sufficiently important to Life magazine that an entire issue would be devoted to the display of status and freedom in the shape of the latest models. These were carefully positioned and differentiated so that they demarked class structure. Of even greater relevance, the “true American” bought a new car each year—to have the latest model to show status and patriotism. Less trendy or affluent Americans were supposed to buy a new car at least every three years. Americans owed their identity—and paycheck—to Detroit. It was the American way. Thus, public opinion was formed through advertising and public relations to the benefit of the automobile industry. Public opinion had been privatized.

The experience of people and their love for automobiles were played out, according to the critics of privatizing public opinion, by industry after industry. The citizen consumer was held hostage to the whims and dictates of what was thought to be right, proper, and patriotic by large industry. What industry did was right. To criticize industry was just un-American, perhaps anti-American and even communistic. It attacked the American way of life. Industry knew best. It defined a lifestyle and way of life that was the envy of the world.

...