Public Interest

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

Considerations of what constitutes the public interest are 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 state that public relations should be practiced in the public interest. The Public Relations Society's Code of Ethics says, in part, “We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest” (Public Relations Society of America, 2000, n.p.). Likewise, textbooks on public relations emphasize that the public relations profession shares with its clients a social responsibility. In fact, the “public interest, not personal reward, should be the primary consideration,” according to This Is PR (Newsom, Turk, & Kruckeberg, 2000, p. 3).

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.

Earl Newsom quoted Walter Lippmann's somewhat unsatisfying definition of public interest, “the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently” (1971, p. 12).

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. Carried toward what can be called the propagandistic practice of public relations, a professional can aspire to shape attitudes to the interest of the client. Such efforts may be asymmetrical and work against the challenge of building mutually beneficial relationships.

Newsom, Ramsey, and Carell's 1992 survey of public relations practitioners revealed that practitioners feel responsible first to the client, second to the client's relevant publics, third to themselves, fourth to the public at large, and fifth to the media. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Statement of Professional Values codifies that perception of responsibility: “We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent.”

D. L. Martinson (1995, 2000) focused on the repetition of day-to-day actions and decisions as the source of practice in the public interest. Repeated truth telling will become habit and serves the public interest, he said. He further advised that practitioners avoid excess in advocating for a client when the client's interests are in conflict with those of society. Loyalty to a client does not require violation of the rights of others.

Thomas H. Bivins (1993) questioned whether it is even possible for a public relations practitioner to discharge his or her duty as an advocate for a client while at the same time equally serving the public interest. He concluded that this responsibility may best reside at the macro level, the level of the profession, rather than at the level of the individual. Yet, every practitioner knows that the devil is often in the detail. That means that at the broadest level it is easy to understand and serve the public interest. But when a fact needs to be presented, its presentation can raise ethical questions, as can the word choice that accompanies the fact.

...