I found the reading’s discussion of Grunig’s models to be the most interesting and the most influential in altering my perspective on public relations. I have always believed and to some extent still do believe that the function of mainstream public relations is to operate asymmetrically, propagating the biased information of organisations to the greater public. I did not really take into consideration that there were other models that operate in Public Relations. For example, simply just doing “anything to get attention for [an] organisation” seems not only simplistic but inefficient. I think that a company could lose a lot of respect if they were to just do whatever it takes to get a story or information out to the public (53 Johnston & Zawawi). Grunig’s model describes Public Relations model’s development, so it makes sense that it would move from the more primitive press agentry, to public information the second model. Public information is more accurate information given to the public. There is certainly less desperation in the attempt to get information out in the way Grunig describes it.
The last two model’s are more modern to me. While Grunig suggests that the two-way semmetric approach is the better, I believe that most of the public relations sectors still handle PR in a more asymmetric fashion. I feel bombarded with information everywhere I turn, and I feel I rarely if ever give back my personal opinion on a PR matter. Though Ideal I believe that PR has a long way to go to truly reach a symmetric approach.
2 comments:
I thought your point about the asymmetric approach was a very valid point. In fact, while reading I thought a very similar thing. It does seem a little too ideal to strive for a completely symmetric approach between a company and its publics. In fact, not only does it seem too ideal to me, it seems nearly impossible. If a company was truly symmetrical, every individual that consumed a product or idea would have an equal opportunity to give feedback. Unfortunatly, this seems to rarely be the case.
According to the text book "most people believe mainstream public relations is best described as operating asymmetrically" (54). You seem to be right in your belief that PR is not a purely symmetrical system. One thing I think you may have missed, however, is that Grunig was not saying companies are two-way symmetrical. In my opinion, he is rather suggesting it is something that companies and organizations should STRIVE for. It is certainly true that PR has a long way to go to reach a two-way symmetric approach, yet I suppose it is a very good thing to reach towards. If companies attempt two-way symmetry they reach towards a more fair, open, and knowledgeable public.
Overall, I really liked your comments, they are certainly things that I contemplated while reading chapter three this week!
Amanda-
Thanks for your comments. You are absolutely correct in that Grunig was merely suggesting that two way symmetrical communication is something to strive for rather than something that already is. Where we disagree is that while I believe the notion of two way symmetrical communication is idealistic I do not believe it is impossible. What makes it a struggle and seem impossible is humanity's illusion of separateness. This breeds dishonesty, among other things, which in turn has given rise to many detrimental practices carried out by individuals and organisations alike.
Post a Comment