Post #3 (i): Reading Response on Chapter Two (Chia and Synnott, 2009).

Chapter 2: Trends and Developments

The reading this week on Chapter Two of our text highlighted the various trends as identified by the authors that are shaping the PR profession (there is even debate about calling it a profession) today. The main focus points come from Harris and Fleisher (2005, as cited in Chia & Synnott, 2009), as well as Report of the Commission on Public Relations Education (2006). 

Harris and Fleisher contend that it is now industry standard for comapnies to be open and transparent when dealing with the public. Due to increasing education and knowledge, we have become better informed and thus demand accountability from all sorts of organisations, such as the corporation, governments, even charities. Two PR disasters, both  results of external efforts to pressure governments and a non-profit organisation to be more accountable, come to mind.

Firstly, the release of diplomatic cables, from routine traffic to highly classified exchanges by whistle-blower website WikiLeaks constituted a major crisis for many governments, especially that of the United States. Singapore was not spared as well, with our Minister Mentor's remarks on Kim Jong-il among those released, prompting our Ministry of Foreign affairs to express concern over the "damaging action" (Channel NewsAsia, 2010). In a bid to force accountability on the United States government, WikiLeaks has likely prompted many diplomats to practice self-censorship in their dealings with other nations, not to mention chilling nation-to-nation ties, in addition to causing the United States government a huge headache.

The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) also suffered a blow to its image back in 2005 when the media exposed its shady dealings at top level. Following that, the profile of NKF reduced significantly for a few years, and only in the recent years has it slowly returned and rebuilt its image, with a housewife recently donating $4.7 million to it (The Straits Times, 2011). PR was likely instrumental in bringing NKF down and also in its return to good graces, as evidenced by the article mentioned (could have been a media release, yes?). Thus, in demanding accountability, we as PR practitioners need to help our organisations become transparent to the public which is also related to ethical practice.

The Commission's report dealt more with issues in educating PR practitioners. The key take-aways from the report's findings (Chia & Synnott, 2009) are that it spans worldwide now and there is a high priority to be culturally sensitive. This reminds me of what we learnt in our module on Managing the Organisation (IRHR1001) in which cultural sensitivity was also mentioned as a key aspect for managers. I suppose then that this is actually a valuable skill that one should have regardless of field.

Apart from this, the report also mentioned the need to look inwards. Internal communication is something I haven't been focusing on much, but it does make sense that it is an integral part of PR that practitioners should be educated on. Each organisation has its own pecularities, its own culture and "rituals", and it is necessary for the PR person to understand them as well so as to assist in managing crises internally, and also in demonstrating transparency and accountability (mentioned before). If even the employee does not know what the organisation's business plans and procedures are, then how would its image in the eyes of the public be? If whatever the senior management did was never made known to the rank and file, would they have faith in their leaders?

This chapter also discusses formal recognition of PR as a profession. I agree with the stand mentioned in the text that accreditation should indicate that the PR practitioner is qualified and has been trained by recognised institutions/authorities/specialists in this field. It should be managed and monitored properly otherwise there would be no meaning and value to it. Proper accreditation is like a mark of trust and Chia and Synnott (2009) have described the fact that an increasing number of employers preferring to employ accredited PR practitioners. This would definitely raise the profile of the field of PR, if not settling the argument that it is a profession outright (the field is getting more in-depth, and has prescribed standards of training and education, overseen by governing bodies, so why is not a profession?).

This ends the first part of the third post.