Governments Public Relations.

Professor of public relations and applied communications Jacquie L'Etang

(2009) defines public relations as "the occupation held responsible for the
'management'

or

improvement

of

organizational

relationships

and

reputation". Public relations as a standalone term evokes media relations

practices that are common in the business world (L'Etang, 2009, and
Signitzer & Wamswer,). In an increasingly-globalized world, public relations
has proven to be a valuable practice to understand, respect and engage in
business relationships with other countries. Just a few of the issues that
public

relations

can

address

include

stakeholder

relations,

risk

communication and corporate social responsibility.

When forming relationships with clients both domestically and
internationally, power disparities can exist at the political, economic,
cultural and religious levels. For instance, prior to social engagement with
a foreign country, public relations practitioners can gain knowledge about
a country's culture just by looking at its views on the role of media
freedom. When PR practitioners influence these levels, they can wield the
power to influence the target public themselves (L'Etang, 2009).
Although public relations literature often has a corporate bias that
does not discuss political ramifications in detail, one aspect that overlaps
among them are the two types of public that they can attract. Active
publics, as their name suggests are highly-participatory and often engage
in informed dialogue with their leaders. Of course, for an active public to
be present, media freedom should not only be allowed, but encouraged.
Conversely, passive publics are spectators that are vulnerable to charisma
and manipulation. As such, emotion takes precedence over logic in
arguments.
Further, there are two types of public relations types: power-based
and value-based. While neither is mutually exclusive, each has distinct
characteristics of their own. Power-based PR emphasizes showing the
brute force of one party in the wake of an attack. This view of PR stands in
stark contrast to how most people would associate PR with an ethical
profession. An example of power-based PR would include the September

11, 2001 terrorist attacks. From the point of view of Osama bin Laden and
his terrorist network, the attacks proved to strike paralyzing fear in the
minds of the American consciousness. These attacks were reactionary, as
opposed to discriminatory in nature, because al-Qaeda used violence to
achieve their goals instead of going through more ethical channels, such
as diplomacy (Richards, 2004).
Value-based PR is different than power-based PR because it's main
goal is about "demonstrating the client's adherence or association with
certain values or standard" (Richards, 2004). Unlike power-based PR, value
based PR's ethics is what most people would associate with mainstream
PR. Using the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as an example, it can
be argued that the U.S. practiced value-based PR after the attacks. Rather
than launching an unwarranted, illegal counterattack against al-Qaeda,
the U.S. media and PR practitioners used the weeks following the attacks
as a way to show America's power, albeit in a way antithetical to powerbased PR. The world saw America's strength amid tragedy, using images
such as of firefighters clearing the rubble, the military fighting against alQaeda and the completion of One World Trade Center.
Richards (2004) has argued that the developments of digital
technologies has fused together entertainment and marketing in the mass
media, thereby stupefying targeted audiences with awe at technological
sophistication and commercial power. While this may be the case with
passive

publics,

active

publics

can

actually

benefit

from

the technology and commercialization of digital media. Compared to

previous decades, television and radio were less participatory for active
and passive publics alike. Now, digital media has actually allowed nearly
every public with free-flowing media to become more participatory than
ever, thanks to forums, blogs, message boards, and the like. With target
audience feedback, public relations practitioners actually have more data
to work with to make their message the most effective it can be.

Public Diplomacy

Public

diplomacy

governments.

As

concerns
a

the

standalone

negotiation
term,

public

of

issues

diplomacy

between
has

non-

controversial connotations thanks to discourse theory, as it evokes a sense

of understanding between two or more competing parties (Gregory,
2005,). Upon the passage of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961, Senator J.
William Fulbright succinctly defined public diplomacy's non-controversial
nature
However, as a counter-argument, history may play a role in
antagonizing conflicts. For instance, the use of public diplomacy has seen
mixed results in the Israel-Palestine conflict because of the longstanding
disagreement on which country lays claims to which parts of theMiddle
East. Since public diplomacy is carried out for interest and value reasons,
disagreements may still linger among parties that have not resolved their
conflicts.
Much like public relations, public diplomacy entails a range of
promotional and persuasive strategies working in collaboration with media
relations (L'Etang, 2009).
Robert Art (2009) believed that people were motivated to come to
the bargaining table because, if an agreement was not reached, it would
play into their fears of failure (p. 4). The ultimate goal for public diplomacy
is to foster dialogue towards solving a variety of governmental goals. In
addition to formal meeting talks between government officials, several
different types of examples exist, including press interviews and staff
exchange programs.
Among academics, public diplomacy has been relabeled and
redefined several times during the past few decades. Tuch (1990) believed
that public diplomacy is a governments process of communicating with
foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding for its nations
ideas and ideals, its institutions and cultures, as well as its national goals
and current policies". This definition suggests that there are a broad array
of strategies for a home country to increase positive dialogue. In contrast,
Malone's (1988) ideal of public diplomacy is that of influencing the
behavior of a foreign government by influencing the attitudes of its

citizens. Malone's definition is more specific than Tuch's because it

implies that public diplomacy works by influencing behavior of citizens, as
opposed to that country's elected officials. George (2009) takes this a step
further and includes the term coercive diplomacy to "back one's demand
on an adversary with a threat of punishment for noncompliance that he
will consider credible and potent enough to persuade him to comply with
the demand". By introducing a credible threat, George believes that public
diplomacy can force other countries to comply with demands.
To make matters even more complicated, some academics have
classified public diplomacy under the much-broader term of strategic
communication. This is not entirely surprising, as they serve very similar
purposes. Gregory (2005) sums up the similarities between the two terms
as: "used in response to threats and opportunities that achieve analytical
and strategic relevance as they relate to particular interests and values".
However, where the two terms differ are their theoretical and applied
histories. While public diplomacy can describe the activities of a few
civilian

agencies

(e.g.

the

Voice

of

America,

USIA),

strategic

communication has a rich academic literature derived from social science

scholarship. This scholarship, includes for instance, the analysis of political
candidate campaigns and activist non-state organizations.
Many different types of organizations conduct public diplomacy,
including

nations

(stateless

and

otherwise),

global

organizations

(corporations such as Adidas, as well as non-governmental organizations

like the Catholic Church) and international political organizations (such as
Greenpeace). Governments, for example, will conduct public diplomacy
within their own borders using nonpolitical activities, such as a sport.
Global corporations use public diplomacy to compete for the loyalty of
customers, shareholders and publics. NGOs use public diplomacy to gain
cultural expertise, including changing identities, alliances and the
heightened role of religion.
The formal definition of public diplomacy was influenced heavily by
Habermas'

theory

of

communicative

action,

which

is

defined

as

normatively-based, non-manipulative communication. Edward Said (1978)

argued that aesthetic and scholarly texts already had a "distribution of

geopolitical awareness". Michel Foucault's research on citizen power

differences likewise proved influential. Foucault (2001) as he argued the
need for public diplomacy when he laid out the two extremes of power
differences among people and their government:
A relationship of violence acts upon a body or upon things; it forces,
it bends, it breaks, it destroys, or it closes off all possibilities. Its opposite
pole can only be passivity, and if it comes up against any resistance it has
no other option but to try to break it down. A power relationship, on the
other hand, can only be articulated on the basis of two elements that are
indispensible if it is really to be a power relationship: that 'the other' (the
one over whom power is exercised) is recognized and maintained to the
very end as a subject who acts; and that, faced with a relationship of
power, a whole field of responses, reactions, results, and possible
inventions may open up.
Public diplomacy takes into account the raw essence of power and
combines it with a passive sensibility to listen to opposing views and come
to a consensus. Not only does public diplomacy help to consider the views
of others, it also justifies to the people why a particular course of political
action aligns with the home country's long-term strategic goals (Signitzer
& Wamswer, 2005).
While public diplomacy may appears straightforward, states and nations
are not always attuned to the questions that public diplomacy poses.
These questions include: What is the concept of truth? What does it mean
to listen? Most importantly, however, what does it mean to remain open to
opposing ideas while simultaneously protecting national security?. One of
the most dramatic and recent U.S. public diplomacy failures occurred right
after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Political leaders paid scant
attention to public diplomacy in the wake of the attacks. The House of
Representatives passed the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002.
No counterpart measures were passed in the senate. That same
year, the Strategic Communication Policy Coordinating Committee formed,
with the goal of the committee as the "development of strategic
communications capabilities throughout the government (United States

Department of Defense, 2007). Although the White House Office of Global

Communications mandated an executive order in 2003 to "facilitate the
development of a strategy," a strategy never materialized and the office
was closed in 2005.
To increase the effectiveness of public diplomacy, institutional
shields, known as firewalls, are employed to protect "discourse principles
and imported norms in the activities of its competent elements". Firewalls
are often justified on three grounds: (1) through imported journalistic,
educational and cultural norms; (2) the need to separate public diplomacy
from covert and coercive instruments of statecraft and (3) they apply to
America's long and unsuccessful to prohibit by law the sharing of public
diplomacy materials with the United States. This raises more questions
than it answers, including: are military press briefings classified under
public affairs, public diplomacy, or a military information operation? Could
public diplomacy and strategic communication relate to non-state actors
or could it also relate to governments? Finally, as opposed to public
diplomacy being a subset of strategic communication, could the opposite
be true?.
Despite America's wealth and power, the U.S. does not have a monopoly
over public diplomacy because every country practices it. With charismatic
leaders (or accidental personalities) dominating the limelight in public
diplomacy proceedings, it may appear that public diplomacy can only be
accomplished by a few. Although these accidental personalities have the
influence to pass on cultural norms to future generations, public diplomacy
often cannot be accomplished by a single person. Rather, a collective of
different cultural informants are needed to make public diplomacy work.
Although globalization is an ideal to spread competing values amongst
other state and non-state actors, America's views of right and wrong may
be completely different in another.

Government Public Relations

Government public relations could be considered the idealized version of
public diplomacy, at least in the domestic context, because the
government is identifying and clarifying arguments with constituents so
they can make their own judgments. Ideally, government public relations
is used with honesty and sincerity because, as an "ideology factory,"
several competing ideas must be addressed by the government and
constituents alike. Thus, government public relations has to be treated
with the utmost care, as it can be used and misused. Government public
relations is even more distinctive than public relations or public diplomacy
because it specifically identifies the entity that is performing public
relations. In particular, government public relations is more specific than
public diplomacy for two reasons: (1) it is concentrated in a specific,
targeted area where the government has jurisdiction and (2) it implies that
the government may not be engaging in a two-way communicative,
problem solving process with another area or country. In this sense,
government public relations suggests that the government is focused on
solving a problem.
Government public relations likewise differs from public diplomacy
because, at least in western democracies, government public relations is
viewed as a socially-responsible practice. Of course, it is important to
examine how a particular government views certain political variables,
such as the roles of civil servants or democracy. Doing so will give hints to
how a country's government views government public relations. For
example, if a particular country's government is more authoritarian in
nature, government public relations may or may not exist. If it does exist,
government public relations may "indoctrinate" constituents towards
taking the government's side on a policy issue. As such, the citizenry may
develop a distrust of all government public relations (or communication in
general), even in other countries. If government public relations does not
exist in a given area, it may be absent for financial reasons or because a
public relations effort has not been assigned to that particular area by the
government.

Recall how public diplomacy stresses cultural relativity, meaning

that each country should not impose their standards of right and wrong on
another country. In a sense, before any judgments are made by any
country, each country tries to understand the motivation behind particular
courses of action. Since government public relations occurs in a domestic
context, it can be viewed as a socially-responsible practice because it
embraces the cultural norms of a given country. If anything, government
public relations is supposed to promote cultural values. An example of this
is when a country hosts the Olympics or other high-profile event for the
world to see.
Government public relations is dependent upon citizen dialogue in
order to survive. This makes sense, since the government cannot take a
stand on a particular issue if there is no awareness or interest among its
citizenry. This subsequently creates an ideal environment for the
government to start the communicative process on an issue affecting the
public. Some believe that, in addition to informing the public, government
public relations should also influence public opinion. For example, while a
particular government could inform the public on the dangers of smoking
tobacco, this government could go a step further and advocate smoking
cessation programs to save on healthcare costs.

Similarities Between Public Relations and Public Diplomacy

Government public relations and public diplomacy can be classified under
the branch of political communication. Political communication can be
defined as persuasive communication that seeks to implicitly or explicitly
advance political goals. Government public relations falls under political
communication because it advances the government's goals. Whether the
government's political goal is to inform or persuade, the government will
not shy away from communicating with the people. What is more difficult
to discern, however, is what implicit political goals the government is
attempting to advance. Public diplomacy can be classified as political
communication because it is an ongoing dialogue among political
representatives to decide on an amicable solution.

Government public relations and public diplomacy each have a long,

rich history in classical literature. Despite each practice's long history,
their formal theoretical academic bases are still fairly new. Considering
that both fields are very applied and are practiced by organizations or
nation-states, each one is growing together in practice, due in part
to globalization and ease of digital communication. Each can be practiced
by an organization or nation-state that are, by their nature, very public
bodies. This suggests that there could be a two-way social relationship
between the people and the organization.
Government public relations and public diplomacy are both
responsible for institutional communications with organizations, as well as
relations with wider groups and have to be responsive to public opinion
and media coverage. Each recognizes that communication is fundamental
across social boundaries because each country and government has a
unique history shaped by social relationships. Academics in each field,
however, have been careful to delineate each term from propaganda, as
each is susceptible to this vice. Not surprisingly, each field can be found
clustered around areas of great social change, as the greatest need for
both is found in those areas. Both must be attuned to social change,
specifically recognizing that social relationships are always in flux. In these
areas of social change, there will be people that do not always agree with
these changes. Therefore, both government public relations and public
diplomacy can identify, explain and negotiate varying opinions on an issue
to bring together dissenting factions. Within these social areas, both fields
must focus microscopically on their target audience, whether it is a
business, NGO or constituent group.
In sum, government public relations and public diplomacy have
practice aims that are similar. Each attempts to control information coming
from various sources in order to setup their media agendas. With the
media agenda in place, each can decide how to frame public issues to
best meet the end goal of shaping public discourse. When publics are
relaying information that is congruent with the strategic communication
goals of either public diplomacy or government public relations, the
organization gains a significant organizational political advantage.

Differences Between Public Diplomacy and Government Public Relations

Public diplomacy, in contrast to government public relations, is more
concerned with governments, as opposed to individual actors. As such,
public diplomacy can be said to be more congruent with the national
interest). For instance, public diplomacy could be characterized as a longterm "hearts and minds" campaign that is aimed at developing emotional
bonds with international publics to gain their identification and sympathy.
Such is the case with overseas arts tours and exhibitions, as well as the
Olympics. These campaigns could possibly span multiple generations,
even turning into a social responsibility for the country to capture the
diverse emotional and personal experiences of its citizens. Unlike
government public relations, public diplomacy can be more high-stakes, as
it can be backed up by military force.

The Good and Bad of Government Public Relations

Government PR efforts cost great deals of money to develop, implement
and analyze. If the PR effort does not go as planned, valuable taxpayer
money and other resources could be wasted. Government PR has likewise
been criticized for disturbing the internal policy-making processes because
the main decision-making body is not the first to be informed of a policy
issue being considered. Rather, everyone is being informed, which can
lead the public to confuse policy intentions with policy decisions. This is an
important distinction, because the decision-making body are trained to
handle the policy issues that come to their desks. The pressured
deliberative process extends not only to politicians and their publics, but
also between politicians and civil servants. Civil servants, in compliance
with their political bosses, may be forced to express a partisan position
when the government PR message is released. This, as such, could be a
misuse of public money.
Government and public relations are similar, which makes it more
likely for a seamless integration of public relations into a government
body. The similarities can be grouped together under three reasons. First,
each is bound by rules of self-regulation. Political laws to foster ethics and
understanding exist at the local, state, national and international levels.

Second, each can represent their own issues. Politicians and

government organizations will advocate or condemn policy to advance
their organizational goals. Public relations makes the goals of a client
clear, as it can identify and clarify arguments to promote public discussion.
Third, each must declare their interests and avoid any conflicts. Federal
judiciary bodies in the U.S., for example, often have laws that mandate
that judges recuse themselves from hearing cases that conflict with their
personal interests. Public relations is similar because a practitioner cannot
hope to present and clarify objective arguments for their client if there is a
conflict of interest.
Government public relations can also be considered a part of the
democratic process. In the current era of digital media, it is very flexible
and

cost-efficient

for

government

to

express

their

strategic,

organizational views to a wide variety of constituents. Policy-making is

thus more interactive for practitioners, it helps citizens to feel that they
are

more

involved

in

the

policy-making

process

as

it

proceeds.

Government PR practitioners can also evaluate the effectiveness of their

policies based upon highly-convenient feedback surveys that can be
completed on constituents' own time. This analytic process also helps
government PR practitioners to devise messages that capitalize on the
diversity of opinions inherent in a policy issue. When messages reflect the
diversity of opinions, this can subsequently increase national unity.
In a public that is heavily influenced by media of all different types,
public relations works to identify, revise and clarify governmental
arguments in the face of media scrutiny. In general, since public relations
uses many of the same tactics as journalism (time-sensitive written
pieces, broadcast media and a digital presence, and others), public
relations is effective at spurring public debate on stories written by
journalists. With a transparent media environment, this subsequently
enhances the democratic exchange of ideas, as well as accountability.
When national unity is increased, the global stage is opened to show other
countries a model government PR effort. This subsequently can increase
public and cultural diplomacy in the form of soft power.

Conclusion
To serve the needs of constituents, the government will always have an
agenda. While there will always be partisan debates on the amount of
government intervention needed to accomplish policy goals, it is
important for the government to remain at the service of its constituents.
Public relations is just one of many strategies that the government can
utilize to increase policy dialogue with citizens whose needs must be met.
Of course, the government must maintain and promote an ethical practice
of public relations to avoid devolving into propaganda. To encourage
ethical

practice,

promulgated.

the

government

can

look

to

the

constitutions

References
Art, R. A. (2009). The fungibility of force. In R. Art & K. Waltz (Eds.),The Use
of Force: Military Power and International Politics(7th ed., pp. 3-21).
Boulder, l[
Foucault, M. (2001). The subject and power. In J. Faubion & R. Hurley
(Eds.),Power: The Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984(1st ed., Vol. 3rd,
pp. 326-348). New York: New Press.
Gelders, D., & Ihlen, . (2010). Government communication about
potential policies: Public relations, propaganda or both? Public Relations
Review, 36 (1), 59-62.
George, A. (2009). Coercive diplomacy. In R. Art & K. Waltz (Eds.),The Use
of Force: Military Power and International Politics(7th ed., pp. 72-78).
Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gregory, B. (2005, August). Public diplomacy and strategic
communication: Culture, firewalls, and imported norms. In symposium
Conference on International Communication and Conflict . Symposium
conducted at the American Political Science Association, The George
Washington University and Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
LEtang, J. (1996). Public relations as diplomacy. In J. LEtang & M. Pieczka
(Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 1434). London:
International Thomson Business Press.
LEtang, J. (2002).Public relations education in Britain: A review at the
outset of the millennium and thoughts for a different research
agenda.Journal of communication management,7(1),43-53.
L'Etang, J. (2009)Public Relations and Diplomacy in a Globalized World: An
Issue of Public Communication.The American Behavioral Scientist,
53(4),607-626.
Malone, G. D. (1988). Political advocacy and cultural communication:
Organizing the nation's public diplomacy. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.

Mead, W.R. (2004). America's sticky power. Foreign Policy, 141, 46-53.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.
Nye, J. (2004). Soft power and American foreign policy. Political Science
Quarterly, 2, 255- 270.
Richards, B. (2004). Terrorism and public relations. Public Relations
Review, 30 (2), 169-176.
White, J., L'Etang, J., & Moss, D. (2009). The united kingdom: Advances in
practice in a restless kingdom. In K. Sriramesh & D. Veri (Eds.),The
global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice(pp. 381406). New York: Routledge.