Bio not provided
No the point is that we should engage and debate. It is for the audience to decide who is correct. I am convinced that my view point is preferable to the other. However, they aren't evil. They are merely wrong.
1 month ago on PR: A History Lesson in How We Got Here
I apologize for my unseemly behaviior. It was late in the day and this curmudgeon was a bit cranky.
Those who expect agreement in any academic discipline are likely to be profoundly disappointed.
My assessment of most of the diagreements in historical treatments of public relations reflect two diffrent orientations to its study. One approach emphasizes the corporate voice, and in this context any public utterance might be viewed as public relations. In this context Machiavelli or Moses might be portrayed as practicing public relations. The second approach is to view public relations as a profession in which professional communicators assist organizations in achieving their goals through conseling and communiction. The emphasis here is on the contributions of individuals to the corporate voice. I fall into this second group. Changing social and techonological environments have contibuted to the professionalization of public relations. Increasing levels of democracy, increasing educational levels, the emergence and later fragmentation of the mass audience, as well as various communication technologies have all influenced what I see as the history of public relations.
I would recommend to you "The Unseen Power: Public Relations: A History" by the late Scot Cutlip. There is an annual conference on Public Relations history at Bournemouth University in the UK. You might learn a little about PR history by visiting their website or by reading the special issues of PR Review that include the top papers from this conference. Where did you get the idea that academics trace the origins of PR to 1929?