Tortilla with Cheese, Meat and Vegetables.

So I had to check out the definition of Public Relations, as defined by Public Relations Society of America:

“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other."

This is as broad of a definition as one I've ever seen.  In fact, this feels similar to saying that a burrito is a tortilla with meat, cheese and vegetables, and be completely confident in saying that a Fajita is a tortilla with meat, cheese and vegetables (Thank you so much for that one, Jim Gaffigan).  Heck, I could take my job and say that I am a public relations expert:  I make coffee and talk to my customers.  In doing so, I and helping the company and its publics adapt mutually to each other, through the process of drinking and making coffee.

This is like finding a loophole in a contract:  this definition is just to easy to manipulate and turn into something different, based on its simplicity.  In addition, journalists can claim to be Public Relations people as well, since they are helping their publications and their readers adapt to each other, in as mutual a way as possible.  Furthermore, how do we define mutually?  Surely, someone could be mutual in adapting to someone else if they don't know the whole truth. 

Example: Person A has is a master linguist, but he has killed many people.  Person B needs a friend.  B meets A, and A doesn't say anything about being a killer - Based on what B knows, he thinks that A is fairly well educated and a nice, decent guy.

Let's try a bit of an overhaul - Public relations fosters the relationship between an organization and their current and potential stakeholders through advertising, journalism and discussion.

So why do I like this definition: Public relations doesn't just help an organization adapt to its peoples, and vice versa: Public Relations is trying to get you to like us, and create a relationship to one another, hence the "fostering."  While our targets are the "publics," there's no way you're going to "sell beef to a vegetarian" - we need to establish a relationship to those that are targets of our audience, as well as reinforce our relationships with those who already have a stake in the company.  The last part was simple - we need to show some methods of giving us "the message."

 As far as problematic issues in PR today, I want to point out a quote in Keith Trivitt's article, which was linked into Mr. Corbett's article on PR:

"That said, I was a little shocked to read in PRWeek UK a quote from Speed Communications MD Steve Earl that, “Smearing is an integral part of PR.”

This scares me - the fact that people are seriously thinking that this is ethical just shows a lack of ethics: What Transparency is here?  You are literally creating a bad image for a competitor using any means, whether it be digging up dirt or fabricating something.  This is BLATANTLY harmful.  This is a terrible way to call justice to a company.  This shows a lack of privacy. 

You can argue that smear campaigns are autonomous and for the community, but that's simply based on our own decision making process and what we choose to believe.  What should be noted is that we are being fed the negative, which will only create more negative.

Finally, a note on the practices that are being researched by the FTC and the PRSA - I am personally in hysterics for the first one: If someone chooses to align themselves with a dictator, they've already got a couple of screws loose, but on the other hand, it's just a business with a poor sense of ethical theory taking whatever job they can scrounge up. 

I digress - really, a dictator doesn't need a PR campaign: that's why he has propagandists and a military, to boot. 

What could be looked into would be finding a way to make sure that the above style of using smear campaigns be stopped - it's almost like a resurfacing of yellow journalism, which really was a terrible way of enticing readers to choose one source over another.  Aside from that, smears should be considered "hearsay" and "libel."

/end rant.