Hot Spots in Public Relations

Are public relations specialists even necessary?

• Many companies are beginning to mange their own public affairs by utilizing the skills of already existing employees rather than hiring a PR firm.  In doing this, a company can save $10k+ a month, so in some instances, it does make sense.  There has been a decline in the necessity of public relations professionals in the workplace in the last few years, because the job responsibilities of a PR specialist align closely with that of a marketer or advertiser. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilstclair/2015/03/05/why-you-should-almost-never-pay-for-pr/#64e8e8fe1c35 

Do I really need a degree in public relations to work in the field?

• With how closely public relations is related to marketing, advertising, communications, etc. is it really even necessary to get a degree in public relations to work in the field?  Or could a degree in one of these neighboring fields be enough to get your foot in the door?  Not to mention, the future of public relations is in social media, so who is to say that someone who is extremely business smart and savvy with social media couldn't do just as good of a job as a college graduate with a public relations degree?                https://www.thebalancecareers.com/media-industry-jobs-you-can-get-without-a-degree-4023960

Greater varieties of communication platforms

• The increase in communication platforms can be seen as a way to get more information out to the public and reach more specific audiences, but when it comes to PR, it can be extremely difficult to determine which platform to use.  As the platforms increase in number, so does the research and time into making sure it is the correct medium for the correct audience. 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-problems-facing-public-relations-practice-world-dr-ajihson

Of these controversies in public relations, the one that has me feeling the most passionate, is the first one regarding the necessity of specialists in general.  I will be graduating with a public relations degree next spring, so understanding the likelihood of me getting placed in the workplace is foremost on my mind. 

Aestheticism in the Age of the Selfie

     After delving deeper into The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde one of the themes that becomes every more present in the book is the idea that society during this time of aestheticism was indeed extremely superficial in its focus and values. The main character, Dorian Gray, personifies in almost every way that superficial nature as he buys into every pointless party and becomes a slave of fashion and looks as much as he is to Basil's painting that prolongs his youth. We can see this clearly from a passage from the second chapter in which Dorian says "I know, now, that when one loses one's good looks, whatever they may be, one loses everything. Your picture has taught me that. Lord Henry Wotton is perfectly right. Youth is the only thing worth having. When I find that I am growing old, I shall kill myself." This statement draws a bold line limiting value to only that which is beautiful.

     In this time period, Oscar seems to be prodding at while simultaneously praising the idea that all art has to offer anyone is beauty. Mr. Wilde would be perplexed, I think, to see how droves of young people capture not merely capture one grand painting, but in some cases thousands of photographs of themselves to preserve their beauty and looks on a medium that is even more permanent than canvas or paper. The idea of beauty and looks being all important is the reason we have entire industries to this day. Social media, the fashion industry, and in tandem with the fashion industry the cosmetics and beauty industry would not exist were it not for such a hyper-focus on aesthetic that pervades society today. It is amazing to see that the way that one looks can drive their decision making more than almost any factor in their life. 

     Aestheticism seems to me at times to be a step away from the humanist ideas of enlightenment. Instead of focusing on tolerance, equality, and inclusiveness, society decided to try to widen the gulf between some social classes in order to foster exclusivity, secrecy, and the elite. Society today, from politics to media and Hollywood still exercises these vain ambitions. The industries of art and literature of all kinds seem to focus on the surface and the social status of the creator now more than ever. The idea that all art has to offer is beauty may have been what Oscar was going for and a big part of how life was lived then and even now, but should that be the case? Is beauty the only enrichment there is? I would say no, completely not. Art is meaningful, and society can be, too, the focus just has to dig deeper than the placid surface to reach that meaning. Enlightenment and the ideas founded therein could help readers and viewers get there by showing them through rational method the different ways to find value in art and society. Oscar Wilde came after the enlightenment with a story that simultaneously criticized and praised aestheticism. This self awareness definitely rings with familiarity of the enlightenment era, however, the main idea about art expressed is lacking the rationality and depth that would've come from the enlightenment era.

Picture source:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj9zqGuvLTeAhUDmoMKHRHPBoYQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F415949715562639767%2F&psig=AOvVaw1X-YH8EFQOl_b8lnGDeE8c&ust=1541205560843267

Printed Satire vs. Twitter Rages

President Donald J. Trump's Tweet

You've probably seen President Trump's tweets, but have you heard of Martin Luther's 95 Theses? They are a list of Luther's critiques of Catholic doctrine and practices that, when printed and published, caused problems for the Catholic Church and triggered the beginning of the Protestant Reformation to which many of today's Christian sects owe their beginnings to. After the list was published, Luther printed additional documents, explanations of the theses.

One of these explanations is of Luther's distaste for the practice of indulgences, or the idea that one can buy salvation, guarenteeing an eternal life outside of purgatory. In this explanation, Luther takes the stance that this "heretical, wicked, and blasphemous" idea is not the fault of the preachers and clergymen, but the fault of the congregations "for having wax in their ears that they hear only pernicious things when these preachers tell them salutary things".

As I was first reading this through, I thought how admirable Luther was. How gracious he is in giving the benefit of the doubt to the preachers. I began to wonder why the Catholic Church was so upset with him for presenting his ideas to the public. It seemed to me that he was striving to purify the saints rather than call the Church to repentance.

Continuing on, however, his words against the people seemed too extravagant, the blame on them too outrageous, the claims that they were wickedly misunderstanding the preachers too unbelievable. Luther was roasting the Clergy. He had even had me going along with it for a minute.

This shows an intriguing side to the development of the printing press. Satire surely wasn't a new idea, but this was different. The speed of the spread made this so much more enraging to the Catholic leadership. The ease of attainment made it more of a threat.

I think this issue is as true today as it was then. Hearing the President of the United States say something bitter about a rival over the radio many years ago is entirely different than reading Trump's virtually constant Twitter rages. The world continues to struggle with this concept. Increased availability increases the threat level. The ease of spread makes this form of banter faster, and therefore more productive (or destructive).

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw about the groups taking the heat from these media gurus, but I know that the terrain will continue to get rougher as new forms of communication continue to develop.


Image Credit: Creative Commons, Wikipedia, Public Domain

Copyright: Friend or Foe?

French Author, Priest, and Secretary Jean Miélot Writing

On September 1, 1486, Marco Sabellico walked the streets of Venice with his chin a little higher. Amidst the recent invention of the printing press and the plethora of works being printed by colleagues and strangers alike, Sabellico was the first to petition for and receive printing privilege—the first copyright.

Sabellico’s proposed work, Decades rerum Venetarum, was a history of Venice. His laborious efforts could have been published just like any other author’s, but this “was a form of reward…which promoted the public interest, rather than the inherent rights of the author” (Kostlyo). If any unauthorized entity published his book, they would be fined, and replication of it was illegal.

For our Renaissance friends, this measure was largely viewed as a wise business move, the authors being more concerned about protecting their work than necessarily claiming it. They pored over their work, doing extensive research with limited resources, then meticulously drafting it by hand before taking it to a publisher, often only to be hired to proofread and/or publish his own work (Kostylo). It was no easy task, making it clear why the author would want his/her work protected.

For many of us, an alarm goes off when we hear the word copyright; we usually hit ‘snooze’ and settle into our indifference to copyright and its complexities, yet there’s the occasional nag, warning us to tread carefully. It’s almost fitting, given twenty-first century culture. For our voices to be heard, we simply download an app, push a few buttons, and announce how we feel about homework. The process doesn’t begin to compare with what Sabellico surmounted. 

Author Roy Leeper pointed out that “copyright was the best means of encouraging the development of new knowledge that benefitted society,” suggesting that the very Renaissance ideals that inspired the invention of the printing press would in turn inspire more people to discover more ideas (emphasis added). Although copyright laws clearly exist and are enforced in many situations, would stricter policies, particularly regarding social media usage, promote originality and unearth golden ideas? If so, what possible ways would this be implemented?


Works Cited:

Kostylo, J. (2008) ‘Commentary on Marcantonio Sabellico's privilege (1486)', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

Leeper, Roy V. "Copyright." Encyclopedia of Public Relations, edited by Robert L. Heath, vol. 1, SAGE Reference, 2005, pp. 201-202. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/apps/doc/CX3439100108/GVRL?u=byuprovo&sid=GVRL&xid=872b759a. Accessed 16 Sept. 2018.

Image Sources: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_books#/media/File:Escribano.jpg

https://media.defense.gov/2013/Jul/30/2000925243/-1/-1/0/130730-F-TB066-001.JPG