Introduction
Throughout history, political messages have been formulated and disseminated for the purpose of persuasion. From biblical times to the present day, the court of public opinion has consistently been infl uenced by individuals or groups with a stake in its outcome. In so doing, political communicators have always tried to make the best use of the media available to them.
Media relations and news management strategies and tactics thus constitute an essential part of all strategic communication. However, while dozens of studies have examined how organizations attempt to build and maintain relationships with various publics, infl uence the media agenda, and manage crisis communications, only a limited number of studies have directly related public relations and political communication scholarship to each other, and to news management and media relations strategies and tactics.
The current book breaks new grounds in its exploration and defi nition of political public relations. As defi ned by Strömbäck and Kiousis in the introductory chapter,
Political public relations is the management process by which an orga- nization or individual for political purposes, through purposeful com- munication and action, seeks to infl uence and to establish, build, and maintain benefi cial relationships and reputations with its key publics to help support its mission and achieve its goals.
Unlike most public relations research, which is almost exclusively focused on corporate and not-for-profi t contexts, political public relations focuses on political parties, candidates, offi ce-holders, political campaigns, and special
interest groups such as lobbying fi rms (Strömbäck, Mitrook, & Kiousis, 2010), their interrelationships, and their relationships with various key publics, including the mass public. In all these contexts, media relations and news management strategies and tactics are crucial.
Against this background, the purpose of this chapter is to synthesize theories from the fi elds of public relations and political communication that have a bearing on media relations and news management in the context of political public relations. In doing so, it will identify key information subsidies used in political public relations, ranging from traditional tactics such as news releases to social media such as blogs. It will also introduce the concept of agenda indexing, which we believe off ers a promising venue for research on political public relations, media relations, and news management.
Tactical versus Strategic Media Relations
Any discussion of political public relations theory should arguably begin within the greater public relations context. Considering the importance of media relations for both political communication and its public relations umbrella, a somewhat surprising scholarly divide persists in providing a steadfast defi nition for this critical communication function.
To elaborate, a fair amount of studies sport an exclusive, media-centric emphasis solely on the strategic aspects of media relations. Among others, these include topics such as creating strategic communication plans or responding to changes in the media environment (Brody, 1989; Colby, 2005; Goldstein, 2004; Howard, 2000); building long-term relationships with the media (Howard, 2004); and media relations planning and evaluation as part of the overall public relations process (Bollinger, 2001; Dyer, 1996; Kelleher, 2001; Tilson, 2005).
On the fl ip side is an almost exclusively tactical approach to the public and media relations’ combination. Research on this aspect of media relations has explored areas such as increasing media attention for products or services (Brooks, 1999; Cantelmo, 1994), the use of media relations with respect to the Internet (Duke, 2001; Fitzgerald-Sparks & Spagnolia, 1999; Howard, 2000; Kent & Taylor, 2003), and how to use the media during crises (Adams, 2000).
The problem with many of the predominantly tactical approaches is that they do not situate media relations and news management in a proper theoretical and strategic context. To remedy this, we will next discuss media relations and news management in the context of some of the most important theoretical contexts, starting with the situational theory of publics.
Situational Theory of Publics
Public relations—both within and outside the context of politics—is ultimately about relationships formed through communication with diff erent publics.
Hence, the concept of publics is key for understanding all public relations strategies and tactics, and for enabling a strategic use of news management and media relations.
The most basic defi nition of a public comes from Dewey (1927), who fi rst defi ned a public as a collection of individuals who were (a) facing a similar problem, (b) that recognizes said problem exists, and (c) organizes to do something about it. Dewey’s notion of publics has since been extended ( J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; J. Grunig & Repper, 1992; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001) to include four types of publics, which combine to describe situational versus mass publics:
1. The nonpublic—individuals who fail to meet all three of Dewey’s above criteria;
2. The latent public—individuals who acknowledge that the problem exists (point a), yet fail to either acknowledge the problem (point b) or act on it (point c);
3. The aware public—those who are aware of the problem facing them (points a and b are present) yet fail to act on it;
4. The active public (comprised of points a, b, and c)—individuals that are aware of their problem, and subsequently organize to address it.
It is important to recognize that all four types can exist simultaneously, and that they should not be perceived as mutually exclusive categories. What this means is that individuals classifi ed as latent members of one particular public might be active in a second, and so on. Also important is that people’s need for orientation (Weaver, 1980), awareness (Zaller, 1992), and motivation (Prior, 2007) will diff er among publics, also accompanying exposure or access to information subsidies across issues.
Although the distinction between diff erent types of publics is crucial, it may be the case that the line between them will become increasingly blurred through the increasing importance of social media that can serve as viable mechanisms for reaching individuals across types of publics. If trends persist, segmentation of situational publics and the media to service them can be expected to become both more sophisticated and more precise. The adage that organizations do not necessarily choose their publics may to some extent be turned on its head by this.
Powered by the Internet and fl ash polling, political communicators have become increasingly sophisticated and interested in continuous analyses of public attitudes, opinions, and sentiments, and public opinion analyses continue their march toward relevancy in almost every aspect of political communication and the campaigns that drive it (Geer, 1996; Lavrakas & Traugott, 2000; Mitchell & Daves, 1999). This forms part of the phenomenon of permanent campaigning (Blumenthal, 1980; Dulio & Towner, 2009), where public opinion polling is no longer relegated to isolated election cycles. This trend is furthered by global
television and media conglomerates—insatiably looking for new and fresh content—that turn toward sophisticated, situational public opinion analyses to drive and supplement the 24/7 news cycles.
Despite all this, most research on political publics remains outdated, and echoes Lippmann (1922/1997) on its mass versus situational emphasis— specifi cally on opinion polling dynamics. This preference for mass versus situational public opinion not only fails to ignore the realities of fi rst and second level agenda setting processes (Golan & Wanta, 2001; Lopez-Escobar, Llamas, McCombs, & Rey, 1998), it also overlooks faction-driven, groundswell norms of Internet-powered political communication.
What may be even more important in this context, however, is that the implications for media relations and news management strategies and tactics have not been suffi ciently explored. For example, diff erent publics (nonpublics, latent publics, aware publics, and active publics) may not only be reached through diff erent media; they may also seek out and, not least important, be infl uenced diff erently by diff erent media. Strategic news management and media relations hence need to take into consideration the diff erent kinds of publics that choose diff erent types of media both when choosing media and the messages to promote.
Relational Approaches to Public Relations
Also important, but insuffi ciently theorized in the context of political public relations, news management, and media relations, is the relational approach to public relations. Although Kelley already in 1956 espoused the importance of relationships in public relations, it is only during the last couple of decades that the relational approach has been developed and implemented in public relations research—including political public relations research.
Jackson (2010), for instance, highlighted the increased value of the relational approach to explain public opinion, while Strömbäck et al. (2010) highlighted relationship theory as crucial for political marketing and political public relations. This coincided with a key theoretical adjustment in explaining the strategic communication process at large. In place of infl uence through propaganda and persuasion, there emerged a paradigm of establishing, building, and maintaining mutually benefi cial relationships between an organization and its publics (Ledingham, 2006; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000).
Aspects of measurement refl ected this shift toward emphasizing a more advanced, relational understanding of information subsidies and their purpose. For instance, L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) off ered a mix of attributes as barometers of success or failure in the relational approach to public relations—reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding. Relatedly, Huang (1997) labeled trust, control mutuality, relational commitment, and relational satisfaction
as indicators of positive relationship management. Lastly and during times of crisis, Coombs (2000) posited that a relational approach may both avert and mitigate communication calamities and their eff ects.
Pfau and Wan (2006) deemed persuasion a central and natural component to relationship building, without which the process would likely falter. In political communication, for instance, constituents—the situational public(s)— are inherently aware of a persuasive means toward desired ends, such as a vote, policy, or related political capital exchange. Constituents, of course, simultaneously negotiate persuasion channels toward achieving matching ends most benefi cial for their needs. Thus, relational exchange is an equal dance partner to that of relational outcomes, as both political communicator and communicated are simultaneously aware of a pending infl uence or action exchange with tangible consequences.
The persuasion process, however, does not occur in isolation. An active, situational political public can be met by one or more hostile ones, groups of individuals with opposing viewpoints seeking to maximize relational exchange toward their own wants/needs. This same reality holds true for those attempting to communicate, as competing voices will vie for similar infl uence or action among situational publics, albeit toward diff erent opinion outcomes.
In the context of political public relations, news management and media relations, the problem is compounded by the fact that the media themselves may be targets for relationship building eff orts, while at the same time they are crucial arenas for building relationships with other publics. In addition, the media’s penchant for political confl icts and negative news as well as their professional identity as independent from political organizations (Patterson, 1993) may make it highly diffi cult for political actors and organizations both to build relationships with the media and to use them in their eff orts to build relationships with other key publics that rely on the media for information.
Unfortunately, there is not much research that attempts to theorize or investigate the role of the media as targets or arenas for relationship building eff orts by political actors; diff erences across media or political actors; or the factors that hinder or help eff orts to build relationships with or through various media for diff erent political actors.
Contingency Theory of Public Relations
Contingency theory is also important to the public relations area (Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997; Cancel, Mitrook & Cameron, 1999; Jin & Cameron, 2007; Mitrook, Parish, & Seltzer, 2008). Contingency theory was intended to advance Grunig and others’ excellence theory of public relations, which segments the fi eld into four specifi c models: (a) press agentry/ publicity, (b) public information, (c) two-way asymmetric, and (d) two-way symmetric ( J. Grunig 1992; J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1992; J. Grunig & Hunt,
1984). Models (a) and (b) assume one-way communication for the purposes of information dissemination, sans feedback. Model (c) is described as “scientifi c persuasion” ( J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). The fi nal model is a normative approach with particular emphasis on feedback loops. J. Grunig (2008) and Lee (2008) identifi ed public information as the most common model within political communication settings.
While excellence theory proved useful in providing benchmarks for good practice, it did not produce comprehensive measurement attempts or experimental approaches to validate its models or extend them further. Being normative, these models also reasoned for mutual exclusivity between them, ignoring the complexities of particular sectors or the audiences they serve. As noted by Cancel et al. (1997), “The practice of public relations is too complex, too fl uid, and impinged by far too many variables for the academy to force it into the four boxes known as the four models of public relations…. It fails to capture the complexity and multiplicity of the public relations environment” (p. 32).
As an alternative, contingency theory, as its name suggests, sees public relations on a fl uid persuasion continuum akin to Coombs’s (2000) designation of crisis communication responses—ranging from total advocacy to complete accommodation (Cancel et al., 1997, 1999; Shin, Cameron, & Cropp, 2006).
A continuum approach theorizes a natural movement across diff erent degrees and stages of a relational context. Hypothetically and among the same situational public, a targeted, persuasive response to one particular problem might be illogical when applied to a diff erent problem or timeframe regarding these same individuals. This is especially true within political communication, where the delicate practice of relational exchange is essential to achieving public consensus. The challenge is compounded by the presence of an array of hostile publics and communicators—including the media themselves—all seeking to maximize relational exchange.
Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than with respect to the media. On the one hand, political actors are dependent on the news media for reaching their mass audiences, which calls for accommodation of the media’s wants and needs. On the other hand, the interests of the media and of political actors are usually not the same, which rather calls for advocacy toward the media on the part of political actors. At the same time, political actors cannot aff ord to alienate the media, which again calls for accommodation. Hence, the choice of strategy toward the media on the continuum ranging from total advocacy to total accommodation in news management and media relations is both crucial and highly complex.
The same is basically true in Web-based media environments, where an abundance of political interests and interaction options combine for a dynamic communication space. Blogs, for example, have redefi ned the political space and opened it up for more dialogic communication (Kent & Taylor, 1998).
Blogs and microblogs also allow candidates greater opportunities to strategically communicate via diff erent topics and styles than more static Web pages. More importantly, these mechanisms enable candidates to readjust political communication tactics to match ebbs and fl ows in news media and constituent sentiment.
On the other hand, blogs have also opened up the space for groups that are highly energized and seeking confl icts with diff erent political actors, which poses new challenges for political actors both in general, and in choosing the proper response on the continuum from total advocacy to total accommodation. Thus, the contingency theory of public relations is relevant with respect to political actors’ relationship with and strategies toward traditional and newer media. Media relations and news management theory, research, and practice would do well to take the contingency theory of public relations into greater consideration when developing strategies and tactics.
Information Subsidies
One of the most important concepts with respect to media relations and news management is information subsidies, a term coined by Gandy (1982). Basically, information subsidies include all eff orts created by public relations practitioners to “reduce the prices faced by others for certain information in order to increase its consumption” (p. 12). In sum, information subsidies are the currency of trade within the marketplace of information.
Direct information subsidies, according to Gandy, become indirect ones once fi ltered through the media before reaching an intended audience(s). These indirect fi lters—from a political communication perspective—might include subject matter experts, grassroots lobbying, wire services, and satellite distribution (Zoch & Molleda, 2006).
In a competitive political landscape, information subsidies become the weapon of choice for political communicators to forge relationships with both their constituents and the mass media who service them. Lobbyists, for example, combine subsidized information from clients and their own research- based data to infl uence policy (Zoch & Molleda, 2006). Moreover, legislators turn to indirect subsidies for guidance in advance of critical decisions. In fact, even mass media reporting of political issues and interchanges may function as invaluable information subsidies. Thus, information subsidies are not only directed toward the media—even if that is one highly important aspect, particularly in the context of media relations and news management—but used by all actors in information exchange processes.
Mirroring its broader public relations counterpart, political communication- centric information subsides are not static; they will increase or decrease in value stemming from a number of factors which combine to explain the legitimacy of the message. Gandy (1982) operationalized these relational, value factors into
a number of smaller categories to include: how well disguised the self-interest underlying the message is; source credibility; and the diversity of competing, available information.
While information subsidies are not used only to infl uence the media, most research on information subsidies has focused on their use this context, Perhaps the most researched area is the usefulness of press releases in shaping media coverage or public opinion. Several of these studies explored political communication problem sets, notably the perceived usefulness of the press release with respect to the media’s coverage of, for example, state agencies (Martin & Singletary, 1981; Turk, 1985, 1986, 1991; Turk & Franklin, 1987; L. M. Walters & T. N. Walters, 1996); educational institutions (Bollinger, 1999; Morton & Warren, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c); and interest groups (Griffi n & Dunwoody, 1995).
While information subsidies remains underinvestigated from a political public relations perspective, recent research has attempted to close this gap by exploring links between political public relations eff orts, media coverage, and public opinion (Carroll & McCombs, 2003; Cho & Benoit, 2005; Kiousis & Strömbäck, 2010; Lancendorfer & Lee, 2003). For example, T. N. Walters, Walters, and Gray (1996) compared press releases in the 1992 U.S. presidential campaigns of Bush and Clinton. This study explored levels of perceived issue salience among voters, and in doing so discovered a more signifi cant statistical association between the issue priorities for Clinton campaign voters versus those of Bush. A secondary analysis of the 2002 Florida gubernatorial election (Kiousis, Mitrook, Wu, & Seltzer, 2006) discovered a similar interchange between news releases and media content, extending this fi nding into matters of public opinion.
Despite an ever-increasing abundance of information that the Internet provides, it remains a challenge to connect media coverage and public opinion to the very individuals that consume the media and form their opinions, and the Internet remains a work in progress as a viable information subsidy. Tedesco (2004) labeled early campaign Web sites as nothing more than brochurelike content posted on the Web. Taylor and Kent (2004) echoed Tedesco’s