Grunig deserves a more considered reply from me than pithy comments, I’m disappointed now that I posted one yesterday (apologies). To set the record straight, I shall post a considered assessment of Grunig’s thinking on my blog at some point.

In fact he refers to digitalization, which is a much wider concept than just social media.

And he also specifically titles one of his slides (number 7) ‘new media alone will not change the paradigm of public relations’.

The paradigm shift Jim refers to implies much more:
i.e. abandoning the symbolic interpretative approach and adopting a strategic behavioural approach.

Our community is populated by many individuals who voluntarily misinterpret Jim.
The reason is probably that behind these voluntary misinterpretations often lie, for opposite motivations, business as usual’ preferences.
I am sure this is not your case.

I am continuing to work on a properly thought through exposition of why social media is heralding a paradigm shift for PR theory and am grateful to Toni for the Grunig chapters and powerpoint which forms a challenging framework for such a critique.

(1) I do indeed say I am a conservative and it’s because I think in our mature democracies both individual opinion and mass opinion is properly mediated through representatives. In other words, and in short, we have evolved a tradition that opinions, developments, policies and decisions are best judged and balanced and made after careful deliberation and usually by a small number of people properly deputed for the task. In that sense, my opinion and any others’ opinions are of interest and of some importance. But they are calibrated against others’, and things become settled by a process which isn’t directly democratic (in the sense that isn’t demotic), but which is more fully democratic because not overly personal.

The social media “model” in effect risks undoing this evolution by asserting that remarks are of interest simply because they got made, and amplified, by people and within the crowd. This is – at least potentially – the antithesis of civilisation.

(2) You are right to call me out on admiring Bernays (as has Heather Yaxley on other occasions). I do admire the man’s cleverness. But I concede, and should have said, that he is also a little sinister. If I understand Adam Curtis right, and if Curtis is right in his The Selfish Century, Bernays did believe that the power of persuasion and propaganda came in part from its ability to play on mass fears – the fears that lie in crowds – rather than in rational explanation or elevated exhortation. I shall revisit this theme (as promised before in a reply to Toni Muzi Falconi), but meanwhile thanks for this chance to offer a more detailed heads up.

(3) I hope I never said anything which would lead anyone to suppose I think the Edelman Barometer is even remotely evil. I think it is over interpreted and in ways I don’t agree with, is all. Perhaps I should have provided the link to the piece I wrote from my home on Zurich lake as the world’s leaders flew over my home (disturbing my sleep) on their way to Davos – http://paulseaman.eu/2009/01/would-you-trust-a-trust-survey
I’d be interested to hear your comments on my analysis.

(4) I am not very cross about Twitter and all the rest, nor even unduly frightened by it all. I am sceptical that social media will be all that powerful a force, for good or ill. But I am not in the prediction business. Rather, I am trying to oppose the analysis, which suggests that the world has been going in the wrong direction – away from enlightenment and good society (I’m more upbeat than most commentators, including Edelman, not less).

(5) By the way, I do indeed see PR as mostly a matter of corporate (institutional) communications – whether we are talking about firms, charities, governments or academic bodies. That’s because most of it is (product is another form of marketing, is it not?). I do think many PR insights apply to politics, and they also apply to other non-commercial activities (religion, for one, and most single issue campaigners for another).

But then, PR is a sort of propaganda and there are lots of propagandists. I do not discount that PR is also a two-way process by which its sponsors (whether firms, parties, sects or campaigns) can listen as well as persuade and advocate. These entities may listen in order to learn and change, but they mostly listen so as to get better at propagandising.

In conclusion, I don’t recognise the paradigm shift you refer to.

I was trying to reconcile this with my own thinking on the impact of social media.

And then I read Paul’s post.

I think he is right. But only right if you see PR as corporate communications. And as able to accept Bernays etc as heroes.

And are able to swallow the claim that the Edelman Trust barometer is a force for evil.

Then again, I guess I am not a conservative.

I do see the world in terms of power relationships, and I don’t think Twittering will change the world. But I do believe that the fundamental shifts in the direction, complexity and aggregations of communication heralded by social media represent a paradign shift.

The world has changed Paul.

One reservation that I have with Jo’s position is that I think that it will be a long time before anybody finds long-term substantial profits in social media. The first victors might well be so-called old-fashioned media, which are well on the way to successfully co-opting the social media networks.

@jo I’d be interested to hear your comments on my debate with Neville Hobson, the UK social media blogger. Here’s a good place to start:

http://paulseaman.eu/2009/09/theres-no-social-media-revolution/

It should come up in about 15minutes at http://flowingmotion.wordpress.com – that is on Wednesday 10th.

I’ll be interested in what you make of my summary.

I agree with you about the limitation of sweeping statements (always a danger when making pithy comments, and I am guilty sometimes, I know). My understanding of the rules is on my website in two articles debating Neville Hobson. The first of these was entitled “Debate: social media changes business basics?” and can be read here:

http://paulseaman.eu/2009/08/debate-social-media-changes-business-basics/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/pdf/FACTSPDF/FACTs17GB.pdf

@Paul I think it is the sweeping statements that make people feel something has been left unsaid.

Rules for whom? And in what respect?