Example Article for Final Paper (PR & Journalism)

Public Relations Review 30 (2004) 493–502

Public relations and journalism educators’perceptions of media relations

Thomasena Shaw∗, Candace White1

School of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

Received 4 December 2003; received in revised form 5 August 2004; accepted 20 August 2004

Abstract

A complex relationship exists between journalists and public relations practitioners. A number of researchers claimthat prejudice against public relations is not due to negative personal experiences, but is rooted in journalism culture.This study explores if academic programs may be in part responsible for perpetuating stereotypes and contributingto negative perceptions of public relations, and whether journalism and public relations programs belong in thesame academic department. A web-based survey was completed by 187 journalism and public relations educators.Both samples had professional experience, which allows the assumption that attitudes and perceptions measured inthe survey would reasonably apply to practitioners as well as educators. The study found journalism educators donot differ as substantially and negatively in their opinions of public relations as previous literature suggests.© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Media; Public relations; Journalists

1. Introduction

This study looks at the less than harmonious relationship between journalism and public relations. Itasks the questions: Do journalism and public relations programs belong in the same academic department?Are academic programs in part responsible for perpetuating stereotypes and contributing to negativeperceptions about public relations?

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 9082.E-mail addresses:[email protected] (T. Shaw), [email protected] (C. White).

1 Tel.: +1 865 974 5112.

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.08.004

494 T. Shaw, C. White / Public Relations Review 30 (2004) 493–502

The thesis of the study is that much of the misunderstanding is based primarily on one public relationsfunction: media relations. Media relations is like the tip of an iceberg—the most visible part, but certainlynot all there is. While media relations is an important function, it is a tactical function, and only a small partof strategic public relations. Many effective public relations efforts are not visible outside the organizationand therefore are not incorporated into popular perceptions of public relations.

Despite its strategic management role, public relations is still considered by many, particularly jour-nalists, as just another name for publicity. Since media relations is often theonlypublic relations functionwith which a journalist has any personal contact, it is logical that to most journalists, media relationsis public relations. Public relations as a strategic business function has evolved rapidly, and perceptionalmost always lags behind reality.

Journalists’ perception of media relations defines their perception of the entire profession. Many prac-titioners with whom journalists have contact are in technician roles; many may be former journalistswith no true public relations training or education. Thus the common stereotype is thatall public rela-tions practitioners are for-hire communication technicians whose aim is to get media coverage at anycost. Despite practitioners’ efforts to improve their industry, some journalists continue to harbor suspi-cions about them. A number of researchers suggest that prejudice is rooted in journalism culture. Thepurpose of this study is to explore public relations and journalism educators’ attitudes towards publicrelations, and make recommendations that may improve future relationships in the academy and in theprofession.

2. Literature review

2.1. Role of media relations

Most research about journalism/public relations interaction focuses on media relations.Fedler andDeLorme (2002)documented the historical roots of the journalist/public relations practitioner relation-ship and found an attitude of contempt. Journalists believed that public relations practitioners fakedstunts to get free publicity, made it difficult for journalists to report legitimate stories, and violated basicrules of news writing. These findings supportRyan and Martinson’s (1984)observation that an antago-nistic relationship between journalists and practitioners has existed almost as long as both professionshave.

Aronoff (1975)found that Texas journalists’ attitudes toward public relations differed substantially andnegatively from the attitudes held by practitioners toward themselves.Jeffers (1977)borrowed themesfrom Aronoff’s work, and found that journalists viewed public relations practitioners as “obstructionists”who prevent journalists from obtaining the truth. Journalists also considered themselves superior topractitioners in status, ethical, and skill terms. Interestingly, many journalists viewed practitioners withwhom they had regular contact as status equals.Kopenhaver, Martinson, and Ryan (1984)concludedthat a sample of editors viewed public relations much more negatively than did a sample of pract-itioners.

Shin and Cameron (2003)found in a study conducted in South Korea that both practitioners andjournalists disagree and inaccurately predict the others’ view regarding source/reporter relationships.This leads to the first research question: Is there a difference between how journalism and public relationseducators view media relations?

T. Shaw, C. White / Public Relations Review 30 (2004) 493–502 495

2.2. Role of ethics and perceptions of professionalism

An important theme in the literature is that the tension is rooted in concerns over ethics. Journalistsperceived the role of public relations as involving compromise, hidden agendas, and withholding in-formation (Beltz, Talbott, & Stark, 1984). In recent years, both professional organizations and collegecurricula have increasingly focused on ethics as a cornerstone of professionalism.Leeper (1996)notesthat while professional organizations help define ethical public relations and practitioners’ responsibilityto act in the public interest, those outside the profession, including the general public and journalists,may not be aware of what standards for professional conduct exist. The second research question is: Isthere a difference between the two samples regarding perceptions of the public relations profession?

2.3. Nature of the relationship in an educational context

The literature also presents evidence that some antagonism exists in the academy. An example of howjournalism educators perceive public relations is presented byCline (1982)who argues that some ofthe negative attitudes toward public relations stem from the educational process and in particular, theundergraduate textbooks journalists have read. Her analysis of introductory mass communication textsfound that most were biased against the public relations profession, serving to perpetuate any antagonismthat exists between the two professions. The next research question is: Has journalists’ mistrust of publicrelations been influenced by what was learned about the occupation in the academy?

2.4. Where does public relations belong in the academy?

The debate about whether journalism and other media-related fields like public relations belong inthe same department is not recent.Gibson (1987)notes that the founding fathers of public relationswere journalism graduates, which is why the two fields have traditionally been affiliated. However, manypublic relations sequences find themselves in a “Mother, may I?” environment where curriculum and otherdecisions are made by a predominantly news-oriented faculty, who fail to see public relations beyond itsmedia relations function (Walker, 1989).

Bovet (1992)claims that most journalism schools have not parted company with public relationsbecause its students have become “cash cows” for the programs that house them.Kruckeberg (1998)argues that public relations education can no longer afford to be relegated as a subset of journalism andmass communication; the discipline should be examined from its own perspective. These studies lead tothe final set of research questions: How are academic programs in journalism perceived by both samples?How are academic programs in public relations perceived by both samples? Do journalism and publicrelations programs belong in the same academic department?

3. Method

Data used for this study were part of a larger study (Shaw, 2002) that used coorientation analysis toexamine perception differences between journalism and public relations educators. (A copy of the largerstudy may be requested from the first author.) Data were collected using a web-based, self-administeredsurvey, sent to journalism and public relations educators. Since there were more journalism educators


available for investigation, a systematic random sample of journalism educators was selected from theAssociation for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication’s (AEJMC) Newspaper Division andRadio/Television Division and the Society of Professional Journalists’ (SPJ) Student Chapters.

A census of public relations educators from the Public Relations Division of AEJMC and the PublicRelations Society of America’s (PRSA) Educators Academy was used. This yielded 768 educators,384 public relations educators and 384 journalism educators. The survey was pre-tested to verify thecategorical representation, and assess validity and comprehension. A five-point Likert Scale was used tomeasure items. Some of the statements replicated or were similar to those used in previous studies thatexplored the journalist/public relations practitioner relationship in the workplace (Aronoff, 1975; Jeffers,1977; Kopenhaver et al., 1984). Data were analyzed using SPSS.

4. Results

A total of 187 useable surveys were returned. The response rate for journalism educators was 30.5%(n = 94) and 28.1% for public relations educators (n = 93). Of the 187 respondents, 40% were fe-male and 60% were male. Forty-three percent were 30–48 years of age, 41% were 49–57, and 16%were 58–57. Seventy-seven percent held doctoral degrees, almost 21% held masters degrees, and2.6% held a bachelor’s degree. Three quarters of the total sample (n = 130) reported that public re-lations is located in the same unit as journalism in their institution. A chi-square test run on each ofthe items in the demographics section found significant values for one variable—gender (p < .001).However, post hoc analysis revealed the variable did not have any significant bearing on the survey’sfindings.

Interestingly, almost 27% of the total sample reported 6–10 years professional experience outside anacademic setting; 25% had 11–20 years; almost 24% had 0–5 years; almost 20% had 21–30 years; whilemore than 2% had more than 30 years. Only 2% (n = 4) had no professional experience outside an aca-demic setting. Neither sample had significantly more or less professional experience than its counterpart.This allows the researchers to assume that the attitudes and perceptions measured in the survey wouldreasonably apply to perceptions of practitioners as well as educators.

Since we were concerned with differences between two samples, multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) was used to analyze the research questions that were measured by a group of questionnaireitems (detailed in the tables). Wilks’ Lambda was the criterion used to determine significance. In somecases, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to individual variables (questionnaire items)to further tease out differences between the two groups. Independent samplet-tests were used to answerthe research questions that only contained one variable. It should be noted that in many cases the meanswere similar between the two groups even though the ANOVA revealed significant differences. This canbe accounted for by the standard deviations.

4.1. How journalism and public relations educators view media relations

Table 1shows the group of questionnaire items that were used to measure RQ 1. Journalism and publicrelations educators view media relations differently. There was a significant overall difference betweenthe two samples (F = 9.3, d.f. = 7 (166),p < .001). Looking at each questionnaire item separately, allitems were significant (p< .001), except “The press depends on information provided by public relations


Table 1RQ 1 means and standard deviation

Questionnaire item PR educators Journalism educators

Mean Standarddeviation


Public relations practitioners and the press are partners in thedissemination of information.*

1.9 1.0 2.8 1.2

In covering the organization they represent, public relationspractitioners extend journalists’ newsgathering potential.*

4.2 .84 3.4 1.1

The abundance of free and easily available informationprovided by public relations practitioners has, on balance,improved the quality of reporting.*

3.7 1.0 3.0 1.0

In general public relations threatens the legitimacy of anindependent press.*

1.6 .94 2.2 .96

The press depends on information provided by publicrelations practitioners because of inadequate staffing levelsin most newspapers.

4.1 .83 3.9 .96

Public relations practitioners are typically obstructionists,keeping journalists from the people they need to see.

1.8 .74 2.7 1.0

The journalist/public relations practitioner relationship isgenerally an adversarial one.*

2.8 1.0 3.0 .98

∗ Significant difference for questionnaire item;p < .001.

practitioners because of inadequate staffing levels in most newspapers,” and “Public relations practitionersare typically obstructionists, keeping journalists from the people they need to see.”

4.2. Differences in perceptions of the public relations profession

Journalism and public relations educators also have different perceptions of the profession of publicrelations. There was an overall significant difference between the two samples (F = 13.769, d.f. = 6(166),p < .001). Interestingly, the only questionnaire item that showed no significant difference was“Public relations practitioners are typically people of good sense, good will, and good moral character”(Table 2).

4.3. Has journalists’ mistrust of public relations been influenced by what was learned about theoccupation in the academy?

An independent samplet-test found a difference between the two samples (t = 3.11, d.f. = 174,p <.002), even though both samples tended to disagree with the statement, “Journalists’ mistrust of publicrelations has been influenced more by what was learned about the occupation in the academy, rather thanby negative experiences with individual practitioners,” journalism educators disagreed more. The meanfor journalism educators was 2.34 and for public relations educators it was 2.83.






Generally speaking, public relations practitioners are not astrustworthy as journalists.*

1.8 .89 2.9 1.2

Public relations practitioners are typically people of goodsense, good will and good moral character.

3.9 .84 3.7 .69

Public relations practitioners’ sole objective is to persuadeand control publics.*

1.9 1.0 2.6 1.0

Public relations practitioners typically adhere to anestablished code of ethics.*

3.4 .95 2.9 .90

Public relations is generally recognized as providing a uniqueand essential service to the general public.*

3.0 1.2 2.5 .86

Typically public relations practitioners’ primary obligation isto the client/employer rather than the public interest.*

3.0 1.2 4.1 .87


4.4. How academic programs in journalism are perceived by both samples

Table 3shows the items used to measure these questions. Not surprisingly, journalism educators agreedwith the positive statements more than did public relations educators, but neither group strongly agreedwith the statements. The MANOVA showed a significant difference between the two samples (F = 15.628,d.f. = 3 (178),p < .001).

4.5. How academic programs in public relations are perceived by both samples

Table 4shows the expected results: public relations educators agree more strongly with the statementsabout public relations education except the item, “Public relations education is predominantly concernedwith media relations.” While Wilks’ Lambda showed overall significance between the two samples (F =




Mean Standard deviation

Journalism programs generally attract students with a morecritical intellect than public relations programs do.*

2.1 1.1 2.8 1.3

Journalism students have a keener moral compass than theirpublic relations counterparts.*

1.8 .88 2.9 1.1

Journalism education programs are generally more respectedin the academy than public relations education programs.

3.2 1.1 3.5 1.0







Public relations education has a strong body of knowledgeand skills, based on theory and research in the field ofpublic relations.

3.7 1.0 3.5 1.0

Public relations programs teach students how to becomestrategic communication managers.

4.0 .90 3.7 .76

Public relations educators emphasize the importance of ethicsand professionalism to their students.*

4.3 .78 3.7 .80

Public relations education is predominantly concerned withmedia relations.*

1.8 .83 2.8 1.0

Generally speaking, public relations educators stress theimportance of critical thinking skills and socialresponsibility to their students.*

4.1 .97 3.3 .94


14.725, d.f. = 5 (175),p< .001), there was no significant difference between the two questionnaire items,“Public relations education has a strong body of knowledge and skills based on theory and research, and“Public relations programs teach students how to become strategic communication managers.”

4.6. Do journalism and public relations programs belong in the same academic department?

Although the responses for both samples were in the neutral range, both public relations and journalismeducators believe the two programs belong in the same department. The means for both groups were nearlyidentical (journalism educators,m= 2.61, and public relations educators,m= 2.60), so obviously therewas no significant difference between the two groups (t = −.044, d.f. = 184,p< .977). The questionnaireitem read: “Journalism and public relations donotbelong in the same department.” Since on the Likertscale, 1 was strongly disagree, working through the double negative, there is agreement that they dobelong in the same department. Recall that about three quarters of the total sample reported that publicrelations is located in the same unit as journalism in their institution.

5. Discussion

Even though the study found differences between how journalism and public relations educatorsview media relations that appear to reinforce previous studies, the means between the two groups, whilestatistically significant, tended to be in the same direction. Both groups disagreed that the journalist/publicrelations practitioner relationship is generally adversarial. Journalists and public relations educators bothacknowledge that journalists depend on public relations-originated material due to “inadequate staffinglevels in most newspapers.”


The findings in the present study are similar to previous studies (Aronoff, 1975; Beltz et al., 1984), butjournalism educators’ views on media relations do not appear to differassubstantially and negatively frompublic relations educators’ attitudes as previous literature may have indicated. Perhaps the perception of awider gulf is in part responsible for the tenor of the relationship, both in the workplace and in the academy.Misperceptions regarding the degree of negativity may result in missed opportunities for collaborationand integration, and/or the possibility of a more cooperative relationship in the future.

Findings indicate that differences exist regarding perception of the public relations profession, in-cluding whether public relations practitioners are not as trustworthy as journalists, and whether publicrelations practitioners’ sole objective is to persuade and control publics. Journalism educators disagreedwith the statements, but not to the extent that public relations educators disagreed, which is contrary tosome previous studies that found that journalists did not rate their counterparts as equals in ethical orstatus terms (Beltz et al., 1984; Jeffers, 1977).

However, the findings should not be interpreted to mean that journalists acknowledge the strides towardprofessionalism made by the public relations industry. Journalism and public relations educators differedin their attitudes as to whether public relations practitioners adhere to an established code of ethics, andwhether public relations provides a unique and essential service to the general public. What is noteworthyabout this finding may not be that journalism educators disagreed with the statements, but that publicrelations educators responded neutrally.

Given that two of the key tenets of a profession are that it is recognized as providing service to thepublic and adheres to an established code of ethics, it can be assumed that journalism educators do notperceive public relations to be a profession. This seems to reinforce previous findings that indicated thatattitudes toward ethics are just one of the many sticking points between the two groups. The study foundthere was a significant difference between the two samples in response to a statement that explored ifjournalists’ mistrust of public relations was influenced by what they learned about the occupation in theacademy, rather than by negative experiences with individual practitioners. In a previous study,Cline(1982)argued that some of the negative attitudes stem from the educational process, and that many masscommunication textbooks are very hostile to public relations. Cline’s study was based on older textbooks,and it may be that later editions of journalism textbooks treat public relations more fairly and focus onaspects of public relations other than media relations.

The study also examined how academic programs in journalism and public relations are perceived, andwhether public relations and journalism belong in the same department. While there was not a significantdifference between the two groups in relation to whether journalism programs are more respected in theacademy than public relations programs and whether public relations programs have a strong body ofknowledge and skills based on theory and research, both samples responded neutrally, which makes thefindings difficult to interpret.

There was a difference between the two samples as to whether journalism programs attract studentswith a more critical intellect than public relations programs, and that journalism students have a keenermoral compass than their public relations counterparts. While both samples disagreed with the state-ments, public relations educators disagreed more. It is interesting to note that journalism educatorsdisagreed with the statements, which indicates that they confer some level of respect on public relationsprograms.

However, journalism educators’ largely neutral responses to the following statements would seem toundermine that assertion to some extent. When both samples were asked about their perceptions of howpublic relations programs are perceived in the academy, their views differed on whether public relations


educators stress the importance of critical thinking skills and social responsibility to their students, andemphasize the importance of ethics and professionalism.

Not surprisingly, public relations educators agreed with these statements. While journalism educators’responses were neutral in relation to the first statement, they were in more agreement with the latter.Journalism educators responded negatively to statements that explored ethics in a professional context.Perhaps they think more highly of the ethics and professionalism of public relations educators than thoseof practitioners in general. This seems to parallel Jeffers’ (1977) results to some extent, which found thatjournalists ranked public relations practitioners with whom they had personal contact as more ethicalthan practitioners in general.

Both samples disagreed that public relations is largely concerned with media relations, and agreed thatpublic relations programs teach students how to become strategic communication managers. Journalismeducators’ responses indicate that an acknowledgement, to some degree at least, that the public relationsfunction is not simply confined to media relations.

The last research question asked the two samples whether they believed that public relations andjournalism belong in the same department. Both groups of educators agreed with the statement. It shouldbe noted that respondents were not askedwhy the two programs belong in the same department. Somemight argue that public relations sequences are valued for the large number of students they attract.Further research could explore this issue in more depth.

6. Conclusions

The study found that journalism educators displayed more agreement with positive statements aboutpublic relations than the literature or anecdotal evidence would suggest. It may be that having read somany previous studies that highlight their antagonistic relationship, public relations educators’ perceivethat journalism educators’ views are very different to theirs, or assume that journalism educators hold thesame views as their ‘professional’ journalist counterparts.

The results of this study indicate that journalism educators do not differ as substantially and negatively intheir opinions of public relations as the latter may believe. These misunderstandings could be jeopardizingopportunities for a more cooperative relationship. The study also indicates that the nature and focus offuture communication between the two groups obviously needs to be re-addressed. Since the entireexistence of the public relations profession rests on the assumption that positive attitudes contribute tofavorable behavior, public relations educators may be best advised to engage in some self-reflection. It isimportant to identify and address why misperceptions exist, and to look for ways to build on agreement.

References

Aronoff, C. (1975). Newspapers and practitioners differ widely on PR role.Public Relations Journal, 31, 25.Beltz, A., Talbott, A. D., & Starck, K. (1984). Cross perceptions: Journalists and public relations practitioners go eyeball to

eyeball.Public Relations Review, 10, 44–45.Bovet, S. L. (1992). Educators need to communicate better on and off campus.Public Relations Journal, 48(September), 14–17.Cline, C. (1982). The image of public relations in mass communications texts.Public Relations Review, 58(8), 63–78.Fedler, F., & DeLorme, D. E. (2002).Journalists’ hostility toward public relations: An historical analysis. Annual Meeting of

the AEJMC Public Relations Division.


Gibson, D. C. (1987). Public relations education in a time of change.Public Relations Quarterly, 32(3), 25–31.Jeffers, D. W. (1977). Performance expectations as a measure of relative status of news and PR people.Journalism Quarterly,

54(2), 299–307.Kopenhaver, L. L., Martinson, D. L., & Ryan, R. (1984). How public relations practitioners and editors in Florida view each

other.Journalism Quarterly, 61(4), 860–865, 884.Kruckeberg, D. (1998). The future of PR education: Some recommendations.Public Relations Review, 24(2), 235–248.Leeper, K. A. (1996). Public relations ethics and communitarianism: A preliminary investigation.Public Relations Review,

22(1).Ryan, M., & Martinson, D. L. (1984). Ethical values, the flow of journalistic information and public relations persons.Journalism

Quarterly, 61(1), 28.Shaw, T. F. (2002).Factors that affect the level of coorientation that exists between public relations and journalism educators.

Unpublished dissertation, University of Tennessee.Shin, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). The potential of online media: A coorientational analysis of conflict between PR professionals

and journalists in South Korea.Journalism and Public Relations Quarterly, 80(3), 583–602.Walker, A. (1989). Where to anchor public relations education? The problem persists.Public Relations Quarterly, 34(3), 22–25.

Documents

Example Article for Final Paper (PR & Journalism)