Images of "Hong Bo (public relations)" and PR in Korean newspapers.(Korean newspaper reporters have negative attitude toward Hong Bo and public relations)

Jongmin Park (*)

Abstract

This study analyzed the meaning of Hong Bo and PR as the terms appeared in three main Korean newspapers, on the basis of Spicer's seven themes. A total of 1548 mentions of the term Hong Bo and PR were analyzed as follows: First, Korean newspapers, like newspapers in the United States, tend to view Hong Bo and PR as publicity or merely PR. Thus, overall Korean newspaper reporters have a negative attitude toward the meanings of Hong Bo and PR and the reporters' viewpoint was supported by this study. Second, the uses of PR and Hong Bo were categorized as challenge, distraction, disaster, hype and merely PR. While Hong Bo was categorized more of terms as challenge, distraction and disaster than PR was, PR was categorized more of terms as hype and merely PR than Hong Bo was. This also indicates that while the meanings of Hong Bo were more negative or positive than those of PR, the meanings of PR have been used as more neutral than those of Hong Bo. The study suggests that Korean public relations practitioners and relatives have to try to lead the public to a positive attitude toward the term Hong Bo, which has been used more frequently than the term PR. [C] 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The degradation of "public relations" as the domain's guiding term has been generally accepted for many years now. Olasky (1) has indicated that public relations practitioners have become associated with a litany of defamatory words such as "hucksters," "tools of the top brass," "parrots," "low-life liars" and "evasive, impotent, egomaniacal, and lying." Public relations educator William Ehling insisted that public relations practitioners "are handicapped rather than helped by the label 'public relations'." (2) Adams (3) reports that in 1992 only about 75 of the Fortune 500 companies were using some form of the phrase "public relations" and in 1997 only six of the top 50 public relations firms used the term in their title.

At his recent induction into the Arthur W. Page Society's Hall of Fame, Daniel J. Edlman (4) said that "our mission is to bring honor and respect to the term 'public relations' rather than discarding it." Despite Edelman's pleadings, the researchers on terminology in public relations indicated that public relations practitioners are adopting a plethora of new tides (e.g., corporate communications, corporate affairs, and investor relations) in an effort to distance themselves from the perceived negative connotations surrounding the term public relations.

Longitudinal studies reveal that newspaper reporters and editors have steadily held negative biases in relation to public relations and public relations practitioners. (5) Spicer (6) analyzed the terms "public relations" and "PR," revealing seven different connotative themes or definitions: distractions, disaster, challenge, hype, merely public relations, war, and schmooze. In over 80% of the cases, the journalists used the terms in a negatively embedded context.