Agenda Setting

In this weeks lecture, we discussed theories related to Public Relations. Most of these are theories that we have all heard before, some probably more than others. Doing a major in both PR and Journalism, agenda setting is an idea that has always interested me, as it influences both of these fields significantly.

As stated in the text,
"Agenda setting indicates that, although the news media do not tell you what to think, they do strongly influence what you think about."
I don't know about you, but I find this concept fascinating.

It makes sense that public relations practitioners use agendas setting to establish positive, prominent attention in the news and media for their clients. When phrased like this, agenda setting does not seem, as it often does, as a form of propaganda. The same applies to "playing down," or in some cases oppressing negative stories of the client to achieve the same effect. It seems that agenda setting can be interpreted in two completely different ways, and it is in the viewers interpretation of the practitioner's use of the tool the ultimately shapes the opinion of the subject in question.

Agenda setting does indeed, as stated in the text, draw attention to the relationship between the news media and public relations practice. But what sort of relationship is this?

What do you think??????


This week, I posted a comment on Kellie O'Sullivan's blog. I would definitely recommend reading the blog entries on Kellie's page.

http://cmns1290kellieosullivan.blogspot.com

PR- Definitions and Australian History.

Many ideas were presented in the two opening chapters of the core text for Introduction to Public Relations, Public Relations Theory and Practice. after being asked to define public relations practice in the first lecture of this course and failing miserably, i read the first chapter, "What is Public Relations," with great anticipation. I hoped that after reading this chapter, I would be able to answer the question soundly and accurately the next time it was presented to me. You can imagine my disappointment and frustration, however, when the chapter went on to say that, basically, it is almost impossible to define public relations. To be completely honest, after reading only the first half a dozen pages, the text was quite nearly thrown through my second story bedroom window.

After a few deep breaths and a few harsh words from friends who had completed the weeks readings, i resumed reading the text. I am now a little embarrassed to admit that, after my initial dramatic reaction, I have come to the realisation that the broad scope of possibilities provided under the public relations umbrella is much more interesting and important to me as a future practitioner than a silly little definition. The idea of specialists and generalists, advertising, marketing, mass communication, corporate enterprises, social functions and much, much more are just some of the aspects involved in an industry that i can not wait to learn more about.

Thought: After completing the readings, I have come to the conclusion that I am a generalist rather than a specialist. I do not want to limit myself to a single feild, and love the idea of so many paths and possibilities in one profession. So what about you? Are you a generalist, or a specialist? Can't wait to hear your answer.....