Can Persuasive Communication be defended on Ethical Grounds and how is it different from Propaganda?

by Nearchos Nearchou

Introduction

For some writers, propaganda, as compared to public relations, is a question

of whether or not ‘the truth’ is told and propaganda equated with ‘lies’.

For others, propaganda is simply persuasion.

Jacquie L’Etang (2008:34)

 L’Etang’s (2008) critical comment on the different views and opinions, which surround the relationship between persuasive communication and propaganda and their links to ethical persuasion, is evident throughout the public relations (PR) and communication theory texts. Her view is mirroring the outgoing scholars and PR practitioners’ debate around the aforementioned notions. Moreover, as Fawkes (2007:314) indicates “the fields of persuasion, propaganda, and public relations have all been extensively researched and studied – but usually without reference to each other”.

 This essay will try to show that persuasive communication can be defended on ethical grounds and that propaganda and persuasion, even if they are not identical in terms, they can be linked together based on the terms and models explained below. The paper will also support Berlo (1960) and Miller’s (1989) views as cited in Grunig (1992:41), that persuasion and PR are as “Two ‘Ps’ in a Pod”. Nevertheless, to effectively address the credibility of this position, one must first outline its key terms: that is, persuasive communications, ethical persuasion and propaganda.

 1.     Defining Persuasive Communication

The bulk of persuasion studies (Bettinghaus and Cody, 1994; Perloff, 2003; Simons, 2001; O’Keefe, 2002) come from both the Social Psychology schools in the USA, and the study of speech acts, or rhetoric. In general, persuasion is defined as a “communicative process to influence others” (Jowett and O’Donnell:21; Newsom, Turk and Kruckeberg, 2000), and is transactive and attempts to satisfy the needs of both persuader and persuadee (Jowett and O’Donnell:1). However, it is the author’s view that persuasive communication should be discussed in parallel with PR (Fawkes, 2007:316) in order to facilitate the discussion concerning ethical persuasion and propaganda.

 1.1      Persuasive Communication and Public Relations

Fawkes (2006:271) maintain that “persuasion is still underexplored in public relations literature”. Indeed, in the last fifty years at least, PR literature has largely shunned the word persuasion (Messina, 2007:31). That is mostly because, as L’Etang points out, “the feeling against persuasion in the field of public relations was facilitated by a desire of practitioners to distance themselves from propaganda tactics of the war years” (L’Etang, 2004:).[1] However, PR concerns mainly communication with intent (Messina, 2007:29-30). Indeed, persuasive communication is a dominant practice in PR in spite of the gap in PR literature (Guth and March, 2003:8; Seitel, 2004:111, Cutlip, Center and Broom, 1994:229). Hitherto, several scholars/practitioners in PR have been willing to acknowledge the role of persuasion (Messina, 2007:31). Price (1992) perceives PR as persuasive communication and examines it compared to public opinion. Last but not least, as it has been aforementioned, this essay supports that persuasive communication and PR are historically linked because the two disciplines are identical in the process of exercising their powers. This is also supported by Miller’s (1989:45) argument that effective persuasion and effective PR are “virtually synonymous because both are primarily concerned with exerting symbolic control over relevant aspects of the environment”.

 2.     Ethical Persuasive Communications or not?

Nonetheless, even if a lot of studies have been developed with relation to persuasion, these studies do not say much concerning persuasion ethics (Fawkes, 2007:315). However, Johannesen (1996) asserts that it is important to consider ethics and persuasion at the same time because the ‘relationship’ of the two terms involves the principles of trust and choice, and the behaviour of one individual that can be judged by another one. Borchers (2002:54) also lays emphasis on the principle of choice: “persuasive communication that allows individuals to consciously choose their beliefs and behaviors is ethical, whereas that which denies choice is unethical”. Messina (2007:33) in trying to define the ethics of persuasion, he underlines the importance of judgement and asserts that ethical persuasion is “an attempt through communication to influence knowledge, attitude or behaviour of an audience through presentation of a view that addresses and allows the audience to make voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgements”.

 Some scholars give or imply a neutral meaning for persuasive communication. Heath (2001:2) claims that persuasion is not seen as inherently good or bad, but as the stuff of human interaction. Several other scholars, however, consider persuasion as unethical when intentional lying, misrepresentation, or deception is used (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Nelson, 1994; Olasky, 1985a, 1985b), but sometimes the ethical implications might be difficult to be distinguished (Guttman, 1997). Indeed, most critics have an aversion to persuasion, see it as inherently unethical and advise how to eschew it (Fawkes, 2007:323).

 On the other hand, Edward Bernays highlights the advocacy nature of PR (McBride, 1989). This aspect could lead us to advocacy ethics,[2] which could stand for ethical persuasion, because “advocacy ethics recognise the need for constrains within the free market and suggest these should involve awareness of factors such as access, process, truth and disclosure” (Fitzpatrick, 2006:3). Proponents of advocacy theory note that ethical persuasion is acceptable and essential for the emergence of truth in a participatory democracy (Barney and Black, 1994; Bernays, 1986). Barney and Black (1994:247) explain that in the advocacy model “the role of the PR practitioner (often a professional persuader on a mass scale) [is] likened with that of a lawyer in litigation”.

 Other writers on ethics from the rhetorical perception, such as Pearson (1989), Toth and Heath (1992) have examined ethical persuasion thoroughly. The next two suggestions draw on this background to formulate a set of questions the advocate should ask themselves so as to determine the degree of ethics in their persuasive communication. Baker (1999) recommends that PR practitioners are likely to use one of five ‘justifications for persuasion’, as follows: (1)self interest; (2)entitlement; (3)enlightened self-interest; (4)social responsibility; and (5)kingdom of ends. This reminds Kohlberg’s (1981, 1984) typology of six stages of moral reasoning, from pre-conventional, self-centred response, through conventional, work and profession-centred thinking, to post conventional, society-centred reasoning. Edgett (2002) suggests ten principles for ethical advocacy, some of which overlap with Baker and Martinson’s (2002) five principles, which they call the TARES test: (1)truthfulness; (2)authenticity; (3)respect; (4)equity; and (5)social responsibility.

 The aforementioned approaches address the personalities of the communicators and ask them to reflect on their own motives and behaviours. However, if we accept that alongside the personalities of the communicators there exists an ethical standard for any communicator, for example the public interest, as Massina (2007:34) asserts, then “the public interest of any practitioners’ acts is something individual practitioners cannot themselves determine, let alone make a measure of ethical practice”. It appears that the aforementioned approaches and standards are mostly idealistic; except from the advocacy model, which is a realistic one based on its application in other sectors, such as the Law. Alongside the advocacy model is another realistic approach as proposed by L’Etang (Tilson, 2006:172): the so-called co-orientation approach. L’Etang claims that within this approach “the persuasive acts might be judged in terms of the relationship between the parties concerned and their views of each other” (L’Etang, 2006:368). Consequently, this could produce discussions on the “nature of the communication between parties, such as the degree of openness”, an aspect that has been discussed to a large extent in PR theory (ibid.).[3]

 Therefore, persuasion can be ethical (Messina, 2007:29) by using other standards to be assessed with and by developing criteria and standards in practicing ethical persuasive communication as it has been shown and discussed above. Yet, as Fawkes (2006:284) admits, “there are still problems facing public relations as a sector”. If PR is to re-establish its reputation, it requires acknowledging that the term, the role and the process of persuasion are central to PR and must be openly discussed within the discipline (Fawkes, 2006; Messina, 2007). The questions should rotate around the limits of persuasion and those restrictions should be prescribed by ethics (Messina, 2007:30). PR should determine ways to persuade ethically, as suggested by Baker, Martinson, L’Etang and others. Some of their suggestions may be idealistic, but maybe these suggestions “are not bad thing to reach for when trying to conduct ethical persuasive communication” (Fawkes, 2006:284).

 3.     Defining Propaganda

Following the definitions of persuasive communication and the discussion on ethical persuasion, the essay will now try to define the term ‘propaganda’. This will lead us in a discussion on comparing the two notions and identifying possible differences and similarities between them. Generally, propaganda, in the most impartial meaning, stands for disseminating or promoting particular ideas.[4] Bernays (1965) in his memoirs observed that in 200 years the meaning of propaganda had been twisted and turned totally negative.[5] Indeed, L’Etang (1998) comments that propaganda was a neutral term at the start of the twentieth century.

 Studies developed after First World War constructed a pejorative understanding of propaganda (Gary, 1999; Jowett & O’Donnell, 1992; Sproule, 1994, 1997). Several theorists define propaganda as control and deception that is deployed simply as a way to achieve ends; and the ends serve the propagandist’s interests (Jowett, 1999:2-8; Marlin, 2003:16-23; Parsons, 2004:107). Jowett and O’Donnell (1992:4) developed a definition of propaganda that concentrates on the communication process and with manipulation in mind: “Propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct bahavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” However, they admit that “propaganda is not necessarily an evil thing” (p.271).

 In general, a researcher can detect various definitions of propaganda.[6] Doob (1989:375) states that “a clear-cut definition of propaganda is neither possible nor desirable”. Cunningham (2002:21) claims that there is good and honest propaganda and states that PR “became a new form of propaganda after the First World War”. This approach is along the lines of some PR academics (L’Etang, Weaver) who declare that propaganda should be reconsidered rather than demonised in PR texts. This essay and several authors, particularly Fawkes (2006:267-87), argues that several basic definitions of propaganda could be equally well used to describe PR. In addition, Traverse-Healy (1988:11) writes that White, a distinguished PR academic, maintains that “propaganda and public relations activities are essentially the same in nature and in their use of information and that both can be misused”.

 4.     Persuasive Communication vs Propaganda

Following the above discussion concerning both persuasive communication’s and propaganda’s definitions and meaning, Messina (2007:30) indicates that the terms PR and persuasion usually co-habit with propaganda and its pejorative implications. However, sometimes writers distinguish the two terms, and sometimes they do not (Deaver, 1990; Jowett, 1999; Marlin, 2003; Miller, 1989). Pratkanis and Aronson (1992) consider propaganda as the abuse of persuasion, whereas Taylor (1992:18) states that “propaganda is simply a process of persuasion”. Stauber and Rampton (2004) presume persuasion is the same as propaganda, whilst Jowett and O’Donnell (1992:2) argue that “there is a certain amount of overlap, but the two terms can be differentiated”. They also claim that “propaganda tends to be linked to with a general societal process, whereas persuasion is regarded as an individual psychological process”. However, the so far mentioned critiques are too broad or too specific to give a sharp idea of the differences and similarities between the two terms. Neither the scholars who try to convince that nowadays propaganda and PR is the same are believable, nor the others who try to prove that the two notions are two totally different aspects. I believe that the best way to bring all the different ideas and opinions together, as close as possible, is to draw a golden line between the two aspects.

 The author believes that the most interesting and most sufficient terminology given for propaganda is the one constructed by Jowett and O’Donnell (1992:8). The writers split the term ‘propaganda’ into three distinctive categories. This categorisation could help us to distinguish the many different definitions given by the scholars to the term, and also to uncover the similarities and differences from persuasive communication. Jowett and O’Donnell described propaganda as being ‘white’, ‘grey’, or ‘black’ depending on the acknowledgment of its source and its accuracy of information. Firstly, it is called ‘white’ propaganda if the source is identified correctly and the information in the message is likely to be accurate (ibid.). The examples given are the Voice of America radio network and the BBC overseas. Secondly, it is called ‘black’ propaganda, when is credited to a false source, it spreads lies, fabrications and deceptions and includes all types of creative deceit (pp.9-10). Cold War propaganda is an example. Finally, in the middle of the aforementioned categories, there is ‘grey’ propaganda, where the source may or may not be correctly identified and the accuracy of information is uncertain (p.13).

 On this shading, Moloney (2006:71) indicates that PR is ‘white’ or ‘grey’ propaganda and he describes it as a ‘weak’ propaganda. Indeed, someone can assume that persuasive communication could conflate with the ‘white’ or ‘grey’ propaganda, or the ‘weak’ propaganda, as Moloney calls it. In that case we can assume that the two terms, propaganda and persuasive communication, can be identical. Within the first category (‘white’ propaganda), one can detect the original meaning of propaganda, before it changed its meaning after the two World Wars. On the other hand, the ‘black’ propaganda has the deceitful meaning that was given by many scholars in the late twentieth century, as a result of the misused application of propaganda in earlier years. In such a case, someone can differentiate the two terms – propaganda and persuasive communication – by claiming that they have different applications and meanings.

 Parallel to the aforementioned categories, a further explanation given by Grunig and Hunt (1984) in formulating the four models of PR could provide another stand for detecting differences and similarities between propaganda and persuasive communication. The four models of PR that Grunig and Hunt (1984) developed are: (a) press agentry/publicity, (b) public information, (c) two-way asymmetrical and (d) two-way symmetrical PR. Grunig and Hunt (1984:21) locate propaganda in the press agentry/publicity model and clarify that “practitioners spread the faith of the organisation involved, often through incomplete, distorted, or half-true information”. In the last of these, “the two-way symmetrical model [...] was deemed ethical and best practice PR communication” (L’Etang, 2006:13). However, more recently, (Grunig, Grunig and Dozier, 2002:312), Grunig has clarified his position with reference to persuasion by saying that persuasion has always been part of the two-way symmetrical model, and that persuasion is not rejected as long as it is symmetrical (p. 316). This last statement is the most crucial one. If we accept that the persuasion can exist in the fourth model of PR, and having in mind that previously we have accepted that ‘white’ propaganda conflates with persuasive communication, then ‘white’ propaganda has always been part of the two-way symmetrical model, as long as it is symmetrical. Therefore, propaganda – even in the form of the ‘white’ one – can serve the forth model of PR, which is the basis of the excellence theory.

 Conclusion

Persuasion is not inherently “bad”;

PR is built on persuasion; ethics cannot be tacked

onto false assumptions. New approaches are needed.

Johanna Fawkes (2007:318)

 Fawkes (2007:318) comments on the critical approaches derived from the opinions of L’Etang, Pieczka and Weaver, and underline the need for outlining new approaches towards persuasive communications, ethics and propaganda. This essay tried to follow Fawkes’ comment in two ways. Firstly, by identifying that PR and persuasive communication are as “Two ‘Ps’ in a Pod” (Berlo, 1960); Miller, 1989) and by defining persuasive communication and propaganda, came to the conclusion that both terms could conflate in one way and differentiate in another. The terms ‘white’ and ‘grey’, or ‘weak’ propaganda can be identical to persuasive communication, and therefore, can co-exist in the forth model of PR as long as it is symmetrical. This points directly to L’Etang’s (2008:34) view that “one person’s PR is another’s propaganda”. On the other hand, the term ‘black’ propaganda can be differentiated from PR, because the first stands on a totally different process, meaning and application from the latter.

 Secondly, this essay supported the existence of standards and approaches that can be used in constructing ethical persuasive communication. The advocacy model developed by Baker and Black, the approach proposed by L’Etang and the formulated set of questions developed by Baker, Martinson and Edgett can strongly defend ethical persuasion. However, the discussion around propaganda, persuasive communication and ethical persuasion would be more challenging only if scholars focus more on the real practice of ethical persuasive PR; as Porter (2010:132) indicates, “only then can the public relations literature begin to challenge today’s practitioners to practice ethically”.

Endnotes

[1] See also Jowett, 1999; Marlin, 2003; and Miller, 1989.

[2] Advocacy ethics stems both from the social responsibility theory of the press and persuasion (Curtin and Boynton, 2001:414).

[3] Moreover, L’Etang’s (2006) co-orientation approach is identical with the third reasoning of Johannesen’s (1996) opinion on ethics and persuasion, which is one of the three reasons Johannesen claims, for supporting the discussion of both persuasion and ethics simultaneously.

[4] In Latin, it meant ‘to propagate’ or ‘to sow’ (Jowett and O’Donnell, 1992:2) and the word has its origins in the seventeenth-century Catholic Church, where it meant to ‘propagate the faith’ (Fawkes, 2006:268).

[5] “There is no word in the English language”, Bernays (2005:49) says, “whose meaning has been so sadly distorted as the word ‘propaganda’ ”.

[6] Taylor (1999) for instance, argues that Britain managed to develop a model of “democratic” propaganda and Burton St. John III (2006:221) refers to legitimate or “ethical propaganda” when investigates Ivy Lee’s railroad rate campaign.

References

Baker, S. (1999), ‘Five baselines for justification in persuasion’, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 14 no. 2, pp. 69-94.

Baker, S. and Martinson, D. L. (2002), ‘Out of the red-light district: five principles for ethically proactive public relations’, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 47 no. 3, pp. 15-19.

Barney, D. Ralph and Black Jay (1994), ‘Ethics and Professional Persuasive Communications’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 20 no. (3), pp. 233-248.

Berlo, D. K. (1960), The process of communication, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston

Bernays, E. L., (1986), The later years: Public relations insights, 1956-1986, Rhinebeck, NY, H&M Publishers

Bernays, Edward (1965), Biography of an Idea: Memoirs of Public Counsel Edward L. Bernays, New York, Simon & Schuster

Bernays, Edward (2005), Propaganda, Brooklyn, NY, Ig Publishing

Bettinghaus, E. P. and Cody M. J. (1994), Persuasive Communication, Fifth edition, Orando, FL, Harcourt Brace

Borchers, A. Timothy (2002), Persuasion in the media age, USA, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Cunningham, B. Stanley (2002), The Idea of Propaganda, Westport, CN, Praeger

Curtin, A. Patricia and Boynton A. Lois (2001), ‘Ethics in Public Relations: Theory and Practice, pp. 411-21, in Heath, L. Robert (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Inc.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H. and Brook, G. M. (1994), Effective Public Relations, Seventh edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall

Deaver, F. (1990), On defining the truth, Journal of Media Ethics, Vol. 5 no. (3), pp. 168-77.

Doob, W. Leonard (1989), ‘Propaganda’, pp. 374-78, in Barnouw, Erik, et al., International Encyclopedia of Communications, , Vol. 4, New York, Oxford University Press

Edgett, R. (2002), ‘Toward an ethical framework for advocacy’, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 14 no. 1, pp. 1-26.

Fawkes, Johanna (2006), ‘Public Relations, propaganda and the psychology of persuasion,’ pp. 266-87, in Tench, Ralph and Yeomans Liz (eds), Exploring Public Relations, England, Pearson Education Limited

Fawkes, Johanna (2007), ‘Public relations models and persuasion ethics: a new approach’, Journal of Communications Management, Vol. 11 no. (4), pp. 313-331.

Fitzpatrick, K. (2006), ‘Baselines for ethical advocacy in the Marketplace of Ideas’, pp. 1-18, in Fitzpatrick, K. and Bornstein, C. (eds), Ethical Public Relations: Responsible Advocacy, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Inc.

Gary, B. (1999), The nervous liberals: Propaganda anxieties from World War I to the Cold War, New York, Columbia University Press

Grunig, J. and Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations, New York, NY, Holt, Rinehart & Winston

Grunig, L., Grunig, J. and Dozier, D. (2002), Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organisations, London, Lawrence Erlbaum

Guth, D. and March, C. (2003), Public Relations: A Values Driven Approach, Second edition, Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon

Guttman, N., (1997), ‘Ethical dilemmas in health campaigns’, Health Communication, Vol. 9, 155-90.

Heath, L. Robert (2001), ‘Shifting Foundations: Public Relations as Relationship Building’, pp. 1-10, in Heath, L. Robert (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Inc.

Johannesen, R. L. (1996), Ethics n human communication, Fourth edition, Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press

Jowett, Garth (1999), Propaganda and Persuasion, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Inc.

Jowett, S. Garth and O’Donnell Victoria (1992), Propaganda and Persuasion, Second edition, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications Inc.

Kohlberg, L. (1981), The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice, Vol. 1, New York, NY, Harper and Row

Kohlberg, L. (1984), The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice, Vol. 2, New York, NY, Harper and Row

L’Etang, Jacquie (1998), ‘State Propaganda and Bureaucratic Intelligence: The Creation of Public Relations in 20th Century Britain’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 no. (4), pp. 413-441.

L’Etang, Jacquie (2004), Public Relations in Britain: A History of Professional Practice in the 20th Century, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

L’Etang, Jacquie (2006), ‘Public Relations and Rhetoric’, pp. 359-71, in L’Etang, Jacquie and Pieczka Magda (eds), Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

L’Etang, Jacquie (2008), Public Relations in Britain: Concepts, Practice and Critique, London, Sage Publications Ltd

Marlin, R. (2003), Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion, Canada, Broadview Press

McBride, G., (1989), ‘Ethical thought in public relations history: Seeking a relevant perspective, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 4, pp. 5-20.

Messina, Alex (2007), ‘Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: an ethical approach’, Journal of Management, Vol. 11 no. (1), pp. 29-52.

Miller, G. R. (1989), ‘Persuasion and public relations: Two ‘Ps’ in a pod’, pp. 45-66, in Botan, C. H. and Hazleton, Jr. V. (ed.), Public relations theory, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Moloney, Kevin (2006), Rethinking Public Relations, Second edition, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge

Nelson, R. A., (1994), ‘Issues communication and advocacy: Contemporary ethical challenges’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 20 no. (3), pp. 225-31.

Newsom, D., Turk, V. J. and Kruckeberg, D. (2000), This is PR: The Realities of Public Relations, Seventh edition, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth

O’Keefe, D. J., (2002), Persuasion: Theory and Research, Second edition, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications Inc.

Olasky, M., (1984), ‘Retrospective: Bernays’ doctrine of public opinion’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 10 no. (3), pp. 3-12.

Olasky, M., (1985a), ‘Bringing “order out of chaos”: Edward Bernays and the salvation of society through public relations’, Journalism History, Vol. 12, pp. 17-21.

Olasky, M., (1985b), ‘Ministers or panderers: Issues raised by the Public Relations Society code of standards’, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 1, pp. 43-49.

Parsons, P. J. (2004), Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice, London, Kogan Page

Pearson, R. (1989), ‘Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: co orientation, rules and the ideal of communication symmetry’, pp. 67-87, in Grunig, J. E. and Grunig , L. A. (eds), Public Relations Research Annual, Vol. 1, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum

Perloff, R. M. (2003), The Dynamics of Persuasion, Second edition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Porter, Lance (2010), ‘Communicating for the good of the state: A post-symmetrical polemic on persuasion in ethical public relations’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 36 no. (2), pp. 127-133.

Praktanis, Anthony and Aronson Elliot (1992), Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse and Persuasion, New York, Henry Holt and Co

Price, V. (1992), Public Opinion, London, Sage Publications Inc.

Seitel, F. P. (2004), The Practice of Public Relations, Ninth edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall

Simons, H. W. (2001), Persuasion in Society, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Inc.

Sproule, J. M. (1994), Channels of propaganda, Bloomington, IN, ERIC

Sproule, J. M. (1997), Propaganda and democracy: The American experience of media and mass persuasion, New York, Cambridge University Press

St. John III, Burton (2006), ‘The case for ethical propaganda within a democracy: Ivy Lee’s successful 1913-1914 railroad rate campaign’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 32 no. (3), pp. 221-228.

Stauber, J. and Rampton, S. (2004), Toxic Sludge is Good For You, London, Robinson

Taylor, Phillip (1992), War and the media: Propaganda and persuasion in the Gulf War, Manchester, Manchester University Press

Taylor, Phillip (1999), British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century, Edinburg, UK, Edinburg University Press

Tilson, James Donn (2006), ‘Devotional-Promotional Communication and Santiago: A Thousand-Year Public Relations Campaign for Saint James and Spain’, pp. 167-86, in L’Etang, Jacquie and Pieczka Magda (eds), Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Toth, E. L. and Heath R. L. (1992), Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Traverse-Healy, T. (1988), Public Relations and Propaganda – Values Compared, Gold Paper no.6, Geneva, International public Relations Association

Weaver, K., Motion, J. and Roper, J. (2006), ‘From Propaganda to Discourse (and Back Again): Truth, Power, the Public Interest and Public Relations’, pp. 7-21, in L’Etang, Jacquie and Pieczka Magda (eds), Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates