Today the news desks experience an in-flow of information never seen before, especially from the corporate sector. The input is overwhelming - if previously it was a stream, it's now more like a river. Handling this flood of information is problematic, and there is a risk that journalists will get caught up in it and thereby decrease their ability to control the news agenda.

This raises questions of whether the media may become dependent on this subsidy of information and material. Some journalists reflecting over their own work situation suggested there is a risk that reporters will become dependent on the influence of different activist experts. Even journalists with special beats sometimes experience a lack of knowledge, especially those within technical, medical and natural-science-related subject areas: "While we become too specialized we also become too dependent", said one public service TV journalist.

PR people call both openly and under cover to try to sell an idea to us. It's presented in a very feasible way and then we're under extreme pressure to put together a paper for the next day. They know our work situation and they know exactly what things to pull.

By serving the media with news material, the activities of PR actors have caused their industry to move towards taking on the shape of a news desk located outside the media.

PR Agents' and Journalists' Perceptions of Each Other

The PR experts' and journalists' views of each other differ a great deal. It seems that, in principle, many representatives of the PR industry have great respect for journalism and the media's role in society. They underline the media's obligation to review the PR sphere just as they expect journalists to do with other social phenomena. At the same time, some of the PR actors in reality showed less respect for the media's professional task, as attempts to manipulate or steer the media in a favorable way seemed acceptable. Even among those who claimed a profound respect for the media, instrumental aims became discernible.

Hardly any of the journalists expressed a corresponding respect for the PR agents. In principle, PR experts, especially consultants, were described as opponents, in line with the general normative thinking of journalism, which supports the view that PR people are to be kept at a distance. They are "my most important opponents," claimed one journalist of a national newspaper and continued by saying that the group has become so "unbelievably much more clever with what they do". As PR agents inevitably exist in the media professionals' work context, journalists are forced to respect them in the same matter as one has to respects an opponent:

I dislike the phenomenon /PR consultants/ terribly. But I do realize that 'this is the way it is' and what am I to do? They're a part of today's society. And an influential part too (Editor, evening newspaper).

Journalists' mainly skeptical approach to PR is familiar to those working in the PR sphere. It is mirrored in the strategies of the latter - how to present material as well as how to present themselves in order to establish contact - and perhaps also in their professional self-image. Some of the consultants pointed to the fact that they are always straightforward in their contacts with the media and always explain whom or what interests they represent.

In their comments on PR agents, a journalists tended to group information officers and consultants. The journalistic approach seems to be that there is actually no need for any PR agents. Meanwhile, in reality, the relation in itself may function differently depending on whether a PR person is placed inside or outside an organization - the latter case often making it more restrained. Still, some journalists claimed to make use of consultants in terms of information overviews and ideas for suitable sources. In addition, while they also fill a censoring role, information officers admittedly seem to be useful in negotiating contacts higher up in the organizations. Journalists, however, often find these officers annoying, as they want to speak with the person in charge; they do not to wish to get the answers "filtered through representatives one has to go by".

In this specific matter, journalists and PR consultants actually seem to agree. The latter claimed they should never be the voice of the organization they represent. Rather, their work is to organize the contact set up. It is always the client who should talk to the journalists, and "it would be absurd to have a consultant between the journalist and the corporation". Yet many journalists claimed that they are constantly subject to information flows controlled by PR consultants. The discrepancy in the perception of the situation is likely to be a result of opposing relational perspectives on who controls the terms for the contact and in whose interest it is taken.

Journalists' mainly skeptical and negative approach to PR experts was accompanied by an attitude of rejection towards them when discussions during the interview sessions lead to the topic of what the relationship is actually like in reality. When the PR agents, on the other hand, voiced their opinion about the same reality, it was largely through opposite understandings of good and well-working relationships, common interests and sometimes collaboration.

Conclusion

The news media are the main channel for disseminating information and controlling public opinion in favour of a particular group's interests. Accordingly, obtaining media publicity is an important aim of the PR industry. This fact leads to the almost trivial assumption that there is a connection between those who aim to influence the media and those who work in the news business.

The contacts between PR agents and journalists are extensive, in the sense that they are frequent, and mainly initiated by the former. Thus, journalists are constantly the designated targets of PR activities. According to both parties, personal relationships generally appear to be rare.

The views of the two parties are divided. PR agents commonly declare a high level of respect for the norms of journalistic conduct and for the media's role in a democratic society. They also view their relation with the media as well functioning. The journalists, on the other hand, generally express less respect for people working with PR and claim they do not have any established relations with them, even if they admit to often being approached by PR agents.

Furthermore their views on the outcome of this relation differ significantly. PR actors claim that they often succeed in their efforts to get publicity out of the news material produced. But, as they declare, there is no attempt to influence journalism; they just "deliver news ideas". Editors and journalists, on the other hand, agree that they frequently receive promotional materials from different organizations or consultants, but more or less resolutely state that they hardly ever consider using that type of material. In other words, the flow of PR material is no great problem in their eyes, as they are usually able to unmask the instrumental ends. In other words, the gatekeeper function works.

The PR actors' high level of respect for journalism, its role in society and its integrity should be contrasted to PR work practises that inevitably aim at providing publicity for a particular version of reality. Meanwhile, journalists' generally sceptical attitude towards PR activities should be measured against reality: the media clearly publish news stemming from PR material. PR sphere is highly successful in achieving its aims, that is, the media do in fact publish material originating from this sphere to a quite great extent. Even if the contacts are said to be mostly one-sided - and mainly initiated by the PR sphere - they might well, in reality, constitute a two-way process. Through networking activities, the PR agents create awareness among journalists about their existence, which in turn increases their chances of being contacted by reporters in search of information. Thus, the PR industry always has suitable informative material ready for delivery. Some of the journalists interviewed in the present study stated that PR agents facilitate the journalistic task in this way.

PR actions and activities within the frames of the PR industry result in an in-flow of news material and a constant marketing of ideas directed at the news desks. Simultaneously, editorial staffs are - and have been for some time now - subject to increasing restraints in personnel and resources, meaning less ability do conduct in-house research and a greater dependence on material sent from outside sources.

List of the literature

1. Allern, Sigurd (1997) Nar kildene byr opp till dans. Oslo: Pax Forlag.

2. Bennett, Lance & Manheim, Robert (2001) 'The Big Spin. Communication and the Transformation of Pluralist Democracy', in Bennett & Entman (ed.) Mediated Politics. Communication in The Future of Democracy. Cambridge University Press.

3. Blumler, Jay & Gurevitch, Michael (1995) The Crisis of Public Communication. London: Routledge.

4. Blumler, Jay (1990) 'Elections, the Media ant the Modern Publicity Process', in Ferguson (ed.) Public Communication, The New Imperatives. London: Sage.

5. Cameron, Glen; Sallot, Lynne & Curtin, Patricia (1997) 'Public Relations and the Production of News. A Critical Review and Theoretical Framework', in Burleson (ed.) Communication Yearbook 20. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

6. Washington DC: The Brooking Institute. Cottle, Simon (2003) Introduction, in Cottle (ed.) News, Public Relations and Power. London: Sage. Davis, Aeron (2002) Public Relations Democracy: Public Relations, Politics and the Mass Media in Britain.

7. Manchester University Press. Ericson, Richard et.al. (1989) Negotiating Control. A study of News Sources. Milton Keynes/ London: Open

University Press.

8. Franklin, Bob (1994). Packaging Politics. Political Communication in Britain's Media Democracy. London: Edward Arnold.

9. Gandy, Oscar (1992) Public Relations and Public Policy, in Toth & Heath (ed.) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. Hillsdale, J.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gans, Herbert (1979) Deciding What's News. New York: Pantheon.

10. Larsson, Larsake (2006) Public Relations and Democracy. A Swedish Perspective, in L'Etang & Pieczka (ed.)

Public Relations. Critical Debates and Contemporary Problems. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erl-baum.

11. Larsson, Larsake (2005) Opinionsmakarna. /The Opinion Makers. A Study of PR Actors,Journalists and Democracy/. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Larsson, Larsake (1998) Nyheter i samspel /News in co-operation/. Gothenburg: Goteborg University. Manning, Paul (2001) News and News Sources. A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.

12. McNair, Brian (2000) Journalism and Democracy. London: Routledge.

13. McQuail, Denis; Graber, Doris & Norris, Pippa (1998) Conclusions. Challenges for Public Policy, in Graber, McQuail & Norris (ed.) The Politics of News, The News of Politics. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.

14. Pfetsch, Barbara (1998) Government News Management, in Graber, McQuail & Norris (ed.) The Politics of News, The News of Politics. Washington: Congressional Quarterly. Street. John (2001) Mass media. Politics and Democracy. London: Palgrave.

15. Wien, Charlotte & Lund, Anker Brink (2001) Flid, fedt og snyd - Kildens leg med Journalisten, I Nielsen, Mie Fem0 (ed.) Profit og offentlighet--public relations for viderekomne. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

16. LARSAKE LARSSON, Ph.d., Professor, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Orebro University,

17. larsake.larsson@oru.se

Страницы: 1, 2