This study had both public relations practitioners and journalists assess their own perceptions of the influence of informal relations on the news, and their own perceptions and their perceptions of the other group’s ethical values of
informal relations. It was believed that the two groups would exhibit different perceptions of the influence of informal relations on the news, with different ethical values attributed to informal relations between practitioners and journalists resulting in misperceptions of each other. Practitioners would believe that informal relations exert a more powerful influence than journalists would believe when practitioners and journalists were asked to estimate the power of informal relations in covering the news and in shaping the news agenda. The following hypotheses distinguish the influence of informal relations on both the extent and quality of news regarding a given topic using two related terms:
news coverage and news content. News coverage is operationalised as the amount or extent of news for a topic. News content is associated with the valence of the news coverage, that is, the nature of the content in terms of favourability/
unfavourability for the organisation being covered in the news. Therefore, the first hypothesis is:
H1: Public relations practitioners and journalists will perceive differently the influence of informal relations on the news.
H1a: The perceived influence of informal relations on news coverage will be greater for practitioners than for journalists.
H1b: The perceived influence of informal relations on the news content will be greater for practitioners than for journalists.
It was also predicted that practitioners would be more in favour of informal relations than journalists, when
practitioners and journalists were asked about informal relations that practitioners and journalists could ethically approve. To employ coorientational analysis,
agreement, congruency and accuracy between practitioners and journalists were examined. Agreement is the comparison of the two groups’ self evaluation.
Congruency is the comparison between one group’s self-evaluation and their evaluation of the other group. Accuracy is the determination of the gap between one group’s prediction of the other group’s self-evaluation and the other group’s actual self-evaluation. The second hypothesis is:
H2: Public relations practitioners and
journalists will perceive the ethical values of informal relations differently.
H2a: Practitioners will perceive informal relations as more ethical and acceptable in practice than will journalists.
H2b: The gap between journalists’ ethical values and their predictions about practitioners’ ethical values will be greater than the gap between practitioners’ ethical values and their predictions about journalists’ ethical values in terms of informal relations.
H2c: The gap between practitioners’
predictions about journalists’ ethical values and the actual ethical values of journalists will be greater than the gap between journalists’ predictions about practitioners’ ethical values and the
actual ethical values of practitioners in terms of informal relations.
METHODS
Print questionnaires were delivered to 330 media professionals (165 public relations practitioners and 165 journalists) in Korea.
The sample consisted of randomly selected practitioners working at corporations, non-profit organisations and agencies, and journalists working at daily newspaper offices, broadcasting stations and wire services. The two demographic markets were selected as sampling frames for greater diversity. A total of 300 usable responses were gathered with personal follow-up to collect completed surveys, representing a 91 per cent response rate.
The 150 public relations practitioners were randomly selected from the members listed in the 1999 Korea Public Relations Association, with 76 per cent of all practitioner respondents being male, suggesting that practitioners involving media relations are mainly male in Korea.
About 64 per cent were aged 30–39.
Respondents had diverse affiliations, with in-house predominant over agency, including Samsung, Hyundai, SK and LG, as well as Korea Telecommunications, Korea Bank of Industries, Yonsei Hospital, Korea Public Relations Agency and Communications Korea Agency.
The 150 journalists surveyed were randomly selected from the 1999
Journalists Association of Korea, 90.6 per cent of journalist respondents were male, which also suggests that journalists are also mainly male in Korea. About 76 per cent were aged 30–39. Journalist respondents also had diverse affiliations, with print predominant over broadcast, including Chosun Daily, Joongang Daily, DongA Daily, Hankuk Daily, Kyunghyang Daily, The Korea Times, The Korea Herald, Maekyung Economic Daily and Korea Economic Daily, as well as KBS News,
MBC News, SBS News, CBS News and Yonhap Wire.
The survey asked respondents to assess the degree of two measures of ‘influence’
on the news by measuring on a five-point Likert-type scale, where one was least and negative, and five was most and positive.
To measure the perceived power of informal relations in setting the news agenda, two measures of ‘influence’ were asked for each of the 11 types of informal relations such as private meetings, press tours, bargaining for coverage in exchange for advertising, bribes and etc. The two measures were:
— ‘Informal relations has an influence on what news, ie the amount of news coverage, is presented to the public’
— ‘Informal relations have an influence on the way news, ie the favourable light of news content, is presented to the public’.
Both questions measure the perceived power of informal relations in setting the news agenda.
The survey also asked respondents to assess the ‘ethical value’ of informal relations, which can be ethically approved and utilised. A 1–5 scale was also used to measure the ethical value questions, with one being ‘strongly disagree’ and five
‘strongly agree.’ In addition, respondents were asked to measure their perceptions of the other profession’s ethical values of informal relations using the same scale.
To measure the perceived and cross-perceived ethical values of informal relations, two measures of ‘ethical value’
with each of the 11 items of informal relations were asked:
— ‘Informal relations could be ethically approved and utilised’
— ‘The other profession perceives that informal relations could be ethically approved and utilized’.
While both questions measure ethical Informal relations: A look at personal influence in media relations
values, the first measures the perceived ethical values of practitioners and journalists, and the second measures the cross-perceived ethical values of the other.
RESULTS
Perceptions of the influence of informal relations on the news Public relations practitioners and
journalists were asked two sets of questions of informal relations’ influence on the news with each of the 11 types of personal influence. It was predicted that both professions would differently perceive that informal relations exert influence on the news.
Tables 1 and 2 present practitioners’ and journalists’ self-reported influence of informal relations on the news respectively regarding the amount of news coverage and the favourable light of news content.
The findings support the hypothesis that the professions would perceive different degrees of influence.
As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, both groups perceived influence of informal relations, with means ranging from 1.70 to 3.58 on a 1–5 scale, where five represented strong influence. Moreover, practitioners perceived significantly greater influence
than journalists regarding the influence of informal relations on what news is presented and on the way news is presented.
Practitioners perceived greater influence of informal relations on the amount of news coverage than journalists. The primary perceptual difference regarded the influence of ‘perks including dinner/
drinking’. Item-by-item comparisons of practitioners’ perceptions and journalists’
perceptions are presented in Table 1.
Practitioners also perceived greater influence of informal relations on the favourable light of news content than journalists. The primary perceptual difference also regarded the influence of perks including dinner/drinking. Item-by-item comparisons of practitioners’
perceptions and journalists’ perceptions are presented in Table 2.
Perceptions and cross-perceptions of the ethical values of informal relations
Public relations practitioners and journalists were asked two sets of questions regarding the ethical values of informal relations with each of the 11 items. It was predicted that both
professions would perceive their own and
Table 1: Practitioners’ and journalists’ perceptions of the influence of informal relations on the news: The amount of news coverage
Practitioners’ Journalists’
self-evaluations self-evaluations
Items of informal relations N Mean N Mean t-value
1. Unofficial calls 150 3.18 150 3.40 -2.16*
2. Private meetings 150 3.52 150 3.48 0.35
3. Regional/alumni/blood relations 150 3.13 150 2.50 5.26**
4. Press tours 150 3.22 150 2.89 2.18*
5. Travels for a press club 150 2.41 150 2.06 2.76**
6. Bargaining advertising 150 3.04 150 2.16 6.14**
7. Exercising power through managers/editors of news bureaux 150 2.90 150 2.80 0.64
8. Perks including dinner/drinking 150 2.94 150 1.92 8.78**
9. Activities for friendship including golf/climbing 150 2.69 150 1.74 7.79**
10. Presents and free tickets 150 2.59 150 1.73 7.13**
11. Bribes 150 2.61 150 1.70 6.92**
12. Overall mean 150 2.94 150 2.40 6.94**
Note. ** p5 0.01, * p 5 0.05
each other’s ethical values of informal relations differently.
As can be seen in Table 3, both groups showed their own ethical values of informal relations, with means ranging from 1.58 to 4.45 on a 1–5 scale, where one represented strong objection.
Moreover, ratings by practitioners were significantly more favourable than journalists in identifying which informal relations can be ethically approved and utilised. The strongest perceptual difference regarded the ethical value of ‘presents and free tickets’.
Journalists saw less similarity between their ethical values and their perceptions of practitioners’ ethical values than
practitioners. Comparing their own ethical values of informal relations, journalists thought that practitioners would perceive informal relations as less ethical.
Practitioners, however, thought that journalists would perceive informal relations as more ethical.
Journalists’ primary perceptual difference regarded the ethical value of
‘exercising power through managers/
editors of news bureaus’, whereas
Table 2: Practitioners’ and journalists’ perceptions of the influence of informal relations on the news: The favourable light of news content
Practitioners’ Journalists’
self-evaluations self-evaluations
Items of informal relations N Mean N Mean t-value
1. Unofficial calls 150 3.47 150 3.12 3.68**
2. Private meetings 150 3.58 150 3.33 2.42*
3. Regional/alumni/blood relations 150 3.29 150 2.85 3.90**
4. Press tours 150 3.26 150 3.04 1.69
5. Travels for a press club 150 2.66 150 2.50 1.34
6. Bargaining advertising 150 3.09 150 2.43 4.66**
7. Exercising power through managers/editors of news bureaux 150 2.77 150 2.62 1.02
8. Perks including dinner/drinking 150 3.10 150 2.32 6.72**
9. Activities for friendship including golf/climbing 150 2.87 150 2.17 5.88**
10. Presents and free tickets 150 2.86 150 2.11 6.42**
11. Bribes 150 2.84 150 2.07 5.46**
12. Overall mean 150 3.09 150 2.61 5.95**
Note. ** p50 .01, * p 5 0.05
Table 3: Comparison of practitioners’ and journalists’ ethical values of informal relations: ‘Agreement’
between practitioners and journalists
Practitioners’ Journalists’
self-evaluations self-evaluations
Items of informal relations N Mean N Mean t-value
1. Unofficial calls 150 4.45 150 4.00 5.60**
2. Private meetings 150 4.27 150 3.98 3.54**
3. Regional/alumni/blood relations 150 3.45 150 3.37 0.76
4. Press tours 150 3.62 150 3.51 1.02
5. Travels for a press club 150 2.32 150 2.33 -0.12**
6. Bargaining advertising 150 2.33 150 1.79 4.93**
7. Exercising power through managers/editors of news bureaux 150 2.09 150 1.68 3.90**
8. Perks including dinner/drinking 150 3.06 150 2.61 4.22**
9. Activities for friendship including golf/climbing 150 2.96 150 2.61 3.14**
10. Presents and free tickets 150 2.75 150 2.10 5.82**
11. Bribes 150 1.92 150 1.58 3.24**
12. Overall mean 150 3.02 150 2.68 5.62**
Note. ** p5 0.01, * p 5 0.05
Informal relations: A look at personal influence in media relations
practitioners’ primary perceptual difference regarded the ethical value of ‘bribes’. Item-by-item comparisons of practitioners’ and journalists’ ethical values and their
perceptions of the other’s ethical values are shown in Tables 4 and Table 5
respectively.
On the other hand, the practitioners’
cross-perceived gap between their
prediction of journalists’ ethical values and the journalists’ actual ethical values is significantly greater than the journalists’
cross-perceived gap between their predictions of practitioners’ ethical values
and the practitioners’ actual ethical values regarding informal relations. Practitioners were inaccurate in predicting journalists would perceive informal relations as being more ethical than in reality. Likewise, journalists wrongly predicted that practitioners would perceive informal relations as being more ethical than they were.
Practitioners’ primary prediction gap regarded the ethical value of ‘bribes’, whereas journalists’ primary prediction gap regarded the ethical value of ‘activities for friendship including golf/climbing’.
Item-Table 4: Comparison of practitioners’ ethical values and practitioners’ predictions of journalists’ ethical values: ‘Congruency’ of practitioners
Practitioners’ Predictions of self-evaluations journalists’ values
Items of informal relations N Mean N Mean t-value
1. Unofficial calls 150 4.45 150 4.16 4.71**
2. Private meetings 150 4.27 150 4.10 2.64**
3. Regional/alumni/blood relations 150 3.45 150 3.21 2.97**
4. Press tours 150 3.62 150 3.77 -1.97*
5. Travels for a press club 150 2.31 150 2.98 -6.51**
6. Bargaining advertising 150 2.31 150 2.20 1.24
7. Exercising power through managers/editors of news bureaux 150 2.09 150 1.87 2.89**
8. Perks including dinner/drinking 150 3.06 150 3.40 -3.95**
9. Activities for friendship including golf/climbing 150 2.95 150 3.36 -4.65**
10. Presents and free tickets 150 2.75 150 3.16 -4.37**
11. Bribes 150 1.92 150 2.67 -7.60**
12. Overall mean 150 3.02 150 3.18 -3.65**
Note. ** p5 0.01, * p 5 0.05
Table 5: Comparison of journalists’ ethical values and journalists’ predictions of practitioners’ ethical values:
‘Congruency’ of journalists
Journalists’ Predictions of self-evaluations practitioners’ values
Items of informal relations N Mean N Mean t-value
1. Unofficial calls 150 4.47 150 4.00 -1.74
2. Private meetings 150 4.23 150 3.98 -4.41**
3. Regional/alumni/blood relations 150 3.78 150 3.36 -5.08**
4. Press tours 150 3.66 150 3.49 -2.00*
5. Travels for a press club 150 2.95 150 2.32 -6.64**
6. Bargaining advertising 150 2.75 150 1.78 -8.97**
7. Exercising power through managers/editors of news bureaux 150 2.75 150 1.68 -9.42**
8. Perks including dinner/drinking 150 3.26 150 2.60 -7.57**
9. Activities for friendship including golf/climbing 150 3.18 150 2.60 -6.64**
10. Presents and free tickets 150 2.94 150 2.07 -9.52**
11. Bribes 150 2.48 150 1.56 -9.42**
12. Overall mean 150 3.32 150 2.68 -9.74**
Note. ** p5 0.01, * p 5 0.05
by-item comparisons of practitioners’ and journalists’ perceived ethical values of the other occupation and actual ethical values of the other are presented in Tables 6 and Table 7 respectively.
DISCUSSION
This study examined public relations practitioners’ and journalists’ perceptions and cross-perceptions regarding the influence of informal relations on the news and the ethical values of informal relations.
A theoretical base exists to suggest that
projections of estimations of the other’s perceptions, ie coorientational analysis, are useful determinants to measure whether two groups are consensual or conflictual regarding given topics. Such coorientation measures have been found to be effective in explaining dimensions of pluralistic ignorance or false consensus,
overestimations or underestimations of the other.54,55
Accuracy can be produced and increased by communication. Greater dialogue about the actual agreement regarding the
Table 6: Comparison of practitioners’ predictions of journalists’ ethical values and the actual ethical values of journalists: ‘Accuracy’ of practitioners
Predictions of Journalists’ actual journalists’ values
values
Items of informal relations N Mean N Mean t-value
1. Unofficial calls 150 4.16 150 4.00 2.00*
2. Private meetings 150 4.10 150 3.98 1.42
3. Regional/alumni/blood relations 150 3.19 150 3.37 -1.60
4. Press tours 150 3.77 150 3.51 2.48*
5. Travels for a press club 150 2.97 150 2.33 5.52**
6. Bargaining advertising 150 2.20 150 1.79 3.68**
7. Exercising power through managers/editors of news bureaux 150 1.89 150 1.68 2.01*
8. Perks including dinner/drinking 150 3.40 150 2.61 7.42**
9. Activities for friendship including golf/climbing 150 3.36 150 2.61 6.97**
10. Presents and free tickets 150 3.15 150 2.10 10.05**
11. Bribes 150 2.67 150 1.58 10.06**
12. Overall mean 150 3.18 150 2.68 8.17**
Note. ** p5 0.01, * p 5 0.05
Table 7: Comparison of journalists’ predictions of practitioners’ ethical values and the actual ethical values of practitioners: ‘Accuracy’ of journalists
Predictions of Practitioners’ actual practitioners’ values
values
Items of informal relations N Mean N Mean t-value
1. Unofficial calls 150 4.48 150 4.45 -0.11
2. Private meetings 150 4.24 150 4.27 -0.39
3. Regional/alumni/blood relations 150 3.80 150 3.45 -3.04**
4. Press tours 150 3.65 150 3.62 -0.26
5. Travels for a press club 150 2.94 150 2.32 -5.29**
6. Bargaining advertising 150 2.76 150 2.33 -3.31**
7. Exercising power through managers/editors of news bureaux 150 2.75 150 2.09 -5.24**
8. Perks including dinner/drinking 150 3.24 150 3.06 -1.58
9. Activities for friendship including golf/climbing 150 2.18 150 2.96 -1.86
10. Presents and free tickets 150 2.95 150 2.75 -1.55
11. Bribes 150 2.48 150 1.92 -4.32**
12. Overall mean 150 3.32 150 3.02 -3.70**
Note. ** p5 0.01, * p 5 0.05
Informal relations: A look at personal influence in media relations
relations, particularly informal relations in the Korean and larger Asian context, might lead to greater understanding, enhance professional relationships between the two groups, improve beneficial social roles for source and reporter, and inform a more effective media relations practice for firms working in Asia, particularly those coming from a Western perspective. It is more important that practitioners understand journalists than vice versa.
Practitioners, who require placement in print or on the air, depend on their
understanding of journalists rather than the converse. Nevertheless, practitioners in this study were not effective at predicting journalists’ perceptions in spite of having more at stake in the source–reporter relationship.
The first striking result is that practitioners and journalists disagree regarding the influence of informal relations on the news. Journalists do not perceive greater influence of informal relations on the news than practitioners.
Conversely, practitioners perceive greater influence of informal relations on the news than journalists. It is possible that
journalists are reluctant to admit the power that informal relations play in the flow of information and possible
distortions of the news. This may account for journalists’ lower estimations of the influence of informal relations on the news. It is also possible that practitioners see their influence through informal relations as augmenting news content and coverage because they are comfortable with their self-serving motive for their advocacy role and hold a faith that their informal efforts have some notable effect on news content.56
Secondly, practitioners and journalists disagree overall regarding ethical values of informal relations other than the items of regional/alumni/blood relations and press tours, which implies that the items of informal relations originated from cultural
context and each profession’s need for informal relations can be ethically approved by both professions to some degree. Practitioners consider informal relations to be more ethical than do journalists, which may again be related to the practitioners’ self-serving motive and journalists’ fear of undue influence.
Practitioners consider informal relations to be more ethical as well as perceiving a greater influence of informal relations on the news, which probably leads
practitioners to be more inclined to use informal relations to influence news content.
Interestingly, practitioners’ and journalists’ congruencies between their own perceptions and their predictions on the other party’s perceptions show difference regarding the ethical values of informal relations. Journalists perceive informal relations as more ethical
compared to their perceived ethical values of practitioners. Similarly, practitioners consider that journalists perceive informal relations as being more ethical in
comparison to their own ethical values.
The perception gap of journalists is significantly bigger than that of
practitioners. It is possible that journalists ascribe ethical aspects of informal relations to themselves and realise their role as defenders of the public’s right to know.
Practitioners, however, may rarely consider the journalistic concern.
Practitioners may encounter fewer
dilemmas between their strategic values or need for informal relations, and ethical values or fear of informal relations than do journalists.
This study also found that practitioners’
and journalists’ predictions about the other group’s perceptions and the real
perceptions of the other differ significantly regarding the ethical values of informal relations. Practitioners predict that journalists perceive informal relations as more ethical. Journalists, however, predict
that practitioners perceive informal relations as more ethical. The prediction gap of practitioners is significantly bigger than that of journalists. This may account for the bigger misperceptions of
practitioners and indicate greater need for improving practitioners’ understanding of journalists.
The findings here generally reinforce the previous research that the two groups are misperceiving each other. First, however, this study deals with informal relations unique in the Korean context, where information flows and influences on the news are said to occur in an informal way.
Journalists in Korea may perceive informal relations, which are involved in the unique press club system as important for news gathering. Journalists are likely to gather news information through the press club system, with its restricted and controlled membership in Korea, similar to the systems in other Asian countries. This system explicitly shows the personal influence and cultural difference in public relations and media relations.57–59
Secondly, both aspects of the influence on the news and related ethical values are considered in this study. The
misunderstanding between practitioners and journalists are related mostly to their inherent source and reporter relationship and partly to public relations practices.
Informal relations obviously indicate a core matter of the discord or consensus between the two professions along the two dimensions studied here: impacts and ethics.
While, as presented, there are inherent conflicts between practitioners and
While, as presented, there are inherent conflicts between practitioners and