From Public Relations Quarterly, Fall 2000 v 45 (3), p 7. Reviewer: John F. Budd, Jr.

Robert Jackall and Janet Hirota, Image Makers: Advertising, Public Relations, and the Ethos of Advocacy. University of Chicago Press, 2000.

This is not, as the flip title might suggest, another in the genre of hyperbolic exposes of the craftiness of spinning. It is, in fact, a scholarly, readable examination of advocacy as practiced by advertising and public relations, written after some 12 years of exhaustive research by a husband and wife team. He, sociology professor at Williams College, she, an anthropologist with extensive real world exposure. The authors say they've interviewed 175 advertising practitioners and 125 men and women in public relations. The excesses of both fields can't be ignored and make provocative anecdotal reading, but I am troubled by the sweep of their somewhat cynical portrayal that suggests all advocacy is essentially an effort to engineer opinions (shades of Bernays). It reminds me of similar broadbrushing by historian Daniel Boorstin, in his book The Image Makers wherein he dissects faux news events; trickery or recognition that the public expects anything worthy of their attention to be news.

Arguably "image-makers" have invaded every corner of modern society. It is today a vocation abounding with "technicians in moral outrage" including street smart impresarios, feminist preachers and bombastic talk-radio hosts. We are, as the authors convincingly write, excoriated by tubthumpers to spend money, join organizations, rally to causes or express outrage, principally by the quintessential purveyors of advocacy, advertising and public relations experts. (Faint praise, indeed) After 50+ years in PR my sense of self-worth refuses to see myself as part Machiavelli. The issue of advocacy is critical. Linking it to "technicians of sentiment" with all the certainty of academic scholarship, cheapens the role. As Jackall himself points out, pragmatic compromise rules the world of affairs and the hard choices between opposed interests need to be explained to keep the public business on an even keel. Public discourse can not function in a vacuum, or in one-way debate as in a totalitarian state. How does information get balanced? Who acts as interlocutor?

Agreed it may be propaganda, in its purest form before Goebbels debased the term, but someone has to take the initiative leadership to make clear the ambiguities of life. I can accept being labeled as an "interpretive expert" as were, Jack all notes, prophets of old, philosophers, priests and, yes, witchdoctors and sorcerers. (The author's framework for examining advocacy centers on WWI's Committee on Public Information, and the history of the AAA. The former was of special interest because it details the organizational work of Carl Byoir whose agency introduced me to PR and where I worked for 28 years).

In fairness I must report that many hours of conversation -- and some debate -- with author Jackall did find a spiritual home in some passages. He clearly -- albeit briefly -- makes the distinction between the top tier of PR practitioners and the "fresh out of college" generation, commenting favorably on the former's considerable societal value. But the academic perchant for "critical examination" that always sees the glass half full, obliges Jackall, lest he too be embarrassed by "advocacy", to qualify his commendation to PRSA for the initiative demonstrated in. The Credibility Index for "understanding and addressing the elusiveness and fragility of trust." Everything has a potential downside doesn't it? Isn't Jackall himself spinning? Of course, but that does not discount the reality of his observations. The lesson for PR in this intellectually perceptive overview of advocacy's excessiveness is the evolution of a wary, self-conscious public sated with images and increasingly suspicious of the image makers' messages.

Ironically, American has thrived on advocacy. It rooted the American Revolution; only a hardliner would retroactively characterize the Committee on Correspondence and the authors of the Federalist Papers as virtuoso spinners -- perhaps they were. But that was then and this is now. Those of us who observe the ritualistic, often superficial communications and advocacy practiced can share Jackall's concern that "if all views are ultimately... self-serving, then all, objective standards against which one measures knowledge and experience collapse."

If everything becomes advocacy -- a war of story vs. story, claim vs. claim, image vs. image - then we are destined to create more fiction, with more public doubt and disbelief engendered. Can we resist the temptation to sensationalize; to try to manipulate perceptions, manufacture reputations? However often you may wince when reading, this book should stimulate, may make you a bit more humble about the role you play -- perhaps even more circumspect -- introspection that may come hard in these halcyon times of non pareil prosperity for public relations. But if PR is to realize the perennial goal of counselling leaders, it best study closely the face in the morning mirror and ask, "is he writing about me?"