From the days of PR’s origins in the early 1900s, many people—especially journalists—have been skeptical of communications originating from public relations professionals. The bulk of the criticism leveled at public relations argues that the crush of information produced by PR professionals overwhelms traditional journalism. However, PR’s most significant impact may be on the political process, especially when organizations hire spin doctors to favorably shape or reshape a candidate’s media image. In one example, former president Richard Nixon, who resigned from office in 1974 to avoid impeachment hearings regarding his role in the Watergate scandal, hired Hill & Knowlton to restore his postpresidency image. Through the firm’s guidance, Nixon’s writings, mostly on international politics, began appearing in Sunday op-ed pages. Nixon himself started showing up on television news programs like Nightline and spoke frequently before such groups as the American Newspaper Publishers Association and the Economic Club of New York. In 1984, after a media blitz by Nixon’s PR handlers, the New York Times announced, “After a decade, Nixon is gaining favor,” and USA Today trumpeted, “Richard Nixon is back.” Before his death in 1994, Nixon, who never publicly apologized for his role in Watergate, saw a large portion of his public image shift from that of an arrogant, disgraced politician to that of a revered elder statesman.³⁰ Many media critics have charged that the press did not counterbalance this PR campaign and treated Nixon too reverently.

In terms of its immediate impact on democracy, the information crush delivered by public relations is at its height during national election campaigns. The 2012 presidential election was the most expensive in history, with President Barack Obama’s and Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s campaigns spending a combined $2.34 billion. Although much of that money was spent on television advertising, public relations helped to hone each campaign’s message. PR professionals assembled by PRWeek magazine generally agreed that Obama’s reelection campaign succeeded because it was able to change the focus of the campaign from a referendum on Obama’s first term (the Romney campaign’s goal) to a choice between candidates with two very different philosophies. They also acknowledged that there were unexpected events that aided Obama with his message. One was Romney’s infamous comment at a private $50,000-a-person fund-raiser. Romney told his supporters “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what” because they are “dependent on government,” “believe that they are victims,” and “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing. … My job is not to worry about those people.” His comments were secretly videotaped by a bartender, and, when they became a viral sensation, Romney had difficulty recovering from it. As public relations firm owner Carolyn Grisko noted, “The words that come out of a candidate’s own mouth are ultimately the ones that resonate.”³¹ The other unexpected event was Superstorm Sandy, a hurricane that hit the Atlantic coast a week before the election. As president and commander-in-chief, Obama dominated news headlines in responding to the storm and received praise for his actions from Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Though public relations often provides political information and story ideas, the PR profession bears only part of the responsibility for “spun” news; after all, it is the job of a PR agency to get favorable news coverage for the individual or group it represents. PR professionals police their own ranks for unethical or irresponsible practices, but the news media should also monitor the public relations industry, as they do other government and business activities. Journalism itself also needs to institute changes that will make it less dependent on PR and more conscious of how its own practices play into the hands of spin strategies. A positive example of change on this front is that many major newspapers and news networks now offer regular critiques of the facts and falsehoods contained in political advertising. This media vigilance should be on behalf of citizens, who are entitled to robust, well-rounded debates on important social and political issues.

Like advertising and other forms of commercial speech, PR campaigns that result in free media exposure raise a number of questions regarding democracy and the expression of ideas. Large companies and PR agencies, like well-financed politicians, have money to invest to figure out how to obtain favorable publicity. The question is not how to prevent that but how to ensure that other voices, less well financed and less commercial, also receive an adequate hearing. To that end, journalists need to become less willing conduits in the distribution of publicity. PR agencies, for their part, need to show clients that participating in the democratic process as responsible citizens can serve them well and enhance their image.