FORMULA STASIS AS ANALYTICAL TOOL IN RHETORICAL APPROACH TO MEDIA RELATIONS. Andrej Skerlep, Ph. D., University of Ljubljana

Transcription

1 FORMULA STASIS AS ANALYTICAL TOOL IN RHETORICAL APPROACH TO MEDIA RELATIONS Andrej Skerlep, Ph. D., University of Ljubljana

2 IMPARTIAL OBJECTIVITY OF PR AND FRAMING There is a good reason that textbooks require of public relations practitioners to convey information in press releases and press conferences and other communications as objectively as possible, without any kind of personal or subjective opinion although personal and subjective can be matter of style, not the content of the messages. Even particular position (attitude, opinion) of organization should be expressed objectively, e.g. so as to quote the CEO s statement, which objectifies it. PR textbooks require straight news style in basic as basic template of PR discourse, defined as accurate and impartial description of events that are the basis of conveyed information.

3 In contrast, there is theory of framing: Bateson, Goffman, Entman, Scheufele in communication studies, in PR studies Hallahan, in media relations Zoch and Molleda. Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. Typically frames diagnose, evaluate, and prescribe (Entman 1993, 52). Framing theory research demonstrate that, strictly speaking, there is no straight news style, that there is no objective and impartial presentation of facts.

4 ZOCH AND MOLLEDA'S MODEL OF MEDIA RELATIONS Zoch, Lynn, & Molleda Juan-Carlos. (2008). Building Theoretical Model of Media Relations Using Framing, Information Subsidies and Agenda-Building. In: Carl Botan & Vincent Hazelton eds. Public Relations Theory II., London: Routledge. In Zoch & Molleda approach framing and agenda setting is put into integral model of media relations and connects them to issues management as information management. This implies that public relations practice is understood in managerial role, i.e. public relations participating in consulting role in the process of forming overall strategic decision making of organization

5 STAGES OF MEDIA RELATIONS MANAGEMENT AS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1 detection of potentially controversial issues 2 strategic action using strategic organizational behavior in order to position organization on the right side of the issue and start build media agenda 3»news gathering«and»framing«of the events that present organization on»the right side of the issue«4 providing independent media with»information subsidies«that frame the issue so as to be favorable to organization in the process of»agenda building«. 5 evaluation of the position of organization and media publicity and, if necessary, return to step 2 to reposition organization, 3 to reframe and 4 to provide new information subsidies It is complex and to a large extent accurate model of media relations. The weakness is in implicitly linear, one way communication of the process and implicit non-controversial nature of the relation between PR practitioners and the journalists.

6 DIFFERENT TYPES OF JOURNALISM (SC Hudson, Allen, McQuail) Research in journalism studies showed different roles of journalists or different types of journalistic discourse: Routine dissemination of news, tend to be impartial, value neutral Investigative journalism, investigates deviation from social norms, journalist acting as watchdog Advocacy journalism, activist and biased in accordance with journalist prior convictions Tabloid journalism, journalistic populism and sensationalism that attracts wide audience Although the routine dissemination of news is by far the most prevalent, at least in mainstream quality media, the other three types of journalistic discourse can accuse organization of wrongdoing and provide for unfavorable publicity that can harm reputation of organization. Organization has to be prepared on public controversies and have the skills to publicly defend itself.

7 RHETORICAL NATURE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE Rhetorical public relations theory has been developed by George Chenney, Robert Heath, Elisabeth Toth, Ihlen Øyvind. It examines discourse of public relations through the prism of rhetorical studies. Aristotle's concept of rhetoric as art of persuasion is rhetoric as art of strategic communication. Classical and contemporary rhetorical studies are defining the nature of public discourse Plato in his dialogue Gorgias: rhetorical speech is manipulative, because it is based on opinion, not true knowledge, so it is misleading; it leads the audience away from truth. Aristotle in Ars Rhetorica, Organon: argumentation in public discourse is rhetorical, not scientific. This might seem obvious, but not for the dominant Habermasian model of public sphere and public discourse.

8 Proof in science is analytical demonstration: logic is the method that moves from true, already proven premises to valid logical conclusions that represent new insight; science uses truth statements and logical inference to demonstrate new insights that are true and valid Aristotle: Proof in rhetoric starts with the premises that are based on opinion and moves to probable conclusions; public arguments are based on probability (eikota) and common opinion (endear) Aristotle: public controversies are on contingent, practical issues that often require practical resolution (decision in court of law, in political assembly in strategic management); as such public discourse on practical issues do not allow scientific argument because the issue in question does not have clear cut solutions that would allow exclusively true or false statements.

9 Aristotle: THREE TYPES OF PROOF (Barnes) Analytical demonstration of science based on truths and uses formal logic as the method Dialectics dialogic pro et contra argumentation with questions and answers, arguments and counterarguments; it can be heuristic as cooperative common inquiry or eristic as combative advocacy Rhetoric public, monologic oratory to mass audience that uses opinion and probability Rhetoric is not science, but it is counterpart of dialectics. Public discourse on controversial issues is dialectical public exchange in pro et contra argumentation; it is combination of rhetorical and dialectical discourse. The contingent nature of public discourse, based on opinion and greater or lesser probability of arguments opens up the space for different framing and reframing of the issues.

10 FORMULA STASIS I will use rhetorical stasis formula in order to show different strategies of framing public relations discourse in public disputes on controversial issues, especially when organization has been attacked and has to defend itself and engage in image restoration strategy. Literature review shows that there is a single short article on the topic: Marsh C., The syllogism of apologia: Rhetorical stasis theory and crisis communication, Public Relations Review 32 (2006) Hermagoras of Temnos (1st. century BC) introduced the model of stasis (Lat. status or constitutio) that then and integral part of Roman system of rhetoric - as was presented in Rhetorica ad Herennium and Cicero's and Quntilian's works on rhetoric. It falls under the first rhetorical canon of invention or discovery of material. It is most closely associated with classical genre of forensic rhetoric that is parts of legal process in the courts of law where there are typically two opposing types of discourse, discourse of accusation and discourse of defense. But formula stasis can be applied to any kind of public controversy where there is accusation and defense.

11 In public discourse a public statement of accusation has to be met by denial, by counterstatement. To put it differently, an argument is met by counterargument, prosecution by defense. In pro et contra argumentation between the parties in conflict, a question of stasis arises that has to be resolved whose claims are true on basis of what arguments? Formula stasis has four parts, four questions to locate the point of disagreement between the parties in dispute. In the formula there are four lines of controversy: 1. question of facts (Gr. stochasmos, Lat. coniectura) 2. question of definition (Gr. horos, Lat. definitio). 3. question of quality and/or situation (Gr. kata symbebēkos or poiotēs, Lat. qualitas or generalis). 4. question of correct procedure (Gr. metalēpsis, Lat. translatio).

12 The orator proceeds through a prescribed series of questions in order to locate the unresolved point of disagreement, starting with the first and ending with the last. At the point of disagreement orator then starts his counterargument and develops his strategy. Do we agree on facts of the controversy? Each controversy is based on certain events that can be examined on evidence. Did person A kill person B? What is the evidence of the deed? Is evidence indisputable or is it suspect? What is the evidence of Greece's financial crisis? Do we agree on definition of the controversy? How does normative regulation define such act or event? Was killing an accident or was it done intentionally? Was it homocide or murder? How do we define Greece's financial crisis? How do we define the main cause of Greece's financial crisis?

13 Do we agree on quality, i.e. situation or circumstances of the controversy? Quality is defined by situation in which the deed or event occurs. What was the circumstance? Are there mitigating circumstances beyond control of the actors involved so that they exonerate the deed or are there aggravating circumstances that make the deed even worse offence? Was the killing done in an attack or was it done in self-defense, was the deed provoked or unprovoked, was the killer under influence of alcohol or was he sober? What are the circumstances of Greece's financial crisis, are they mostly mitigating or mostly aggravating? Have been the steps of the procedure to resolve the issue normatively correct (legal and legitimate)? Was accusation raised in right court of law and was the right legal procedure used? Was the evidence collected in accordance with the law? Did Greece negotiation with the European Union and its creditors proceed in normatively correct and legitimate way?

14 The strategy of the defense is that the defending party starts with facts, if it can dispute the evidence as unreliable. If it cannot dispute the evidence, if both sides agree on the basic facts, then the defensive strategy has to move to prosecution's definition of the deed or event. If it cannot dispute the normative definition of the deed or event, it has to move to circumstances that might be mitigating for the party on defense. If it cannot dispute the circumstances, it has to dispute the legality and legitimacy of the procedure in context of which the accusation is raised and processed. The formula is simple, but it is very effective as heuristic model in the process of public self-defense and/or image restoration strategy of the party that has been attacked in public dispute. I argue that the formula elucidates the essential contingency of public discourse that allows for discursive or rhetorical framing in public controversies. Contingency of public discourse allows for different framing on the issue in public disputes, but I argue that should not be perceived that»anything goes«in public disputes. I do not argue that in public discourse organization can use all the means legitimate and illegitimate, at its disposal at the given situation.

15 The restrictions on framing of issues in public controversies are of ethical nature, both by general ethics of human conduct as well as by applied public relations ethics. The ethical dimension of rhetorical public relations was formulated well by Robert Heath: A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization communicating well (Heath 2000).

16 LITERATURE Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. (1954) Rhetorica ad Herenium. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge Mass: Harvard D'Angelo Paul, Kuypers Jim eds, Doing News Framing Analysis - Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives-Routledge (2009) Fairclough, Norman. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge Franklin Bob, Justin Lewis, Andrew Williams (2010). Journalism, News Sources and Public Relations. In: Stuart Allan ed, Routledge Companion to News and Journalism. London: Routledge Grunig, James, & Todd Hunt. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hearit, K. M. (2001). Corporate apologia: When an organization speaks in defense of itself. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herrick, James (2000). The History and Theory of Rhetoric. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Holtzhausen Derina & Ansgar Zerfass eds, Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication, Routledge (2014) Homann, Hanns. (2001). Stasis. In Thomas Sloane ed., Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17 Ihlen O., Cursed sisters - Public relations & Rhetoric, Sage Handbook of public relations, 2010 Kennedy. George. (1999). Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kuypers, Jim ed. (2009). Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in action, New York: Lexington Marsh, Charles (2006). Rhetorical stasis theory, syllogism of apologia & crisis communication, Public Relations Review, Vol 32. No.1 McQual, Denis. (2010) McQuail's Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage. Rapp Christof, The Nature and Goals of Rhetoric, Companion to Aristotle, Wiley Blackwell, Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, Toth, E. L., & Heath, R. L. (2009). Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Walton Douglas, Media Argumentation: Dialect, Persuasion and Rhetoric, CUP Zarefsky David, Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation, Springer (2014) Zoch, Lynn, & Molleda Juan-Carlos. (2008). Building Theoretical Model of Media Relations Using Framing, Information Subsidies and Agenda-Building. In: Carl Botan & Vincent Hazelton eds. Public Relations Theory II., London: Routledge.

18

19