Public Opinion is Beyond Right or Wrong

Public opin­ion is bey­ond right or wrong.

“It’s unfair!”

In my role as a PR adviser, I hear those words often.

Many cli­ents argue that they’re not ask­ing for mir­acles. They only want the atten­tion their organ­isa­tion right­fully deserves.

I wish it were that simple. But pub­lic opin­ion isn’t fair.

Here goes:

Public Opinion and PR

“Public opin­ion is a com­pound of folly, weak­ness, pre­ju­dice, wrong feel­ing, right feel­ing, obstin­acy, and news­pa­per para­graphs.”
— Robert Peel

As a PR adviser, I encounter people who argue about fair­ness. However, when it comes to pub­lic opin­ion, right or wrong is a sec­ond­ary consideration.

How can this be?

Strictly speak­ing, right or wrong is determ­ined in the court of law; PR is determ­ined in the court of pub­lic opin­ion. The court­house may hold the keys to our leg­al stand­ings, but the court of pub­lic sen­ti­ment rules supreme over our reputations.

And it could nev­er be any different: 

But if every­one, through the works of magic, got the pub­lic opin­ion they think they deserve; there wouldn’t be enough men­tal band­width to go around.

The Scarcity of Attention

“Public opin­ion is a per­meat­ing influ­ence, and it exacts obed­i­ence to itself; it requires us to drink oth­er men’s thoughts, to speak oth­er men’s words, to fol­low oth­er men’s habits.”
— Walter Bagehot

You could be doing PR for a lousy product or ser­vice, and the lous­i­ness would be a sig­ni­fic­ant concern. 

But you could also be doing PR for an excep­tion­al product or ser­vice but facing PR strategies great­er than yours.

Public opin­ion is an emo­tion­al eco­nomy driv­en by the scarcity of atten­tion. Beyond the con­fines of right and wrong, the pub­lic’s gaze exerts its power, elev­at­ing or anni­hil­at­ing with unwaver­ing force.

Believing you’re mor­ally or intel­lec­tu­ally super­i­or isn’t neces­sar­ily a PR strength: a closed sys­tems loop might obfus­cate com­pet­it­ive devel­op­ment. Also, the pub­lic might inter­pret overt dis­plays of right­eous­ness as enti­tle­ment, nar­ciss­ism, or megalomania.

The realm of pub­lic opin­ion is a jungle with laws to match the context.

The gen­er­al pub­lic can be mis­taken.
Consumers can make poor decisions.
Voters can elect the wrong politicians.

Right or wrong, the out­come is the out­come.
And the out­come is without mercy.

Perceptions Are Approximations

“It is not at all clear how much the media influ­ences pub­lic opin­ion and how much pub­lic opin­ion influ­ences the media.”
— Bruce Jackson

Absolute truths are dif­fi­cult start­ing points:

If you scratch the sur­face, you’ll find that almost everything is con­test­able. A glass could be half empty (refill needed!) or still half full (no refill, please!).

Who’s per­cep­tion should reign?

Walter Lippmann and Perception Management

In his sem­in­al work Public Opinion (1922), Walter Lippmann laid the intel­lec­tu­al ground­work for the idea that per­cep­tion and real­ity are not the same — a core prin­ciple of mod­ern per­cep­tion man­age­ment. ¹Lippmann, Walter. 1960. Public Opinion (1922). New York: Macmillan.

Lippmann argued that:

Lippmann’s ideas res­on­ate deeply with per­cep­tion man­age­ment in pub­lic relations.

“We are all cap­tives of the pic­ture in our head — our belief that the world we have exper­i­enced is the world that really exists.”
— Walter Lippmann (1889 – 1974)

On Creating Pseudo-Environments

Lippmann coined the term “pseudo-envir­on­ment,” which describes the filtered, biased, and often arti­fi­cial ver­sion of real­ity presen­ted by the media. He warned that influ­en­tial elites could exploit this man­u­fac­tured real­ity to manip­u­late pub­lic thought and behaviour.

Lippmann was scep­tic­al about the public’s abil­ity to dis­cern real­ity from the pseudo-envir­on­ment, which raises eth­ic­al concerns:

Perception man­age­ment is not inher­ently sin­is­ter, but as Lippmann warned, it places immense power in the hands of those con­trolling the narrative. 

In essence, per­cep­tion man­age­ment is the applied PR ver­sion of Lippmann’s media cri­tique. It acknow­ledges that facts alone do not win pub­lic trust—prim­ing, fram­ing, storytelling, and emo­tion­al appeal do.

Learn more: Perception Management

The abso­lute seems to exist in the nat­ur­al world, obey­ing the laws of phys­ics, but the world of per­cep­tions is flut­ter­ing shad­ows, dan­cing in the light of the fire against the cave wall.

Public opin­ion is not about right or wrong. It’s about who gets to decide how we see the world. And that’s why pub­lic rela­tions is essen­tial in build­ing a society.

THANKS FOR READING.
Need PR help? Hire me here.

PR Resource: Amplification Hypothesis

The Amplification Hypothesis

It’s com­mon to find that coun­ter­ar­gu­ments strengthen exist­ing beliefs instead of weak­en­ing them. 

The harder you attack someone verbally, the more you con­vince them of their belief, not yours.

The phe­nomen­on is known as the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is, where dis­play­ing cer­tainty about an atti­tude when talk­ing with anoth­er per­son increases and hardens that attitude.

“Across exper­i­ments, it is demon­strated that increas­ing atti­tude cer­tainty strengthens atti­tudes (e.g., increases their res­ist­ance to per­sua­sion) when atti­tudes are uni­valent but weak­ens atti­tudes (e.g., decreases their res­ist­ance to per­sua­sion) when atti­tudes are ambi­val­ent. These res­ults are con­sist­ent with the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is.“
Source: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ²Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2008). A new look at the con­sequences of atti­tude cer­tainty: The amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, … Continue read­ing

How does the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is work? 

In a threat­en­ing situ­ation or emer­gency, we resort to the prim­al (fast­est) part of the brain and sur­viv­al instincts (fight, flight and freeze). ³Surviving the Storm: Understanding the Nature of Attacks held at Animal Care Expo, 2011 in Orlando, FL.

Establishing com­mon ground and exhib­it­ing empathy demon­strates a genu­ine under­stand­ing of their per­spect­ive, fos­ter­ing trust and open­ness to your ideas. Conversely, a stra­tegic mis­match of atti­tudes can serve as a power­ful coun­ter­meas­ure if your object­ive is to deflect per­suas­ive attempts.

Persuade

To per­suade, align your atti­tude with the tar­get. Otherwise, you will only act to cre­ate resistance.

Provoke

To put off a per­suader, mis­match their atti­tudes. When they are logic­al, be emo­tion­al, and vice versa. 

Learn more: The Amplification Hypothesis: How To Counter Extreme Positions