1. No category

Guy Smith’s research
CIPR DIPLOMA
UNIT 2.3 FINAL PROJECT COVER SHEET
PLEASE SEND THIS SHEET TOGETHER YOUR PROJECT TO YOUR CENTRE (please
check with your centre for the delivery address, delivery method and deadline time)
By completing this form and entering your membership number above you are confirming
that this assignment is all your own work.
YOUR CIPR Membership number
GUY SMITH
YOUR STUDY CENTRE
CIPR Centre for Learning
Project title: Is the relationship broken? A study of how police communicators and
crime journalists perceive each other post-2011.
Please list any attachments to your
project and ensure your CIPR
membership number is referenced as a
header/footer on each page of your
script and any additional attachments.
Word Count
6,597
Please insert your CIPR membership number as a header/footer on each page of your script
(not your name).
Permission to publish
It is the practice of the CIPR Awarding Body to publish a small no. of scripts that have been
evaluated at Distinction level as examples of best practice for other students. Please indicate
by placing an x in the box below whether or not your script may be published if it is selected
for this purpose.
Yes, you have my permission to publish my script. It does not contain any references of a
private and confidential nature.
x
Yes, you have my permission to publish my script subject to the removal of all references
given in confidence.
x
Page 1 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Is the relationship broken?
A study of how police
communicators and crime
journalists perceive
each other post-2011.
Page 2 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
CONTENTS
Pages
INTRODUCTION
4-5
LITERATURE REVIEW
5-10
METHODOLOGY
10-12
FINDINGS
12-22
CONCLUSION
22
RECOMMENDATIONS
22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
23-25
APPENDICES
26-49
Page 3 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
INTRODUCTION
“The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives
reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the
police”. This is probably the most quoted of Sir Robert Peel’s 19 th Century principles
of good policing. And it is this relationship that lies at the heart of ‘policing by consent’
and in turn provides the context to this research paper.
The police have attempted to maintain that relationship not just in their daily contact
with the public but also in more recent times through modern professional
communications departments. The latter’s role has broadly been to promote trust
and confidence in the service and defend its reputation, using traditional newspapers,
TV and radio, and now increasingly with social media.
In general terms, public relations and journalism both use each other for their own
ends. There has been a love-hate relationship. And this is no different when looking
at the specialisms of police communication and crime reporting. Mawby (2012) sums
up the relationship as being characterized by “symbiosis and tension”.
However, he points out that the police-media relationship has come under intense
scrutiny following a phone hacking scandal and unease in July 2011 around how
close some senior Metropolitan Police officers became with senior members of News
International. These concerns were raised at the House of Commons Home Affairs
Select Committee. This was followed by police-led investigations, namely Operations
Elvedon, which is currently looking into corruption of public officials, and Weeting,
which is investigating phone hacking. There have also been reviews by Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC, 2011), and Elizabeth Filkin (2011),
who looked into ethical issues around the police-media relationship.
In addition, the relationship was one of four modules Lord Justice Leveson attempted
to address in his year-long inquiry, starting in August 2011. Looking into the culture,
practices and ethics of the press, he heard evidence from crime journalists, past and
present police communicators and senior officers. He concluded “there needs to be
a constructive tension and absolutely not a self-serving cosiness” (Leveson, 2012)
between the two.
This all led to some sensational headlines. But what impact has it had on the quality
of the relationship between police communicators and media? How do they now
perceive and evaluate each other. How do they view their roles, methods, and
relationship?
Leveson (2012) spelt out that policing must be with the consent of the public by
involving them in the reporting and detection of crime. And that the role of police
communication should be to keep the public aware of policing concerns and
engaging them in the debate. He therefore pointed out the media’s vital role to
encourage and help the public engage in the criminal justice system by coming
Page 4 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
forward with evidence, and for the media to applaud when criminals are brought to
justice. However, he also stated that journalists must hold the police to account.
The focus of this paper will be to use relationship management theory and the
coorientational model to underpin the main research question: “Has the nature of the
relationship deteriorated to such an extent following the phone-hacking scandal and
subsequent Leveson Inquiry that it can be now described as broken?”
Two quantitative surveys have been used to measure the quality of the relationship,
and six qualitative interviews have been conducted to provide more descriptive detail
around the differences in their perceptions of each other, and their views of their
interactions.
Another factor that might influence the relationship, which is an area for further
research, is that news and information is increasingly consumed via mobile and
social media. PR practitioners are no longer solely reliant on “editorial gatekeepers”
and can bypass the conventional media filter. And since “the worlds of PR and
journalism are converging because media organisations are cutting back on budgets,
it seems like a natural transition” (Simon Kelner, 2013. PR Week).
In summary, this project aims to provide a better understanding of how both police
communicators and crime journalists perceive each other and diagnose the health
and survival of the relationship (Johansoozi, 2006).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Firstly, from a criminological perspective, the police–media relationship has been
often perceived as either ‘hegemonic’ or ‘subversive’ (Reiner, 2007). Mawby (2012)
suggests from the hegemonic view, the police are “propagators of a dominant
ideology” because they control the access to information. From the subversive view,
he says the media are perceived as a threat that will undermine respect for the
police service.
Other studies point to a more complex relationship dependent on variables such as
whether the police are dealing with local or national media, differences across police
services and media formats, and the individual news event. “Police–media relations
are constantly in tension and subject to on-going negotiation” (ibid., p. 278 2012).
Mawby (2010) concludes that the police-media relationship is asymmetric in favour
of the police. However, he finds that the practical dynamics of newsgathering ensure
that relations remain in a “healthy tension”; the shaping of policing news remains
negotiated and contested.
Page 5 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Bearing this in mind, the public relations perspective helps us understand the quality
of the organisation’s relationships with its publics – in this case the police-media
relationship.
Historically, PR has “struggled with an identity crisis” (Jahansoozi, 2006). There have
been hundreds of attempts to define what it is or does, and this partly reflects the
diversity of approaches, such as systems theory, rhetorical perspectives, critical
theory, feminist views and the emergence of postmodernism.
However, scholars such as Ferguson, Ledingham, Bruning, Haung, Grunig, Hon,
Kent, Taylor, Broom, Casey and Ritchey have led a shift away from communication
as the central function of PR to focus on relationships.
So assuming a core goal is to produce good relationships, then this definition is
useful: “Public relations is the management function that establishes and maintains
mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom
its success or failure depends” (Cutlip, Center and Broom, 2000 6).
Likewise, Heath (2001) argues that mutually beneficial relationships are vital if an
organisation is to “enjoy a license to operate”. If it wants to meet its mission
objectives, the organisation ignores them at its peril (Jahansoozi, 2006). Other
scholars (Heath, 2001; Huang, 2001; Grunig et al, 1992) suggest that establishing
positive relationships with key publics helps reduce conflict and hence avoid
expensive crises.
Ledingham (2003) adds time as a significant variable: “Effectively managing
organisational-public relationships around common interests and shared goals, over
time, results in mutual understanding and benefit for interacting organisations and
publics.” This means PR practitioners can positively influence the attitudes and
behaviours of strategic publics over the long-term (Jahansoozi, 2006).
However, Edwards (2006) highlights an obvious issue: this approach is timeconsuming. And in today’s economic climate with more limited resources,
relationship building can be challenging.
In continuation, there have been some influential exponents, namely Grunig and
Hunt (1984, cited in Heath, 2001). They believe that the key to creating and
maintaining beneficial and harmonious relationships is to use the two-way model of
symmetrical communication - the latter being the cornerstone of Grunig et al’s
subsequent “Excellence theory”. The idea is that dialogue leads the organisation to
exchange views with its publics. In turn, it is thought, perhaps then both will be
influenced and adjust their attitudes and behaviours (Windahl and Signitzer, 1992).
In essence, communication is “fully reciprocal and power relationships are balanced”
(Fawkes, 2012, p. 36).
Page 6 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Similarly, Kent and Taylor (2002) suggest dialogue is not a means to an end but the
end goal itself, with the relationship helping the process. And it is by discovering
“common ground” that agreement is reached.
However, Leitch and Neilson (2001) argue that in reality publics are not equal
partners in the relationship because the organisation tends to have greater access to
resources. Other critical scholars argue the model is idealistic and that vested
interests dictate PR practice (Edwards, 2006).
Meanwhile, Dozier, Grunig and Grunig (1995; 2001) have proposed a mixed-motive
model of symmetry along a continuum. At both extremes asymmetrical
communication is practised and in the middle is the “win-win” zone where the
organisation compromises with its public and has a dialogue.
In sum, two-way symmetrical communication may be equal and more ethical but
more often than not the relationship between the organisation and its publics is not
(Jahansoozi, 2006).
Moving on, research is used to discover how publics perceive an organisation and
evaluate to what extent the dialogue has fostered mutual understanding (Windahl
and Signitzer, 1992).
Myers and Myers (1982, cited in Windahl and Signitzer, 1992) state that in terms of
systems theory, the unit of analysis is “not a thing, a person, an event in isolation,
but a relationship – between people, and between people and environments”.
Ferguson (1984) was the first to champion this notion that relationships could be
measured and evaluated, and therefore bring value to PR. Other scholars embraced
it too because quantifying relationship changes over time was a move away from
now discredited quantitative evaluation techniques like counting press clippings
(Jahansoozi, 2006). The latter failed to link media coverage to its possible effects like
“changes in the levels of awareness, public’s attitudes, and behaviours” (ibid. p.78).
In addition, academics realised that qualitative analysis was also useful to
understand and describe the organisation-public relationship.
First though, in terms of evaluation, a number of quantitative tools have been
developed to measure organisation-public relationships. Grunig, Grunig and Ehling
(1992) identified seven elements that make up a positive relationship: trust,
openness, credibility, reciprocity, and mutual legitimacy, satisfaction and
understanding.
Other academics such as Broom et al (2000, cited in Tench and Yeomans, 2009)
also suggested interdependence, exchanges and transfers of information, energy or
resources, antecedents (histories) and consequences (effects or results).
Bruning and Ledingham (1999) developed a relationship scale which they believed
was an effective tool in assessing relationship quality and predicting behaviour. It
Page 7 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
included elements of trust, openness, involvement, investment, commitment,
reciprocity, mutual legitimacy and understanding. They also identified three relational
dimensions: professional, which needs money; personal, which requires trust, time
and emotional engagement; and the community that needs openness, CSR
programmes, sponsor events and engagement (Johansoozi, 2006).
Huang (2001) added “face and favour” as cross-cultural attributes for an
Organisation-Public Relationship Assessment (OPRA). However, for the purposes of
this paper, it was the simplicity of Hon and Grunig’s (1999) evaluation tool that was
finally selected to assess the relationship between police communicators and crime
journalists. They identified six characteristics: control mutuality, trust, satisfaction,
commitment, exchange relationship and communal relationship.
Meanwhile, Johansoozi (2006) claimed that although many of these scales are
reliable and valid, they are primarily quantitative in approach. She points out the
limitations of solely using statistical data to describe the relationship and what it
means to those involved.
Interestingly, Broom and Dozier (1990) developed Macleod and Chaffee’s (1973)
coorientational model. It measures both parties’ perceptions of the relationship i.e.,
what the public knows about the organisation, what they feel about each other, what
they do to each other that determines the nature of the relationship. In more detail,
the coorientational approach is a “useful model for framing the research effort” (ibid.,
p.37). The idea is to analyse the perceptions of the organisation (in this paper’s case,
the police communicator) and the particular public (crime journalist) by asking four
questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are the organisation’s views on the issue?
What is the dominant view within the organisation of the public’s view?
What are the public’s actual views on the issue?
What is the dominant view within the public of the organisation’s views?
Broom and Dozier (1990) say that it is then possible to calculate three variables1:
agreement, which illustrates the extent the organisation and the public hold similar
views; accuracy, which shows that one side’s estimate of the other’s views is similar
to the other’s actual views; and perceived agreement, which represents the degree
one side’s views match their estimate of the other’s views.
Johansoozi (2006) states that these three variables can summarise a range of states
of the relationship from true consensus to dissensus, false consensus (when an
organisation pretends to hold the same views as the public but in reality both sides
are in disagreement) and false conflict (when both sides agree but one side
inaccurately perceives the other side’s view as different).
1
(see appendix 1)
Page 8 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
“This analysis allows practitioners to zone in on where perceptual differences exist
and are therefore in a position to resolve issues by addressing the cause before it
develops into a crisis,” (ibid., p.90).
Seltzer (2006) says the interaction between the variables “is quite possibly as close
as one could get to measuring such an intangible construct as a relationship.” He
says that too many studies have tiptoed around the coorientational approach and
failed to use the perceptions of both organization and its publics in measuring the
relationship between them. He cites just two research papers Shin & Cameron
(2005) and Christen (2005) that have used relationship measures in a full
coorientational framework.
Meanwhile, Neijens and Smit (2006) investigated the increasing interdependence of
Dutch public relations practitioners and journalists. They looked at how they perceive
and evaluate each other, their view of their roles, methods, relationship, and quality
of media reporting on organizations. From their survey, they found that while there
were differences of opinion, these were neither predominantly negative nor
fundamental. In contrast to all the US studies on the relationship, they concluded the
professions were “antagonists no more”. This paper borrows some of the survey
instruments such as questions around how journalists and public relations
practitioners perceive their roles, how they evaluate the interactions of the two
professions and to what extent do they differ in their perceptions of each other, and
their views of their interactions? (ibid., p.234). This will help provide reference points
for comparison.
So in summary, this paper looks at the impact on police-media relationships after the
phone-hacking scandal and subsequent official reviews in 2011. The Leveson
Report challenged police practice on four counts (ACPO, 2013): ‘off the record’
briefings, recording contact with the media, appropriately reporting any personal
relationship between a police officer and a journalist, and (although not a specific
recommendation) providing information concerning arrests to the media.
These changes, as Stroh (1999, cited in Johansoozi, 2006) suggested, could
instigate conflict in the relationship if left unmanaged. Similarly, this paper
investigates whether changes in the environment surrounding police services is a
major catalyst for relationship conflict and whether openness, trust and mutual
understanding could be used to repair journalist-police relationships.
If the findings show the police-media relationship has broken down, then Fisher and
Uri’s work (1991, cited in Johansoozi, 2006, p. 74) is interesting. They suggest
communication is key to maintaining the relationship and identify three problems
leading to the relationship breaking down: each side has “mentally written off the
other party” and is going through the motions of communicating to maintain a façade;
both parties are not listening to each other; and finally misunderstanding and
Page 9 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
misinterpreting each other. Which of these three problems is true will be answered in
the paper’s conclusion.
METHODOLOGY
As explained, the aim of this paper is to assess the quality of the relationship
between crime journalists (CJs) and police communicators (PCs), and find out how
the current climate is affecting the perceptions of each other. Significantly, Edwards
(2008) points out that the quality of the relationship is an independent variable that
predicts support or opposition for the organisation and in turn, its ability to operate
effectively.
To tackle this, primary research has been selected as there has been little analysis
in this area from a PR relational perspective.
MEASURES:
1. QUANTITATIVE;
Two quantitative online surveys, which have some reversed questions but are almost
identical in nature, were conducted2 during the month of June.
A total of 36 questions were asked within three main sections: 1. Roles; 2. Methods;
and 3. Relationship. There were also opportunities to provide qualitative comments
in sections 2 and 3.
In broad terms, the survey instruments have been based around these research
questions:
1.
How do CJs and PCs perceive the roles of the two professions?
2.
How do CJs and PCs evaluate the interactions of the two professions?
3.
To what extent do CJs and PCs differ in their perceptions of each other?
Some questions were borrowed from the Dutch study (Neijens and Smit, 2006)
looking at the interdependence of journalists and PR practitioners. This provided
useful items for structuring the questionnaires, which were then applied to the
distinct specialism of police-media relationships in a UK setting.
Section 3 was predominantly based on Hon and Grunig’s (1999) relational indicators
taken from their “Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations”:
control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship and
communal relationship. There were ready-made questions which were adapted and
then applied for this study3.
2
3
(see Appendix 4 and 5)
(see Appendix 2 and 3)
Page 10 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Two groups of respondents were approached:
Members of the Crime Reporters Association (n.15) were emailed with a
request to fill out the questionnaire, and through the Society of Editors, a
weblink was sent to crime reporters around the UK (n.20).
Police communicators (n.66) were sent a weblink via APComm (Association
of Police Communicators) and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers).
A total of 101 CJs and PCs participated in the surveys. The response rate for the
CRA members was a third. It was unclear how many weblinks were disseminated to
the other subgroups. Police communicator respondents (25/60 were aged 25 to 35)
were on average younger than the journalists (19/32 were aged over 46). Most of the
journalists worked in newspapers (29/32 respondents) and for more than 10 years
(26/31) while almost half (30/61) of the PCs had previously worked in journalism and
the majority had been in communications for less than 10 years (40/61). In terms of
education, proportionally more PCs had studied to degree or a higher level (43/60)
compared to journalists (17/32). In turn significantly, a higher proportion of journalists
had professional qualifications (11/32) in comparison to police communicators
(14/60). The educational factor may indicate the differences in ages between the two
groups and that in the past, the emphasis placed by newspaper groups on NCTJ
qualifications.
The coorientational model (Broom and Dozier, 1990) suggests two variables that
describe the relationship: agreement and accuracy. The third variable of perceived
agreement does not. To measure the extent of agreement between both sides, PCs
and CJs were asked what they knew about their professional roles and methods,
and how they felt about the relationship. The other variable – accuracy – measures
how correct one side is at estimating the other’s views. This was explored in six indepth interviews, explained in more detail later.
This paper adapted the model by using a ratings scale in which both parties rate
each other on their roles on a scale of 1-to-5 with 1 standing for “very unimportant”
and 5 standing for “very important”. For methods and relationship, they rated each
item, again on a scale of 1-to-5 with 1 standing for “totally disagree” and 5 standing
for “totally agree”.
A difference score, also known as the D-score, was used to measure the difference
between the two sides’ ratings for each item. According to Broom and Dozier (1990),
the relative magnitudes of difference scores show the extent of agreement,
perceived agreement and accuracy. A large D-score indicates relatively little
agreement. A small D-score shows a greater agreement.
Page 11 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
2. QUALITATIVE;
For a qualitative analysis of the relationship, six in-depth semi-structured anonymous
interviews were also carried out with three leading police communicators, and three
former or existing crime specialists from national and regional journalism. The 40minute interviews took place over a two week period, half on the phone using
shorthand for note-taking, the others face-to-face using a voice recorder and later
transcribed. The questions followed the outline of the surveys but with additional
items applied to utilise the coorientation model (Broom and Dozier, 1990). The latter
is aimed at measuring both parties’ perceptions of the relationship (Johansoozi,
2006). A seventh interview was conducted with Rob Mawby, a criminologist who has
studied police-media interactions for two decades. This provided a useful insight into
the criminological approach to relationships.
The data was analysed firstly from a qualitative perspective before looking at
whether there was agreement or perceived agreement. The focus was the
relationship section.
3. LIMITATIONS:
Firstly, there was an imbalance in the number of respondents to the two surveys;
almost double the number of police communicators replied in comparison to crime
journalists and therefore this may have impacted on the validity of the findings.
In hindsight, it may have also been useful to create geographical and professional
variables to determine whether respondents were practising/reporting mainly in
London and/or on a national level, or outside London on a local/regional level. The
reason for this is that in the findings it became clear that a London-centric
perspective may have distorted the view of the relationship as the focus would have
been on the Metropolitan Police. Given more time, this could have been corrected by
emailing all respondents instead of via a weblink. Alternatively, additional items could
have been included in the surveys within the background section.
Again in retrospect, it may have been easier to have had fewer questions as it was
not possible within the word limit to fully explore and expand on the qualitative data.
Moreover, to reduce the number of “neutral answers” to statements, perhaps other
options of “sometimes” or “most of the time” may have represented respondents’
views more accurately.
FINDINGS
Survey Results and Interviews:
1.a) Perceptions of the role of public relations
Page 12 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Three categories were included in the questionnaires: informing, influencing, and
interacting.
Informing was measured by two items: how important is it that police forces provide
information to the media on police policies and police activities?
Most crime journalists (CJs) and police communicators (PCs) generally agree both
are important or very important (D-score=0.38 and 0.03). However, there is an
interesting difference: Almost three quarters of CJs (n.25/34) think information on
policies is very important compared to just over half of PCs (n.34/65).
Influencing was measured by three items: how important is it that police forces
influence support for police policies, public behaviour, their public image and that of
their officers?
Tend to agree (D-scores=0.68, 0.54, 0.73). Both believe the PR role is to influence
although more PCs than CJs feel this area is important. For example, more than half
of PCs (n.34/65) think it very important to influence public image compared to less
than a third of CJs (n.8/33).
Interacting was measured by two items: How important is it that police forces engage
with the public to discuss problems and solutions, and maintain a relationship with
specific groups?
Tend to agree (D-score=0.2 and 0.3) For instance, two thirds of PCs (n.42/65)
believe it very important to maintain a relationship with specific groups as do more
than half of CJs (n.19/33).
1.b) Perceptions of the role of journalism
Four categories of function were included: information, interpretation, investigation
and entertainment (Neijens and Smit, 2006).
The questions asked were: How important is it for journalists to get news to the
public quickly?
Tend to agree (D-score=0.13). Around two-thirds of CJs (n.24/33) believe it very
important and a significant number of PCs (n.26/62) think the same.
To analyse and interpret complex events?
Tend to agree (D-score=0.21). Again more CJs (n.23/33) – around two-thirds believe it very important although a significant number of PCs (n.25/62) – almost a
half - agree.
To investigate claims and announcements by the police force?
Tend of agree (D-score=0.41). Both CJs (n.30/33) and PCs (n.55/60) think this an
important or very important role.
Page 13 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
To offer entertainment in relation to crime reporting?
Tend to agree (D-score=0.3). Both parties do not think entertainment a significant
part of the role, although more CJs (n.6/33) than PCs (n.2/61) think it important.
To encourage the public to engage in the criminal justice system by coming forward
with evidence, to publicize police successes e.g. when criminals are brought to
justice?
Tend to Agree (D-score=0.31). On this point, both PCs (n.47/61) and CJs (n.22/33)
are almost uniform in thinking it is very important.
To hold the police to account, acting as the eyes and ears of the public?
Tend to Agree (D-score=0.22). Again both the majority of CJs (total.n.31/33
important or very important) and PCs (total.n.57/61) think this is a primary journalistic
role
2. a) PR methods
Three items were included:
Police practitioners strive for as much transparency as possible.
Disagree (D-score=2.16). Most PCs believe they strive for transparency (total. n.
55/60 agree or totally agree). Whereas, CJs think the opposite (total. n. 24/33
disagree or totally disagree).
Manipulate information.
Disagree (D-score=1.78). Again PCs (total. n.46/60 disagree or totally disagree) are
polar opposite to CJs (total. n. 22/33 agree or totally agree).
Obstruct the flow of information.
Disagree (D-score=2.33). Likewise, CJs (total. n.28/33 agree or totally agree) are at
extreme opposites on the continuum compared to PCs (total. n.53/60 disagree or
totally disagree).
PC Comments (n.17):
“nature of policing makes total transparency impossible”…” occasions when
information cannot be released due to operational/investigative reasons”…”
Manipulating information is a necessary part of police work in the covert world and I
think the public knows and expects this and is accepting of it”…”Media obsession
with minor issues involving famous people places unreasonable demand on police
service comms” ….”Many practitioners strive for transparency but, on the whole, I
know many, many more who see the entire point of the job as blocking the media”
Page 14 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
CJ Comments (n.9):
“Our local force released less than 2 per cent of crimes to press and public over 12month period. Says it all.”…..”secretive and manipulative and hide behind various
laws…They (police) are deeply distrustful of the press and have, on occasions, told
us downright lies”….” Bureaucratic defensiveness before public service”…. “More
obstructive. Leveson and Filkin have been used to further this aim”.
2. b) Journalist methods
Five questions were put. Crime journalists primarily: 1. want to tell their own story (Dscore=0.77); 2. are interested in helping the police solve crime (D-score=0.13); 3.
are interested in accurately communicating police policy (D-score=0.45); 4.
manipulate information (D-score=1.23); 5. mistreat witnesses and suspects (Dscore=0.43).
Disagreement in Q.1 and 4.
More than half of CJs (total.n.17/31 disagree or totally disagree) disagree with
wanting to tell their own story. More than half of PCs (total.n.34/60 agree or totally
agree) think the opposite.
Meanwhile, again there is a significant gap in perceptions about journalists
manipulating information. Almost two-thirds of CJs (total.n.20/31 disagree or totally
disagree) do not think they do it, whereas a significant number of PCs (total.n.24/58
agree or totally agree) believe they do.
Less statistically significant but still important is the perception that journalists
mistreat witnesses and suspects. Fewer PCs (total.n.18/59) disagree or totally
disagree with this statement than CJs (total.n.24/31).
PC Comments (n.15):
“really hard to generalise”…” Some (journalists) are exceptional, professional,
knowledgeable and honest. Others not so”…” huge difference between local media
who want to portray facts accurately and not upset victims etc., and national media
who misrepresent, manipulate and lie”…” Leveson has done little to change
anything…. the problem is the competition between newspapers is so fierce…that
facts/morals/integrity are forgotten to achieve their main aim – to get the best story”.
CJ Comments (n.1):
“Not so much mistreat but do not pay enough regard to respecting witness difficulties
and suspect’s right to remain just that until case is heard”.
Page 15 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
3. Relationships
Eleven questions were included: See figures 1 and 2.
Police Communicator views: Figure 1
Page 16 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Crime Journalists’ views: Figure 2
Cooperation is good
Tend to Disagree (D-score=1.59). The majority of PCs (total.n.55/60 agree or
totally agree) agree whereas almost two-thirds of CJs (total.n.19/32 disagree or
totally disagree) think cooperation is bad. Hon and Grunig (1999) cite this as one of
their relational indicators, satisfaction. If there is a lack of the latter, then that affects
the quality of the relationship.
Page 17 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Interviews:
All three CJs mirrored the survey results, believing cooperation was not good and
two out of three thought PCs would think the same. One said there was much
“uncertainty” on how to engage and therefore PCs were now “overcautious”. “We get
very frustrated because they give us very little”, said one CJ. “The current media
policy, set out in the College of Policing guidelines, has crippled the relationship
which senior officers claim is an essential component of "policing by consent." They
say they are open, honest and transparent when they are more remote than they
have ever been. For an organisation so often accused of cover-up, a media policy
that does not work and obstructs the flow of information and encourages corporate
rhetoric will simply store up problems for the future. The policy does not deliver. They
know it; they see the evidence of its failure in print and broadcast media every day
but they still persist with it. Madness. “
Two out of three PCs thought cooperation was good. One estimated that local media
rather than the nationals would agree, saying “general feedback is positive”, but
another perceived CJs would think there had been “a retreat from perfectly proper
contact”.
Journalists/police communicators can be relied upon to keep their promises
Tend to Disagree (D-score=0.97). This item measures trust (another relational
indicator). Each party was given the statement asking how they perceive each other.
It appears more than half of PCs (total.n.31/60 agree or totally agree) can trust CJs.
However, the latter (total.n.20/32 disagree or totally disagree) strongly distrusts PCs.
Interviews:
Interestingly, all three CJs trusted PCs to keep their promises, although two
perceived PCs would not trust them. One CJ said: “PCs are sometimes a bit
disdainful…. (think we are) the lowest of the low. We are scum.”
However, two out three PCs trusted CJs with the caveat : “You feel they can be
trusted but the newsdesk cannot.” One said that clarity was needed over the terms of
engagement, whether information was for background, not for publication,
unattributable, embargoed. “If a police officer ends up being quoted when they are
talking not for publication, then that does not build trust. Also when police officers
see stories written in a manner that doesn’t appear fair, impartial, balanced, and
misrepresents then that is not going to build trust either.”
In dealing with police communicators, journalists tend to throw their weight around
(vice versa).
Page 18 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Tend to Agree (D-score=0.27). This item measures control mutuality (Hon and
Grunig, 1999). Both CJs and PCs almost equally agree and disagree on each other
throwing their weight around. A third or more from both groups were neutral.
I feel journalists want to maintain a long-term relationship with police communicators
(vice versa).
Tend to Disagree (D-score=0.72). This item measures commitment (relational
indicator). Significantly, a majority of PCs (total.n.44/61 agree or totally agree)
believe journalists want it. In contrast, fewer CJs (total.n.13/32) feel similarly of police
communicators and in fact, a third (total.n.12/32 disagree or totally disagree) think
PCs are uninterested in maintaining a long-term relationship.
Interviews:
Interestingly, all interviewees agreed that a long-term relationship was important.
However, one PC expressed concern around financial cuts and reform: “We have
less staff, less time”. This chimes with Edwards (2006) who pointed out that
relationship management was time-consuming. In addition, the PC differentiated
between local media and nationals who “smash and grab a story and go”.
One CJ identified specialists as developing a relationship “but difficult with generalist
journalist. There’s a churn factor”. He also said: “It takes some time to really
understand each other and forgive each other.”
I am happy with the relationship with journalists (vice versa).
Tend to Disagree (D-score=1.48). This item measures satisfaction again. Similar
to Q.1, it is striking how many PCs (total.n.54/60 agree or totally agree) are happy
with the relationship whereas CJs (total/n22/32 disagree or totally disagree) are
distinctly unhappy with it.
Interviews:
In contrast with the surveys, all interviewees agreed the relationship was not a happy
one, although a PC noted that there was a difference outside London: “We have not
had the same level of moaning. The locals will raise issues and we will try and deal
with them. It has positive, tangible results”.
Journalists do not especially enjoy giving police communicators help (vice versa).
Tend to Disagree (D-score=0.66). This item measures communal relationship.
Again PCs (total.n.25/60 disagree or totally disagree) are more optimistic than CJs
(total.n. 20/32 agree or totally agree) about the relationship. A significant number of
PCs feel journalists do enjoy giving them help whereas two-thirds of CJs think police
communicators are unhelpful.
Interviews:
Page 19 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
All three PCs thought giving help was important. One said: “Communicators are
unhappy when they can’t give the journalist the guidance that might help them
understand the story more completely”. But two estimated CJs would think
communicators were “obstructive”.
Two out of the three CJs think PCs are unhelpful but one qualified it by saying it
depended on senior officers’ attitudes and behaviour to media. One said if both
parties know each other then they would be more likely to help. Two thought PCs
would think journalists thought they were obstructive.
Whenever journalists give or offer something to police communicators, they expect
something in return (vice versa).
Tend to Disagree (D-score=0.59). This statement measures exchange
relationship. Almost half of CJs (total.n.15/31 disagree or totally disagree) tend to
think PCs would not expect something in return whereas more than a third of PCs
(total.n. 23/60 agree or totally agree) think CJs do. This infers a slight imbalance in
expectations.
Interviews:
Two PCs don’t think CJs expect something in return and all three themselves did not
expect reciprocity: “I don’t think there’s a tit-for-tat mentality”.
One CJ thought reciprocity was, in the past, integral to the relationship but not now.
“When I first started, press officers gave exclusives to all crime reporters they knew
and they tried to give a fair share but what was implicit in that, is if you heard bad
stuff about corrupt or drunken coppers, too free and easy with women in bars that
you’d keep it to yourself.”
The quality of the relationship with the journalist/police communicator is important to
the story getting coverage.
Tend to Agree (D-score=0.32). Both parties think the relationship is important in
securing media coverage.
I experience an unhealthy tension in the relationship with journalists/police
communicators.
Tend to Disagree (D-score=1.17). Another example of perceptions not being
aligned. Three quarters of PCs (total.n.45/61 disagree or totally disagree) are again
optimistic about the relationship quality compared to more than half of CJs
(total.n.17/31 agree or totally agree) who’s experience is negative.
Interviews:
All three CJs mirrored the survey, one saying: “You cannot go from informality (in the
relationship) to sudden formality. That is a recipe for disaster.” Two out of three
Page 20 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
thought PCs would agree which was accurate because in contrast to the survey, two
PCs believed there was an unhealthy tension because of a “lack of trust”. One said
the relationship had “gone a bit cold”.
Since the Leveson Inquiry was set up, the relationship with journalists/police
communicators has deteriorated.
Tend to Disagree (D-score=1.44). Again a disconnect appears between what each
thinks of the other one. Two-thirds of CJs (total.n.21/31 agree or totally agree)
perceive the relationship as having significantly worsened in the last couple of years
compared to two-thirds of PCs (total.n. 40/61 disagree or totally disagree), who do
not.
Interviews:
Again, the surveys did not quite match the interviews, most probably because four
out of six interviewees were London-based. However, the comments provided insight.
One PC and a CJ both pointed out that it was not just Leveson that had affected the
relationship but multiple factors such as the Filkin report on ethics, and Operation
Elvedon which had led to significant numbers of CJs being arrested and placed on
bail.
One PC added: “Police officers are nervous and apprehensive about making contact
with journalists and the rules are different so they are not confident in operating
within the rules.”
The relationship between the media and the police has become too close.
Tend to Agree (D-score=0.52). Both parties do not think the relationship is too close.
PC Comments (n.18):
“some of their relationships (CJ and police officers) were inappropriate….it has been
very difficult to then re-build trust and confidence on both sides”…” need to develop
a trust to be able to provide guidance… better to build a professional relationship
over time through working on incidents together.”…” very good working relationship
locally, as they work in, and care about, the community. The vast majority of
negative issues I have had is with nationals”…” seen a swing towards mutual
paranoia which is not good for anyone”…” Politeness costs nothing”…” Some police
PR people can get too influenced by officers' sometimes negative and defensive
view ... Equally some journalists don't or won't understand the job of police
communicators”.
CJ Comments (n.5):
“Since Leveson, it has been almost impossible to do the job. I am unable to speak to
officers I have known for two decades”….” It is harder and more professionally
dangerous to do the job properly”…” Proximity is not the problem. Judgement
Page 21 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
is.”…”relationship…at its lowest point in my career….constant obstruction of
information… constant questioning of motives for stories….Police forces and their
public relations teams must change these attitudes”.
Conclusion:
This paper started by asking whether the nature of the relationship had deteriorated
to such an extent that it could be described as broken? Certainly, both PCs and CJs
are in sharp disagreement with how they perceive each other’s methods. The results
suggest both have low professional opinions of each other in terms of manipulating
information, and for example, CJs tend to believe PCs are obstructive, although both
sides admit it is hard to generalise.
Hon and Grunig’s (1999) relational indicators were useful in identifying
disagreements in perceptions. Trust seemed to be a recurring variable which
affected the relationship over time. Overall the CJs were more dissatisfied than the
PCs, most probably due to current police investigations into corruption. This had
destabilised the relationship and caused significant damage. So Neijens and Smit’s
(2006) conclusion of “antagonists no more” does not appear to match the current
experience of police-media relationships.
The coorientational model partly helped identify the extent of “agreement” on the
relationship issue. It also helped identify how “accurate” one side’s estimate of the
other’s views was to the other’s actual views. For instance, the PCs’ actual view of
cooperation was good while CJs actual view was bad. PC’s estimate of CJ’s view
was bad and therefore accurate. Meanwhile, CJs’ estimate of PCs actual view was
bad and therefore inaccurate. This was useful to frame the research effort because
CJs wrongly perceived that PCs would think cooperation was bad and perhaps
optimistically think PCs would change for the better. So one possible reason leading
to the relationship breaking down is that both sides are “misunderstanding and
misinterpreting each other” (Fisher and Uri, 1991). In coorientational terms, this
could be described as “false conflict” (Broom and Dozier, 1990).
Finally, one crime journalist offered this warning about the relationship: “If not broken,
it is certainly fractured. If we are in the same place in two years’ time after the last of
the court cases, then it might be beyond repair.”
Recommendations:
Further research is needed into the impact of social media on the
relationships between police and communities, and police and traditional
media.
Further research is needed on how to rebuild trust, openness and mutual
understanding between PCs and CJs
Page 22 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Bibliography:
Benady, A., 2013. Simon Kelner's independent approach to PR. PR Week. [online]
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1183410/Simon-Kelners-independent-approachPR/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH [accessed July 1]
Broom, G.M. and Dozier, D.M., 1990. ‘Using research in public relations’ 1st ed.
Englefield Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.
Broom, G.M., Casey, S., Ritchey, J. (1997) ‘Towards a concept and theory of
organization-public relationships’. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2):83-98
Civitas (2013).Principles of Good Policing. [online]
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php [accessed July 3]
College of Policing (2013). New Police Guidance on Relationships with the Media:
contacts with the media and “naming of suspects” [online]
http://college.pressofficeadmin.com/repository/files/Press%20Releases/Media_Relati
onships_Guidance_0513.pdf [accessed July 3]
Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H., and Broom, G.M., 1985. Effective public relations. 6th ed.
Englefield Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Edwards, L., 2009. Public relations theories: an overview. In: CIPR, ed. 2009. The
PR Digest. Harlow, Pearson. Ch.3
Fawkes, J., 2012. What is Public Relations? In: A.Theaker, ed. 2012. The Public
Relations Handbook. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Ch.1
Ferguson, M.A. (1984) Building Theory in Public Relations: Interorganizational
Relationships. Gainesville, FL: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication.
Filkin, E., (2012). ‘The ethical issues arising from the relationship between police and
media’ [online] http://bit.ly/1bXKISn [accessed June 1]
Gregory, A. (2000) Planning and Managing Public Relations Campaigns, London:
Kogan Page Limited
Grunig, J. and Hunt, T., 1984. Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Grunig, J., Grunig, L., and Dozier, D., 2002. The excellence theory. In: CIPR, ed.
2009. The PR Digest. Harlow, Pearson. Ch.2
Hon, C.L. & Grunig, J.E. (1999) Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public
Relationships, Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations
Page 23 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Huang, Y-H. (2001) ‘OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple item scale for measuring
organization-public relationships’. Journal of Public Relations Research 13(1):61-90.
Jahansoozi, J., 2010. Relationships, transparency, and evaluation: the implications
for public relations. In J. L’Etang and M.Pieczka, 2010. Public Relations, critical
debates and contemporary practice. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
Kent, M.L., & Taylor, M. (1998) ‘Building Dialogic Relationships Through the World
Wide Web’, Public Relations Review, 24(3): 321-334
Kent, M.L., & Taylor, M. (2002) ‘Towards a dialogic theory of public relations. Public
Relations Review 28:21-37.
Ki, E, & Shin, J. (2006) ‘Status of organization-public relationship research from an
analysis of published articles, 1985-2004’. Public Relations Review 32 (2):194-195
Lambourne, H., (2013). ‘Leveson ‘could erode’ links between press and police’
[online]. http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2013/news/leveson-could-erode-linksbetween-press-and-police/ [accessed June 1]
Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D. (1998) ‘Relationship Management in Public
Relations: Dimensions of an Organization-Public Relationship’. Public Relations
Review 24(1):55-65
Ledingham, J.A, Bruning, S.D., Wilson, L.J. (1999) ‘Time As An Indicator of the
Perceptions and Behaviour of Members of a Key Public: Monitoring and Predicting
Organization-Public Relationships’. Journal of Public Relations Research 11(2):167183
Ledingham, J.A. (2003) ‘Explicating relationship management as a general theory of
public relations’. Journal of Public Relations Research 15(2): 181-198
Leveson, B.H. (2012) ‘An Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press’.
Executive summary. [online] http://www.officialdocuments.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0779/0779.pdf [accessed June 1]
Mawby, R.C. (2012) 'Crisis? What crisis? Some Research-Based Reflections on
Police–Press Relations' Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice
Mawby, R.C. (2010) 'Chibnall Revisited: Crime reporters, the police and "law-andorder news"' British Journal of Criminology, 50 (6): 1060-1076
Mawby, R.C. (2010) 'Police corporate communications, crime reporting, and the
shaping of policing news' Policing and Society, 20 (1): 124-139.
McCoy, M., and Hargie, O., 2012. Measurement and evaluation. In: A.Theaker, ed.
2012. The Public Relations Handbook. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Ch.10
Page 24 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Neijens, P and Edith Smit, E. 2006. Dutch public relations practitioners and
journalists: Antagonists no more. Public Relations Review. 32 (3): 232–240
Reiner, R. (2007). ‘Media Made Criminality: The Representation of Crime in the
Mass Media.’ In Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–337.
Trotter, A. (2013) ‘This is not secret justice or secret arrests, but an effort to set clear
standards'. UK Press Gazette. [online] http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/acpomedia-chief-andy-trotter-secret-justice-or-secret-arrests-effort-set-clear-standards
[accessed July 6]
Windahl, S., Signitzer, B., and Olson, J.T., 1992. ‘Using communication theory; an
introduction to planned communication’. 1st ed. London: Sage
Wolstenholme, S., 2009. Campaigning organisations and pressure groups. In: CIPR,
ed. 2009. The PR Digest. Harlow, Pearson. Ch.9
Page 25 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Appendices
Appendix 1:
Coorientational model of relationships (Broom and Dozier, 1990)
Corporate
A Public’s
Agreement
views
view
of issue
of issue
Perceived
agreement
Accuracy
Perceived
agreement
Corporate
Public’s
estimate
estimate of
of public’s views
corporate views
Page 26 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Appendix 2:
From Hon, L., and Grunig, J,. 1999, Guidelines for Measuring
Relationships in Public Relations. Institute for Public Relations
Six elements of relationships are:
Control Mutuality -- The degree to which parties agree on who has the
rightful power to influence one another. Although some imbalance is
natural, stable relationships require that organizations and publics each
have some control over the other.
Trust -- One party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open
oneself to the other party. There are three dimensions to trust: integrity:
the belief that an organization is fair and just ... dependability: the belief
that an organization will do what it says it will do ... and, competence: the
belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do.
Satisfaction -- The extent to which each party feels favorably toward the
other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced.
A satisfying relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs.
Commitment -- The extent to which each party believes and feels that
the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. Two
dimensions of commitment are continuance commitment, which refers to
a certain line of action, and affective commitment, which is an emotional
orientation.
Exchange Relationship -- In an exchange relationship, one party gives
benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the
past or is expected to do so in the future.
Communal Relationship -- In a communal relationship, both parties
provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for the welfare
of the other -- even when they get nothing in return. For most public
relations activities, developing communal relationships with key
constituencies is much more important to achieve than would be
developing exchange relationships.
Page 27 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Appendix 3:
Hon and Grunig’s (1999) sample questions
Control Mutuality
1. This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other
say.
2. This organization believes the opinions of people like me are
legitimate.
3. In dealing with people like me, this organization has a tendency to
throw its weight around. (Reversed)
4. This organization really listens to what people like me have to say.
5. The management of this organization gives people like me enough
say in
the decision-making process.
Trust
1. This organization treats people like me fairly and justly.
2. Whenever this organization makes an important decision, I know it will
be concerned about people like me.
3. This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.
4. I believe that this organization takes the opinions of people like me
into account when making decisions.
5. I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.
6. This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.
Commitment
1. I feel that this organization is trying to maintain a long-term
commitment to people like me.
2. I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with
people like me.
Page 28 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
3. There is a long-lasting bond between this organization and people like
me.
4. Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this
organization more.
5. I would rather work together with this organization than not.
Satisfaction
1. I am happy with this organization.
2. Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship.
3. Most people like me are happy in their interactions with this
organization.
4. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this
organization has established with people like me.
5. Most people enjoy dealing with this organization.
Exchange Relationships
1. Whenever this organization gives or offers something to people like
me, it generally expects something in return.
2. Even though people like me have had a relationship with this
organization for a long time, it still expects something in return whenever
it offers us a favor.
3. This organization will compromise with people like me when it knows
that it will gain something.
4. This organization takes care of people who are likely to reward the
organization.
Communal Relationships
1. This organization does not especially enjoy giving others aid.
(Reversed)
2. This organization is very concerned about the welfare of people like
me.
Page 29 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
3. I feel that this organization takes advantage of people who are
vulnerable. (Reversed)
4. I think that this organization succeeds by stepping on other people.
(Reversed)
5. This organization helps people like me without expecting anything in
return.
Page 30 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Appendix 4:
Survey – Police Communicator (includes findings)
Page 31 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 32 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 33 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 34 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 35 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 36 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 37 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 38 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 39 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 40 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 41 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Appendix 5:
Survey – Crime Journalist (includes findings)
Page 42 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 43 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 44 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 45 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 46 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 47 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 48 of 49
Guy Smith’s research
Page 49 of 49