In response to PRWeek article.
I don’t blame the author for using the word “crap” in a professional publication. When you comment on much of what passes for the PR industry’s thought leadership, the reference to crap seems apt.
Sadly, the same word — or perhaps a milder word like “nonsense” — applies to Harold Burson’s definition of PR as well as to this awkward defense of Burson’s definition.
PR is not a social science. It can be. It should be. But it isn’t. Psychology is a social science. So is sociology. And economics. Social sciences, just as natural sciences, are after one thing only: truth. Not paid advocacy. All sciences have a conceptual foundation and a cadre of practitioners schooled in a shared sphere of reference. I hope that PR becomes a social science someday. In the meantime, anyone who wants to know what PR is, should call Brian Connolly or read his comments below.