Recent events have heightened the debate over whether all publicity is good publicity.
This is a crucial theme for public relations students such as me. In many cases you might argue that being in the public spotlight can only be good for an individual or organisation.
An actor being interviewed on TV or radio, or being featured in national newspapers, can only benefit any film or drama he or she is currently appearing in.
Likewise authors publicising their latest work via the media or at bookshop signings can only surely result in extra sales.
Product placement in movies has long been a way of helping finance them and the economic benefits of Coca Cola drinks or Microsoft computers being used on the big screen in front of millions of cinema-goers worldwide are obvious.
But what do we make of the ongoing debate about Nick Griffin’s appearance on the BBC television political debating show, Question Time.
As the leader of the far right extremist group, the British National Party (BNP), many people believed he should not be given such a high profile stage on which to expound his views.
They fear that his appearance in front of an estimated TV audience of eight million people might persuade more people to join a party, which holds openly racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic beliefs.
The programme was almost entirely devoted to the BNP, which has secured two seats in the European parliament – one of whom is occupied by Griffin – and a number of local councillors around the country.
He may well have garnered some sympathy for the way he was pilloried by every other member of the panel and an audience which seemed vehemently against everything he stood for.
In fact, the BNP claimed afterwards that new members were eager to join the party and thousands of pounds in donations had been pledged to it.
But the crucial aspect of Griffin’s appearance was the way he came across to the public and how he explained his extremist ideas. Was it enough to motivate more voters to tick his party’s box at the next General Election?
Popular public relations theory would suggest that Griffin failed in his attempts to persuade wavering supporters of Labour, the Tories or the Liberal Democrats to back him instead.
The philosopher Aristotle said the credibility of the speaker was critical in whether he could persuade his audience to agree with his viewpoints.
PR scholars also learn about the findings of Perloff, who outlined four key elements by which listeners evaluate speakers – their expertise, trustworthiness, physical attractiveness and how similar they are to themselves.
Since Griffin appeared nervous, naive and historically and socially uninformed on Question Time, few potential supporters can surely have been impressed by him, if we are to go by the thinking of Aristotle.
Similarly, Perloff’s principles also indicate that Griffin shot himself in the foot, politically-speaking.
He did not appear an expert in anything he talked about and he cannot clearly be trusted since he appeared to deny making extremist and offensive statements which had been caught on film.
His sneering tone throughout the programme and his attempts to make light of the Holocaust and the Ku Klux Klan would clearly have portrayed him as unattractive in the eyes of most right-thinking people.
Since Britain is a multi-racial nation which embraces same-sex marriages and abhors everything the Nazis stood for, very few people will have thought that Griffin was like them.
Undoubtedly, there will be some new voters who will support the BNP as a result of Griffin’s television appearance.
But accepted theories of PR tell us that many BNP voters and potential supporters will desert the party because its leader does not possess the credibility to play a leading role in the political life of this country.
Publicity is clearly not always positive, I conclude. It may well raise the profile of a company, organisation or individual. But if that portrayal is negative then the act of publicity is counter-productive.
