Public Relations Review

press and, worse, look unto them as a medium-not media-to syndicate their offerings. Rare is it today, according to my discussions with a number of senior editors, that the PR “person” knows much about what they (the editors) write, what their editorial approach is and, indeed, has ever taken the trouble to read their works or meet them. Everything is sent in impersonally over the transom, by fax, messenger or one of the electronic pr services.

A good friend, a senior syndicated business columnist summed it up. “Young man called me the other morning,” he recounted, “and said, Good morning Mr. X.” I replied, “Good morning. ” “I’m in town with my chairman/CEO,” he says. “That’s nice,” I say. “Don’t you want to interview him,” he asks. “What’s he got to say,” I ask. “Well, Mr. X, isn’t that what you do when you interview him?”

Well, this intimidating book on media management-371 pages and 51 case studies-won’t help this hapless PR tyro. One can cherry-pick through it and gain some useful insights into the media business-and that is not without merit.

But I was puzzled at the outset where it includeed public relations as an integral part of the “media” for whom this book was focused. That is certainly a leap of faith, if not ambition.

In the context that it is important to know thy customer there are chapters that offer valuable insights.

I refer to those on ethics, planning and productivity. One of the more fascinating case studies is provided in a chapter on privacy rules and one on copyrights.

I also thought there was value in a section on public relations communications rights. It spelled out sensible cautions not always uppermost, in terms of potential libel, slander, copyright abuse and privacy infringement. It suggests-but, I feel, unrealistically-that public relations professionals ask clients to sign contracts absolv- ing them of blame for wrongful information which they (the pr firm) have dissemi- nated. I submit that if one has a client that makes this necessary, one has a client one

shouldn’t have. To the point that this book dispels the mystique of the media-unmasking it in

the familiar terms of any business-it has value to the public relations practitioner.

John F. Budd, Jr. Chairman/CEO

The Omega Group

Carl Rowan

Dream Makers, Dream Breakers: The World ofJustice Tbuvgood Marshall Boston: Little Brown, 1993

The book reminds one of how much we are influenced by

rhetoric and how little by substance. In the public mind Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and the self aggrandizing Jesse Jackson vie for attention as facilitators of civil rights. But, in fact, it was Thurgood Marshall who made the great gains in

402 Vol. 19, No. 4

Book Reviews

human rights possible in America. He swayed the supreme court, got that tribunal to

provide new stronger definitions of what was justice. Carl Rowan reminds us of the thoughtful, dedicated way in which Marshall worked to enlarge the rhetoric of the progress which he enabled.

Rowan reports well on Marshall’s dogged pursuit of justice, the great personal sacrifices which he made, the progress which he recorded. Rowan has researched well and in an interesting way leads us through the challenges which Marshall faced, the ways in which he achieved the essential judicial consensus. Readers discover, or rediscover, history in human rights through anecdotes, court arguments, and the personal recollections of Marshall and his critics. The book takes one behind the scenes where judicial and political decisions are made, shares the trials of a black leader seeking justice, tells how Marshall barely escaped a plot to lynch him, and describes the many travails of being the black lawyer who sought change in the status

quo. Regardless of how much one participated in the civil rights movement, one will

learn From this book, and share a new excitement of how progress was obtained. We learn howLyndon Johnson carefully positioned Marshall to become a supreme court nominee whom the Senate would confirm. We learn more about Franklin Roosevelt’s conversation for liberalism and the full dimensions of his opportunism. As Marshall put it, “Now Eleanor Roosevelt did a lot; but her husband didn’t do a damn thing.”

We’re reminded that it was Truman who finally ordered integration in the armed services. Until that time, the prevailing arguments were that mixing Negro and white soldiers could “impair fighting morale,” an argument currently being applied against

gays. Rowan documents the case that Marshall was a leader in the fight to provide

greater equality of opportunity for women, not just for blacks. He was also a strident opponent of violence, publicly decrying those who were crying “black power” and advocating violence. As Rowan unveils Marshall’s life and purpose, one finds him often standing alone, a real moral pillar of strength and vision. As Voltaire reminds

us, “Every great idea, at its origin, was held by a minority of one.” We’re also reminded of Marshall’s brusque humor. Once a law clerk said, “Judge,

you have to come down on this side of this case.” Marshall’s screeched reply was,

“Step closer so that I can be sure you’re hearing me. I don’t have to do a damned thing except stay black and die.”

Rowan provides a thorough description of Marshall’s role on the court, the ways in which he helped “. . other justices understand what it meant to be poor and poorly educated, cheated on almost every level of life, and suddenly have to face the awesomeness of a courtroom appearance.” He describes how Marshall could begin as the minority yet win consensus.

As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said of Marshall, “He is a man who sees the world exactly as it is and pushes on to make it what it can become. No one could avoid being touched by his soul.”

Marshall’s description of America deserves our thorough and honest consider- ation. “We (America) cannot play ostrich. Democracy cannot flourish amid fear.

W1ntcr 1993 403

Puldic Relations Review

Liberty cannot bloom among hate. Justice cannot take root amid rage.. . We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust.. . Knock down the fences that divide. Tear down the walls that imprision. Reach out: freedom lies just on the other side.”

Frank Winston Wylie Professor Emeritus California State University, Long Beach

James Davison Hunter Culture Wars: The Stru&e To Define America Basic Books, 1991 $13.00, paperback

Hunter does a creditable job of introducing and interpreting both the surface issues and the underlying realities of the contemporary culture war, as well as its historical significance and political implications.

As the author points out, current issues such as abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, funding for the arts, etc., certainly are followed in the press and even debated passionately among American families, friends and co-workers. These issues, how ever, frequently seem abstract to people until a part of their own lives intersect an issue of the culture war: a daughter or friend wants an abortion, a marriage ends in divorce, a cousin comes out of the closet, the local school teaches values they deeply disagree with, etc.

In early chapters, Hunter discusses the cultural conflict in America and its anatomy, including public and private cultures in contemporary America. Early on, he exam- ines the historical roots of the culture war and explains the discourse of the adversaries and the technologies of public discourse.

The most interesting and useful parts of the book, in my opinion, are Chapters 7-11 in which Hunter deals with some key fields ofconflict: family, education, media and the arts, law and electoral politics.

Hunter points out that “television, radio, magazines, newspapers, news maga-

zines, the popular press, as well as music, film, theater, visual arts, popular literature, do much more than passively reflect the social and political reality of our times. These institutions actively define reality, shape the times, give meaning to the history we witness and experience. In the very act of selecting the stories to cover, the books to publish and review, the film and music to air, and the art to exhibit, these institutions effectively define which topics arc important and which issues are relevant-worthy ofpublic consideration. The mass media act as a filter through which our perceptions of the world around us take shape. Thus, by virtue of the decisions made by those who control the mass media cumulatively wield enormous power. In a good many situations, this power is exercised unwittingly, rooted in the best intentions to perform a task well, objectively, fairly. Increasingly, however, the effects of this power have become understood and deliberately manipulated, is it not inevitable that the media and the arts would become a field of conflict in the contemporary culture war? ”

404 Vol. 19. No. 4