Interview Series: Interviews with Curators, Artists and Cultural Thinkers | Interview: Gökhan Çolak
Visual Storytelling and Interdisciplinary Research
Your work brings together documentary cinema, cultural research, and visual storytelling. In your view, how does film production function as a field of inquiry for reflecting on contemporary art and cultural production?
Film has always been my way of thinking through ideas. That’s where my deep thinking happens, while I translate complexity to engaging storytelling. When I make a documentary, the process of research, of sitting with a subject for months or years, of finding the visual language to hold a complex idea, that is itself a form of inquiry. With “Radical Landscapes,” for example, I spent 10 years inside the archive of the 9999 group, my father’s radical architecture collective from late 1960s Florence. The film became a way to ask questions about utopia, about the relationship between art and politics, about what gets remembered and what gets erased, about life and death. Documentary cinema documents while offering new knowledge. It creates a space where cultural production can be examined, questioned, and felt, all at once.
In your documentary projects, you often focus on themes related to art, architecture, and cultural heritage. How does this interdisciplinary approach shape your creative process?
I’ve never been able to stay inside one discipline, and honestly I think that’s where the most interesting work happens. My background spans journalism, documentary, digital media, architecture (through my family), and now AI filmmaking. Each of these fields has its own way of seeing, its own rigor. When I approach a project about cultural heritage, I’m thinking like a researcher and a filmmaker simultaneously. The architecture informs the framing. The journalistic instinct pushes me to ask harder questions. The artistic impulse gives me permission to be poetic. This layering is central to how I work. A project like the 9999 Archive research required me to be an archivist, a daughter, a historian, and a visual storyteller all at once. Those roles inform and deepen each other.
Archive, Memory, and Cultural Heritage
In several of your projects, you engage with archives and historical materials, reinterpreting visual and cultural memory. What does working with archives mean to you as a process of research and discovery?
Archives are alive. That’s the first thing people misunderstand. They think of archives as static, settled, dusty. But when you enter an archive, especially one you have a personal connection to, you’re entering a conversation with time. I am the custodian of the 9999 Archive, the collection of work left by my late father and his collaborators in the Florentine radical architecture movement. Working with that material has been one of the most profound creative experiences of my life. You find things you didn’t expect. You discover connections the original creators may not have seen. You hold a sketch from 1971 and suddenly understand something about the present. For me, archival work is a form of listening. And the act of reinterpreting that material through film, through exhibitions, through new technologies, is how we keep cultural memory honest and dynamic rather than frozen. The coolest thing? A million stories told in a million ways can stem from the same archive.
Digital Transformation and New Media
Today, visual culture and storytelling are increasingly shaped by digital tools and new media technologies. How do you think this transformation is influencing artistic production and forms of visual narration?
We’re living through a fundamental shift in who gets to tell stories and how. Digital and AI tools have democratized production in ways that would have been unimaginable when I started in journalism and documentary. But what interests me most right now is the emergence of AI as a creative medium. I work as a Creative Partner with platforms like Seedance, Runway, Sora, Leonardo, Pika, InVideo, CapCut, and ElevenLabs, and I’ve been making AI films since early in this wave back in 2022. What I see happening is that the tools are changing the grammar of visual storytelling. You can now create imagery that sits between photography and painting, between documentary and dream. The transformation is both technical and conceptual. It’s in how we think as much as in how we make and what we produce. It’s forcing us to rethink what an image is, what authorship means, what “real” looks like. For visual culture, that’s enormously exciting and also demands real critical thinking.
Artificial Intelligence and Creative Production
In recent years, you have also explored AI-assisted visual production and cinema. How do you evaluate the creative possibilities that artificial intelligence offers for filmmaking and visual culture?
AI has given me a new language. My upcoming film “Alma Robot,” which won four international awards, is a hybrid work that used AI-generated imagery alongside live footage I shot in Patagonia under Paolo Sorrentino’s mentorship. What AI allows me to do is visualize the interior, the emotional, the abstract, in ways that traditional cinematography can’t always reach. I can give form to memory, to grief, to transformation. The films that matter are still driven by a point of view, by craft, by something the filmmaker needs to say: the message. I teach AI filmmaking at Franklin University Switzerland and in workshops internationally, and the first thing I tell my students is that the technology is only as interesting as the person using it. That’s why I focus a lot on students understanding the importance of their Voice. The creative possibilities are extraordinary, but they require the same rigor and intentionality as any other form of cinema.
Creative Practice Between Past and Future
Your work often combines historical research with experimental production using new technologies. How do you establish a balance between exploring cultural heritage and experimenting with emerging technologies?
For me, there’s no tension between research and new tech. In fact, they need each other. The radical architects of 1960s Florence were themselves technologists and dreamers. They used the tools of their time, Super 8 film, performance, inflatable structures, to imagine different futures…while they explored the topic of human vs tech in the actual artwork. When I use AI to reinterpret or extend their work, I’m continuing that same impulse. The 9999 group believed art should be experimental, interdisciplinary, and forward-looking. Working with their archive through contemporary technology feels like honoring their philosophy. Heritage gives you roots. Technology gives you reach. The balance comes from never letting one override the other. You stay grounded in research, in history, in genuine understanding of the material. And then you let the new tools open doors you couldn’t have opened before.
Cinema, Exhibitions, and Art Institutions
Some of your films are presented not only in cinematic contexts but also within museums and art institutions. How do you see the relationship between cinema and contemporary art institutions evolving?
The boundaries have been dissolving for years, and I think that’s a good thing. My work has been shown in film festivals and in art contexts, and each space brings out something different in the same piece. Cinema in a theater is a temporal experience; you surrender to the filmmaker’s rhythm. In a gallery or museum, the viewer has more autonomy, more time, more space to circle back. What I find most interesting is how AI cinema is accelerating this convergence. AI-generated films often have a painterly, textural quality, a feeling of time-suspended that feels very much at home in exhibition spaces. And the questions they raise about authorship, about the nature of images, about technology and humanity, are questions that contemporary art institutions are uniquely equipped to hold. I think and hope we’ll see more and more filmmakers working across both worlds, and that the distinction between “cinema” and “art” will matter less than the quality of the thinking.
Aesthetics and Narrative Construction
When constructing a visual narrative, which aesthetic or intellectual approaches influence your storytelling?
I come from a very specific visual lineage. Growing up Florentine, surrounded by Renaissance architecture and the radical experiments of my father’s generation, and the Florence Film Festival my parents founded and ran, as well as their later subtitling company they started from our home, gave me a deep sense that beauty and ideas are inseparable. My aesthetic is grounded in composition, in light, in the emotional weight of an image and its meaning. Intellectually, I’m drawn to the space between the personal and the political, the intimate and the historical. I think a lot about Walter Benjamin’s idea of the “dialectical image,” the way a single visual moment can hold past and present in tension. I also carry my journalism training with me. There’s a commitment to truth, to specificity, to earning every claim you make. Even in my most experimental AI work, I’m always asking: what is this image doing? What does it mean? Is it honest? I love the editing process because of this final decision making.
The New Generation of Creators
As both a filmmaker and educator, you work with younger generations of creatives. What do you see as the main opportunities and challenges that young artists and filmmakers face in the digital age?
The opportunity is extraordinary. The tools available today mean that a student with a laptop can create work that would have required a full production crew ten years ago. In my university classes at Franklin University Switzerland or teenagers at Locarno Film Festival, I watch students go from first concept to finished AI film in a matter of days or weeks. The creative barrier to entry has never been lower. But that’s also the challenge. When everyone can make something, the question becomes: do you have something to say? The risk of the AI era is a flood of technically impressive but emotionally empty work. What I try to give my students is a framework for thinking, for developing a point of view, for understanding why they’re making something before they figure out how. The other challenge is critical literacy. Young creators need to understand these tools deeply enough to use them with intention. Many stem from the Covid era and grew up on socials and screens so the curiosity, engagement with others and hunger to learn is something very delicate to see in them. The ones who combine technical fluency with voice, confidence, sensitivity and genuine artistic vision are going to do remarkable things.
The Future of Visual Culture
Finally, considering the evolving relationship between contemporary art, cinema, and technology, how do you envision the future of visual storytelling in the coming years?
I think we’re heading toward a moment where the categories we’ve relied on, film, art, design, technology, will feel increasingly inadequate. So will the vocabulary to understand, discuss and argue about it all. The most compelling work is already happening in the spaces between disciplines. AI cinema is one example. The 9999 Archive work is another: a project that is simultaneously historical research, family memoir, and experimental media. What excites me is that the next generation of creators won’t have to choose between being a filmmaker or an artist or a technologist. They can be all of those things at once, the way the radical architects of the 1960s were simultaneously designers, architects, philosophers, performers, and provocateurs. They said, “The most important project was the project of our life.” The future of visual culture belongs to people who can think across boundaries, who understand both the weight of history and the possibilities of new tools, and who have something urgent and human to say. That’s what I’m working toward, in my films, in my teaching, and in everything Fiumi Studios does.
Interview Series: The Transformation of Public Relations in the Digital Age | Interviewer: Gökhan Çolak
The Academic Development of Public Relations
Public relations was long perceived primarily as a practice-oriented profession. However, your work played a significant role in establishing it as a theoretical and academic field. In your view, what were the most critical turning points in the academic development of public relations?
This is a fascinating question, but it also would require the writing of a book or, at least, a journal article to answer it adequately. Fortunately, I coauthored an article in 2023 that addressed this question in detail.1 1 I must point out, however, that the article exclusively addressed the academic development of public relations in the United States. Other regions and countries may have experienced a different academic development of the discipline. The United States generally has been credited with leading the public relations discipline, but some scholars in other countries have challenged that assumption.
The article to which I am referring was published as part of a special issue of Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly that celebrated 100 years of publication of the journal. JMCQ is the premier journal of the (U.S) Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. In the United States, public relations was taught first in schools of journalism and mass communication, although it now is taught equally in departments of communication and, occasionally, in other academic departments. My program at the University of Maryland, for example, was housed in the College of Journalism until it was moved to the Department of Communication in 2005. The special issue contained 22 articles reviewing articles published in JMCQ over its first 100 years for specialized areas such as journalism, mass communication, advertising, and (in my case) public relations. I am proud to say that the first author of the article was my grandson, James Hollenczer, who at the time was a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma.
I will quote directly from this article, but first I would like to provide a general overview of the history of public relations education in the United States. The first courses in public relations generally were offered at the time of World War I in schools of journalism and generally were taught by the public information officers of the university or by local practitioners. It wasn’t until the 1950s and 1960s that schools of journalism (and sometimes) mass communication employed full-time public relations educators. Most were former practitioners who did not hold an advanced degree. Exceptions were Scott Cutlip of the University of Wisconsin and Otto Lerbinger and Edward J. Robinson of Boston University. They used research from disciplines such as psychology, sociology, mass communication, and political science in textbooks that they authored. Theories of persuasion and public opinion were prominent, and the emphasis was on messaging and persuasion to influence public opinion and behavior. In the 1960s, I was among a few young scholars who developed specialized theories of public relations. Glen Broom and I, who were in that group, were both Ph.D. students at the University of Wisconsin at the time—where we were influenced by Cutlip. My first theory was the situational theory of publics, which focused on the public side of public relations rather than the organization side. Broom originally focused on coorientation theory, which was a forerunner of current theories of organization-public relationships. Later, in collaboration with David Dozier, a Ph.D. student at Stanford University, Broom developed a theory of managerial and technical roles. At about the same time, I introduced the models of public relations, and both roles and models became components of Excellence theory. Robert Heath, who was educated at the University of Illinois and was another prominent scholar at the time, applied principles of rhetoric to public relations.
In the late 1990s and the turn of the century, rhetorical and critical scholars (often in Europe and outside the United States), challenged our approach, which I believe used theory and research to professionalize the practice of public relations. They argued that public relations was mostly a means for organizations to exercise their power over publics. Recently, many have insisted that public relations theory and research should turn away from organizations and focus on empowering publics. I generally disagree with the critical argument that my theories and similar ones are exclusively means to benefit organizations. I began my research career by focusing on publics with my situational theory. The purpose of both the symmetrical model and the Excellence theory was on developing the profession of public relations in a way that would benefit both organizations and publics.
The article in JMCQ used Thomas Kuhn’s historical theory of the stages of development of a scientific discipline to describe the 100 years of public relations scholarship. The following quote provides a conclusion to my answer to this question:
This article discusses the evolution of public relations from its pre-science period to the present day, according to Kuhn’s classic model. In the early days, public relations was focused on systematic efforts to influence public opinion, but scholars began to doubt the accuracy of this approach by the 1950s. In the 1960s, the field faced conceptual challenges and was stagnant in its pre-theoretical formula, but in the 1970s, researchers began to conceptualize people as active communicators with motives and interests. The 1980s and 1990s saw a focus on understanding the different models of public relations, and in the 21st century, the field shifted toward a multifunctional definition of public relations, with a focus on relationship theories, ethics, public behavior, and technology. . .
At a qualitative level, the fundamentals of the discipline have undergone a “revolutionary” development that can be traced over a century, leading public relations scholars and professionals to rethink themselves and revise their disciplinary culture. In the pre-theoretical stage, public relations was mostly reduced to the mechanistic dimension of “influence” and “propaganda.” This produced an asymmetrical search for visibility and persuasion in which organizations sought to impose themselves and their own private scopes over an abstract idea of “public opinion.” Then, in the second half of the 20th century and along with the development of the mass media system, some decisive challenges enlarged the traditional vision of public relations: the reconceptualization of “receivers” in terms of “active communicators” and the segmentation of an undifferentiated “environment” into specific categories of stakeholders and strategic “publics.”
Indeed, the historical evolution of the discipline in the context of JMCQ suggests that, in a hyper-mediated and post-pandemic world, public relations is reaching a mature stage of development. A model shift at the theoretical level, as the one mentioned, encourages the idea that public relations is a resource not only for corporate leaders and organizations generally, but also anyone interested in the study of group behavior. (pp. 948-949)
The Four Models of Public Relations
Your four models of public relations remain among the most influential conceptual frameworks in the discipline. Considering the current digital media environment, do you believe these models still retain their explanatory power?
My first research in the 1960s was on the behavior of publics, which I believed had been ignored in public relations research. I began this research in my Ph.D. dissertation, which was on communication and agricultural development in Colombia. In the dissertation, I studied large landowners (latifundistas), and I followed this with a similar study of peasant farmers (minifundistas). I returned to the United States after two years in Colombia believing that organizations were more often responsible for a lack of economic development than were publics. Thus, I began a period of about 15 years of research on the public relations (communication) behavior of organizations, while also continuing my research on publics.
To explain my development of the models, it is helpful to understand that researchers generally look for two sets of characteristics (variables) to explain something they are interested in: independent and dependent variables. The dependent variables are the characteristics we want to explain (such as public relations behavior), and the independent variables are the characteristics that explain or sometimes predict when the dependent variables occur. I tried several dependent variables to describe public relations behavior and eventually settled on the four models as a good description of how public relations professionals behave. I also tried several independent variables to explain why PR departments practice different models—such as the nature of an organization’s environment, the type of technology used in an organization, the hierarchical structure of the organization, and the power of the public relations department. Eventually, I found that the education and knowledge of PR people and the beliefs of organizational leaders of what public relations is and does best explained which model was practiced. In addition, our research showed that organizations that practiced the two-way symmetrical model were more successful, socially responsible, and ethical than those who practiced other models.
After many studies of these models, my colleagues and I concluded that they were useful descriptions of different types of public relations behavior, although they probably were overly simple. In addition, we found that organizations often use more than one of the models at the same time and use different models for different communication programs (such as media relations, community relations, or marketing communication.) In the Excellence study, we identified four dimensions that lie beneath the models: symmetrical vs. asymmetrical, one way vs. two-way, mediated vs. interpersonal, and ethical vs. unethical.
For example, the press agentry model is asymmetrical, one-way, mediated, and unethical. Ideal public relations behavior, therefore, is two-way, symmetrical, either mediated or interpersonal, and ethical. These four dimensions, therefore, provide better descriptions of how public relations is practiced and of a normative ideal practice than the four models alone. However, although simple, the four models are still useful to explain public relations to students, organizational leaders who choose a type of PR practice, journalists, and people in general who don’t understand public relations. In addition, I don’t believe the current digital environment has reduced the explanatory power of the models or their underlying dimensions. Instead, digital methods have simply provided new ways of implementing the models.
Two-Way Symmetrical Communication
The two-way symmetrical model is often described as the ideal form of public relations. Yet, in practice, many organizations continue to rely on one-way communication strategies. Do you see symmetrical communication as a realistically achievable model, or primarily as a normative ideal?
The four models of public relations, and the underlying dimensions I just described, have proven to be good descriptions of the different ways that public relations is practiced by different kinds of organizations. Such theoretical descriptions of public relations practice are variables in what is called a positive (or descriptive) theory. The two-way symmetrical model is a positive theory, and it was found to be practiced in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom in the Excellence study. Other researchers have found that the model is practiced in many other countries, although it is not used everywhere.
The symmetrical model also is a normative theoretical concept. Many critics of the model seem to misunderstand the nature of a normative theory. They seem to believe that a normative concept only exists as an ideal and not as a reality. However, a theory would not be a good normative theory if it could not be found in real life. A normative theory must exist in real life and do what it is theoretically supposed to do, such as improve relationships between organizations and publics. I believe symmetrical theory meets this standard and that our research has identified organizations that practice it. As a result, it provides a benchmark for effective and ethical public relations.
At the same time, we know that it is difficult to practice the symmetrical model in some organizations, countries, and cultures. Organizations that believe public relations is a way to dominate their publics aren’t interested in symmetrical communication. Many organizational executives have never heard of public relations being practiced in that way. Public relations practitioners who come from other disciplines such as marketing, advertising, or journalism practice what they know. Marketing and advertising people usually practice the press agentry or two-way asymmetrical models. Journalists typically practice the public information model. Many practitioners, also, cannot practice the symmetrical model because they lack the knowledge or experience to do so.
The question, therefore, is whether all the different ways of understanding, practicing, and teaching public relations are equally good. Would we recommend them to organizational executives or clients or teach them to students: Is every model or every dimension of the models an ideal or normative model? My answer is no. I recommend and teach the two-way symmetrical model. I think it produces relationships that have greater value for publics, organizations, and society. Nevertheless, I know that the model is more difficult to practice in some cultures and political and economic systems than in others. If the model can’t be practiced, I believe the problem is with the culture and political and economic system—not with the public relations profession. In some systems, public relations strives to keep the powerful in power, and it deserves all the criticism it typically receives. However, I believe there is a gradual way to get around this problem. If we as scholars and practitioners can subtly introduce the symmetrical model in practice, it might gradually change the system in which it is practiced. That is not easy, but I could not practice public relations in any other way regardless of the situation in which I work.
Excellence Theory
Excellence Theory positioned public relations as a strategic management function within organizations. Today, do you believe communication professionals are truly integrated into organizational decision-making processes?
As this question states, the major finding of the Excellence study was that participation in the strategic management of an organization was the most important characteristic of excellent public relations. It was even more important than the symmetrical model. Excellent public relations departments were most likely to practice that model, but they also practiced one or more of the other models. Most commonly they practiced both the two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models. The common element of those models is two-way communication, and the best way to practice two-way communication is to conduct research as a form of organizational listening. In subsequent research, four colleagues and I found that conducting or using research was the major indicator of public relations’ participation in strategic management.2 If a public relations department does not use research, it seldom has anything to contribute to strategic management and is generally not integrated into organizational decision-making processes.
The other reason many practitioners are not included is because of what I call institutionalization. This means that traditions, beliefs, and customs reinforce the idea that public relations is a one-way, asymmetrical, and unethical practice used to reinforce the interests of the powerful. Institutionalization occurs among organizational executives, clients of PR firms, journalists, PR practitioners themselves, and people in general. It is extremely difficult to break free from an institutionalized set of ideas; and, as a result, public relations often continues to be practiced as it always has been. I have done everything I can to break out of this institutionalized means of practicing public relations, and I have encouraged other scholars and professionals to do the same.
The answer to this question, then, is yes and no. Research on and observation of public relations people have identified examples of practitioners in many countries who are integrated into strategic management. Integration is most common in multinational corporations, but it also can be found in small organizations that are less institutionalized and where public relations can be changed more easily. Most practitioners, however, still are not part of strategic management; and much work is needed to change the practice to make it possible for them to be included.
Public Relations and Democratic Society
Your work frequently highlights the constructive role that public relations can play in democratic societies. However, critics often associate public relations with manipulation. To what extent do you think these criticisms are justified?
As I said in response to your previous questions, many, if not most, public relations practitioners and their client organizations still believe that public relations is a way to manipulate the media, government, employees, customers, stockholders, and other stakeholders to think and behave as the organization wants. This manipulation wouldn’t be so bad if these practitioners truly understood and had the interests of publics in mind. A good example is health communication, where communicators with good intentions try to persuade their publics to engage in healthy behaviors. Often, however, health communicators don’t understand why publics engage in seemingly unhealthy behaviors; and their messages are ignored. If they researched—listened to—their publics before preparing messages, these communicators generally would be more effective. Unfortunately, communicators and their clients typically believe that an organization’s interests are the same as public interests. Sometimes they are right; more often they are wrong.
I recently wrote an essay on the role of public relations in facilitating social inclusion in a democratic society.3 At this point in my life, social inclusion seems to be the thread that has run through my work, beginning with my research on ways to include Colombian peasant farmers in the decision making of the organizations with which they need relationships and with society in general. Publics typically have different identities, as defined, for example, by race, wealth, poverty, sexual orientation, location, culture, occupation, gender, education, or political philosophy. Organizations typically include the problems of some of these publics in their strategic decision making and exclude others. Publics that are excluded, however, often have problems they would like organizations to help solve. Others encounter problems created by the consequences of organizational decisions. Public relations, I believe, can provide a means of organizational listening that includes these otherwise socially excluded publics. To serve as a means of social inclusion, however, public relations usually must be practiced as a strategic, symmetrical, research-based profession—i.e., following the principles of the Excellence theories.
Digital Platforms and Symmetrical Communication
Digital platforms and social media theoretically enable more interactive communication between organizations and their publics. Do you think these developments have strengthened the model of symmetrical communication, or have they produced new forms of asymmetrical communication?
When digital platforms for communication were first introduced, I was optimistic that they would encourage symmetrical communication and make organization-centric asymmetrical communication difficult. Public relations practitioners once believed that they could control the information going to their publics. However, now that many sources of information are available on the internet and social media, it is almost impossible to control the information going to publics. Search engines, and now artificial intelligence, make it easy for actively communicating members of publics to get information about organizations—their decisions, behaviors, products, ethics, social responsibility, and competitors. At the same time, these platforms make it easy for organizations to research and listen to their publics, understand their problems, and give them a voice in strategic decision making. Thus, symmetrical communication should have become institutionalized by now.
However, a new phenomenon has emerged that I called de facto social exclusion in the article I described in my last answer. Individuals, organizations, and publics typically communicate with others who share the same identities and problems and exclude themselves from communicating with those who are different. De facto social exclusion has been encouraged by narrow-minded media and digital platforms. It also makes people susceptible to misinformation. The phenomenon is particularly evident in political communication in the United States, in which organizations and publics have organized themselves into warring ideological factions. Therefore, I believe you are correct in suggesting that digital platforms have encouraged new forms of asymmetrical communication.
I don’t yet have a firm solution to this problem of de facto social exclusion. I believe the eventual solution will be to educate young people about different forms of thinking and communicating so that they don’t fall into the trap of close-mindedness and confirmation bias when they communicate with others. Cognitive scientists and communication scientists know a lot about these processes, and we need to teach people about them at early ages. It’s also important to include these theories in the education of public relations professionals.
Algorithms and Organizational Communication
Communication environments today are increasingly shaped by algorithms. How do you think algorithmic media environments are transforming the relationship between organizations and their publics?
On the one hand, algorithms can be helpful to both organizations and publics by channeling relevant information to and from publics and minimizing the onslaught of irrelevant information that most of us typically receive in traditional and digital media. Identifying what information is relevant to information seekers has been the primary focus of my situational theory of publics, and that theory is relevant to this question. The theory explains that people are most likely to actively seek or passively acquire information that is relevant to problems they recognize, that involve them, and that they can do something about. I call these variables problem recognition, involvement recognition, and constraint recognition. These variables explain when, why, and about what people communicate.4 In doing so, they explain what information members of publics are most likely to use. Algorithms can filter such relevant information from irrelevant information—thus increasing the probability of successful messaging. The same principles can be used to explain the information coming from publics that public relations practitioners are likely to pay attention to.
However, both active and passive communication behaviors can lead to de facto social inclusion. The result is a dilemma: How can publics and organizations seek information from each other that is relevant to problems they face without falling into the trap of de facto exclusion of sources with different identities and solutions to problems? Algorithms can filter information into categories that either include others or exclude them. Algorithms derived from our previous communication behaviors, therefore, could be inclusive or exclusive. A solution to this dilemma is to expand our communication behaviors to include relevant information from sources we might usually avoid—thus expanding the algorithm and eventually organization-public relationships.
Ethics and Public Responsibility in Public Relations
There is often a tension between organizational interests and the broader public interest. In your view, how should public relations professionals navigate this balance?
Public relations scholars and professionals have debated whether the public relationsfunction should be the ethical conscience of an organization or of organized publics. Critics of the profession, however, believe that public relations is inherently unethical and could never serve this role. Those of us who have an expansive view of public relations believe its role should include monitoring and supporting ethics and public responsibility in strategic management. The question, therefore, is what is required for public relations people to serve in this role. I have addressed this question in detail in another article.5
In that article, I described seven ethical problems that public relations people typically encounter. These included personal ethical decisions; relationships with clients and other practitioners; loyalty to organizations, publics, and society; choice of a client or organization; advocate and counselor roles; secrecy and openness; and digital media.
In that article, I also constructed a theory of public relations ethics and social responsibility. I believe that public relations professionals need a theory of ethics before they can advise others on what behaviors are ethical or unethical. Ethical scholars have developed two types of theories: consequentialist (teleological or utilitarian) and rules-based (deontological). A consequentialist theory maintains that the morality of a decision or behavior depends on the consequences it has on others, such as whether an organization’s behavior has positive or negative consequences on its publics. The same theory would apply to the consequences that a public has on an organization or requests from that organization. Consequentialist ethics becomes complicated, however, when a decision or behavior has positive consequences for the organization but not its publics, or vice versa. Or, when the decision or behavior has positive consequences for some publics but not others or for society at large. This is why the term utilitarian also is used for the consequentialist approach. The proposed solution is “the greatest good for the greater number.” With that rule, however, some participants generally experience positive consequences and others negative consequences. As a result, minorities usually are disadvantaged.
Rules-based or deontological ethicists, on the other hand, solve this problem by proposing moral rules for judging the ethics of a decision or behavior. Shannon Bowen, of the University of South Carolina, developed such a set of rules for public relations in her doctoral dissertation at the University of Maryland, and I recommend reading her research. She developed these rules mostly from the work of Immanuel Kant. Her dissertation and several other articles on ethics can be found on the research website ResearchGate.net (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shannon-Bowen), including an article on the ethics of artificial intelligence.
Two rules that I think are especially important for public relations are disclosure and symmetrical communication. With these rules, I have constructed an uncomplicated ethical theory for public relations that contains both consequences and rules:
Teleology: Ethical public relations professionals should monitor the consequences that potential organizational decisions or behaviors might have on publics.
Deontology: Ethical public relations professionals then have the moral obligation to disclose these consequences to publics that are affected and to engage in symmetrical communication with them about resolving the consequences.
The same rule applies to publics, such as activist groups, that request or even demand consequences from organizations and to organizations that affect each other, such as governments and corporations. In addition, the disclosure rule can be used to make asymmetrical communication activities morally acceptable. That is, the rule states that organizations using asymmetrical communication methods have the moral obligation to disclose the source of their communications. This rule, for example, would rule out such activities as forming front groups with fake name, news releases that don’t disclose the source of the alleged “news story,” or activist groups that don’t reveal their funding sources.
I also believe that the concept of consequences helps to understand the nature of social or public responsibility. Socially responsible organizations should attempt to eliminate or manage the negative consequences of their behaviors on publics, such as pollution, discrimination, or overpricing of products. In addition, publics or other organizations, such as regulators, that request consequences from organizations need to acknowledge and manage those consequences. When consequences conflict, these different groups again have the moral obligation to engage in symmetrical communication to acknowledge the competing consequences and attempt to negotiate their differences.
Organizations can also judge the value of proactive social responsibility programs, such as charitable contributions, sponsorships, or special events, by assessing the potential positive consequences of these programs on publics with which they have a relationship or need to have a relationship—rather than developing such programs only for publicity or “image making.”
The Future of Public Relations Education
Public relations education has expanded significantly around the world. Yet there are ongoing debates about the gap between academic education and professional practice. Do you believe such a gap still exists today?
Ideally, education for professional public relations should work like education in other professions, such as medicine. The most important contribution of educators is research. They develop theories to improve practice and then do research to determine if these theories have worked or could work in practice. They consult with practitioners to learn about problems they experience that research could help to solve and advise them on new approaches suggested by research. The research is published in academic journals for peer review. The theories and examples of the theories being used in practice then form the substance taught in university classrooms and for continuing education of practitioners through professional organizations, short courses, and occasional lectures. In the Excellence study, for example, we learned that excellent public relations practitioners have relevant knowledge gained in one of four ways: undergraduate or graduate education in public relations, continuing education, reading academic and professional journals, and consulting with academics or other practitioners with similar advanced knowledge.
This approach to professional education is becoming more common in public relations, but it is not found universally. There are several reasons. Academics often conduct research that has little relevance to practice, and professionals ignore it. Many practitioners have little formal knowledge of public relations, make little attempt to gain it, and badmouth it to others. Other practitioners learn outmoded ideas from each other and pass them on to client organizations. That explains why the press agentry model, which is the least effective and ethical, is still probably the model most practiced around the world. For these reasons, there often is a gap between academic education and professional practice. I have seen notable progress in my 65 years of public relations practice and education. Nevertheless, we still have work to do.
The Future of Public Relations
Finally, in an era marked by rapid technological transformation, how do you envision the future of public relations? Which research areas should the next generation of scholars focus on?
I think there is little question that digital and social media along with artificial intelligence will dominate the future of public relations. Scholars already are devoting a great deal of attention to these new forms of communication. At the same time, I don’t think these new technologies make our best current public relations theories outmoded.
Unfortunately, these technologies can be used for ineffective and unethical public relations, just like old technologies. They also can be used to implement theories such as the Excellence theory. I have become excited about artificial intelligence, for example, just from my personal use. It is a wonderful way to explore several sources to learn what publics are experiencing and the problems they face. Thus, AI can be used for research. It also can be used to monitor the ethics and social responsibility of organizations. At the same time, we have seen that the new technologies can be used for similar purposes as old technologies were used in ineffective, unethical, and irresponsible public relations practice. Therefore, we need ethics scholars and critical scholars to continue to shine light on these practices.
I hope that research will continue to be done to learn how to implement the strategic, symmetrical, and ethical principles of Excellence theory in different settings around the world. At the same time, theories should never be static and should grow and be improved by continuing research. For example, my colleagues and I proposed several years ago that the Excellence principles are generic principles that can be used in different cultures and political and economic systems, if they are adapted to specific conditions in different settings. We call this theory generic principles and specific applications. I have seen a great deal of research in different countries that has done just that. The same is true for other theories such as principles of crisis communication, ethics, and dialogue. I urge scholars not to throw out older theories just so they can contribute something new. I believe we should merge the old and the new so that the profession grows and scholars avoid reinventing the wheel.
Filmmaker, Cinematographer and Journalist Deana Mitchell
1. How did you become interested in visual journalism and how did you decide to pursue a career in this field?
Even as a child, I always really loved going to movies, sitting in a dark theater and getting lost in another world for a few hours. It was a respite in a chaotic childhood, but I also specifically loved the visual storytelling. As a teenager, I started falling in love with directors who had a unique visual style like Spike Lee. At the same time, I found the photojournalism essays in magazines like LIFE to be very compelling. I loved how single images in a series could come together to tell a powerful story. I grew up in suburban Kansas City, so my artistic outlet was going to bookstores and grabbing a pile of photography books and pouring over them for hours. I started at the University of Missouri as a freshman planning to transfer to a film school. I got a work study job in the photojournalism department my first year, though, and fell in love. I liked the creativity of telling stories visually but also the independence of working as a photojournalist. After working as a still photographer and photo editor for ABC News for several years, I felt compelled to get back to my first love–filmmaking, so I went back to school to get my Masters in Journalism (documentary film) at UC-Berkeley. I’ve been doing video journalism and documentaries ever since.
2. What were the biggest challenges you faced in creating documentaries about various cultures and communities?
I think the biggest challenge in making documentaries is funding. There are a lot of talented people fighting for the same grants. So many passionate documentarians are willing to work for free up to a certain point, but in the end, you want to be able to pay people and to get paid. The work we do as documentary filmmakers is meaningful and we deserve to earn a living.
Getting to spend time with people from different cultures and communities is the silver living. It’s a gift to be allowed into someone’s life in such an intimate way. I do my best to document what I see and hear in an honest way that gives respect to the subject and their lived experience. It’s such an honor to be allowed to film or photograph someone. They are trusting me, and it’s a balance of remaining respectful and sensing their boundaries. It’s important to be able to sense when to back off and give them space. It takes time to build rapport with people.
3. You won the Northgate Award for your documentary “Before Dawn/After Don” What did this experience contribute to you?
I was in class with so many talented filmmakers and getting some recognition for my film was an honor.
4. As someone who has lived in different countries, how have your cultural experiences influenced your journalistic practice?
I didn’t come from a wealthy family. I took every opportunity I could, though, to travel. I took out student loans to study abroad in Mexico and Spain, and then I taught English in Japan after university to try to pay some of those loans back. While in Japan, I took opportunities to travel around different parts of Asia. I love hitting the streets, eating street food and going to local dance clubs, talking to locals. Even simple things are harder–like taking a cab, but it’s also truly living in the present moment. All of the senses are heightened—we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch new things. And, the understanding and empathy gained by talking with people with different perspectives is life changing. Our cultures help define us, but ultimately, we are all human.
5. How did you integrate drone technology into your journalism work and what are your experiences in this field?
During covid when everything was shut down, my employer at the time, Voice of America, had us doing Zoom interviews. I felt frustrated not being able to get out and shoot stories. I decided to get my FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot Drone license, out of frustration. It was actually super interesting to learn so much about aviation and flight rules. Drone footage really helps elevate stories by adding bird’s eye views. They are also super fun to fly. I have gone to a few drone conferences, actually, and there are a shocking number of industries that employ drone pilots.
6. While working at Voice of America, how have you observed the impacts of AI and technology on journalism?
The Trump Administration is dismantling “Voice of America.” I was recently laid-off from my position there. While working there, I covered a lot of technology stories including many about AI. I think it will be interesting to see how technology like Open AI’s video generation model, Sora, changes the film industry. It is already mind blowing what you can already ask Sora to create–selecting the era, subject matter, camera, and visual style in a seconds.
7. What projects do you plan to work on in the future and what are the goals you want to achieve in your journalism career?
I love telling stories that focus on social justice, really I just love connecting with others and getting to spend time with them, and help tell their life story. I am open to doing this again for another news outlet, but I am also excited to direct and film more of my own documentaries. I am looking for a passionate editor to team up with. I have a few film ideas in the research stage and am excited to have a bit more time to focus on that.
I am also creating my own video business helping other businesses get exposure through sharing personal stories of why and how they got started. Honest storytelling is very powerful and, in my opinion, the best way to connect with other people. I am excited for this new stage.
Mouri-san, we know you as an experimental sound artist, but could you tell us more about yourself? Who is Katsura Mouri?
I am a musician and sound artist who performs using toy turntables as musical instruments.
Rather than engaging in conventional turntablism techniques such as scratching or beat juggling, I amplify the hum noise produced by the turntable and perform with it as if it were a musical instrument. This hum noise can be modified through effects processors to create ambient tones or timbres resembling those of a guitar.
In addition to utilizing hum noise, I also amplify sounds picked up by the cartridge, following an approach similar to John Cage’s Cartridge Music. Furthermore, I incorporate circuit bending techniques that manipulate the internal circuitry of the turntable to generate sound.
In recent years, I have also been engaged in the creation of three-dimensional artworks and sound installations that incorporate turntables.
You recently visited Istanbul for Noise Istanbul. Could you share your experience of performing at the Noise Istanbul festival? How did the festival’s atmosphere and audience influence your approach to performance? Additionally, how did you find Istanbul in terms of its cultural and artistic energy? As an experimental sound artist, did you find anything particularly inspiring?
The festival venue was located in the new city district, lined with sophisticated shopping streets. It was a magnificent concert hall housed in a modern European-style building.
I was quite surprised by the number of young people in the festival audience. Some were leaning forward, listening intently, and I could tell that they were genuinely enjoying the music.
At a previous festival where I performed, I was influenced by the audience’s energy, which led to a highly energetic performance on my part. This time, since the audience was deeply engaged in the music, my performance became more focused on sound. While it was not perfect, I believe I was able to deliver a solid performance.
Istanbul was a fascinating city where European and Asian cultures seamlessly merged. One of the most memorable experiences for me was visiting the Blue Mosque. Its beauty and grandeur far exceeded my imagination, and I was instantly captivated. Inside the mosque, some people sat quietly in meditation while others prayed, creating an atmosphere of tranquility that contrasted sharply with the bustling streets outside.
Although the architectural form, scale, and color palette were entirely different, the sense of sacredness and the slow passage of time reminded me of Japanese Zen temples. I once created a three-dimensional artwork based on the theme of Zen, and I feel that my visit to the mosque might inspire me when I next work on a Zen-themed piece.
I found Istanbul to be a remarkable city that embraces and coexists with diverse cultures, including both historical heritage and modern urban life.
A short walk from the city center led to places where one could enjoy nature, and the presence of numerous travelers from around the world reminded me of Kyoto, where I live. This sense of familiarity gave me a strong feeling of connection to the city.
Experimental music often challenges conventional norms. What drives you to continue working in this niche genre? Through your work, what do you hope to communicate or achieve?
As many may already know, experimental music has been shaped by legendary artists such as Pierre Schaeffer, a pioneer of musique concrète, and John Cage, who explored the full potential of experimental sound and influenced countless artists. I, too, have been deeply inspired by them.
I find great joy in exploring how to innovate new and unconventional sounds. Of course, coming up with groundbreaking innovations like John Cage is no easy feat. However, even achieving small innovations brings me immense satisfaction, and that serves as my motivation.
Additionally, when an audience resonates with my work, I feel a profound sense of happiness, which also fuels my drive.
I do not create my works with the intention of conveying a specific message to others. I am simply doing what I love.
There is no set goal or destination in my artistic practice—I am not striving to achieve something specific. I am simply in pursuit of what is fun and interesting.Moving forward, I want to continue exploring the possibilities of the turntable.
What led you to choose experimental music and turntablism as your primary means of expression? Were there any specific moments or influences that shaped this decision?
When I was 19, I was a rather unconventional DJ—so much so that no one could dance to my sets. In fact, some audience members even left the venue.
Around that time, I started working part-time at Parallax Records in Kyoto, where I met a group of people with whom I formed an ensemble that performed with records simultaneously. Rather than following a typical DJ style, we experimented by striking the turntable cartridge, generating scratch noises, and exploring alternative ways to perform with turntables.
After the group disbanded, I found it difficult to transport two Technics SL-1200 turntables and a large collection of records to live venues on my own. This led me to start using toy turntables, which were lightweight and easy to carry. At the same time, I had grown tired of the conventional DJ setup, where the turntables were placed on a table.
Coincidentally, I was really into Jimmy Page at the time, which inspired me to develop a performance style where I held the turntable like a guitarist rather than using it in a traditional DJ manner.
In the collaborative album Various Histories, you explore the fusion of sound textures and soundscapes. Through this collaboration, what have you learned about your artistic identity and the possibilities of experimental music?
For tracks 1 through 4 on this album, I edited and restructured the recordings of our improvised performances. Not just for this project, but in all my works, I compose through a process of re-editing recorded sound. When improvisation is recorded, both the good and the bad elements are captured. By extracting only the best parts and reassembling them, the result can be an entirely new and extraordinary piece that surpasses the original recording.
This album was created by selectively reconstructing the most compelling elements—such as the mechanical noises from Tim Olive’s magnetic pickups, the scratch noises from prepared records, and the drones produced by turntables.
Much like how John Cage used environmental sounds as musical material, I find excitement in treating noise and sound itself as raw material, reconfiguring it with creative intent to transform it into something even greater. Just as environmental sounds are limitless in variation, I see infinite possibilities in the sonic textures and noise generated by musical instruments.
In today’s cultural landscape, why do you think experimental music is important? Do you see it as a means of pushing boundaries, expressing individuality, or responding to social change?
Experimental musicians are, by nature, already highly individualistic simply by constantly challenging new ideas. It goes without saying that experimental music has expanded cultural boundaries—figures like Merce Cunningham and John Cage, who applied chance operations to performance, are prime examples.
However, I believe that not only experimental music but also all forms of culture and art—including visual arts, design, architecture, media, dance, and fashion—are equally important. Engaging with and understanding a wide range of artistic and cultural fields broadens one’s perspective far more than focusing on a single discipline. To adapt to social change, we must be able to respond quickly and flexibly to shifting environments. Understanding experimental music may help eliminate preconceived notions and biases, allowing for a more agile response to various changes.
Recently, emerging technologies such as AI and virtual reality have been gaining attention. AI-driven music production and VR concerts are expanding the possibilities of the future. While it is uncertain how experimental music will be utilized and evolve, I am excited about the transformations that will come with technological advancements. I, too, am eager to continue exploring new challenges in the future.
Who is Şule Şahin? Can you tell us a little about yourself? What is your professional adventure that led you to digital media consultancy?
I’m Sule Sahin. I am 27 years old, born and raised in Bursa. If I were to express myself in one word, it would definitely be ‘curious’. Thanks to this feature, I never limited myself, always researched, took risks, wanted to develop and learn.
My career life, which started with academic studies in the field of accounting, has been continuing with the field of digital marketing, which I met a little by chance and a little by curiosity for about a year and said ‘this is it’.
What is the importance of digital marketing consultancy for brands?
Being in the digital world offers great opportunities for businesses to carry their activities beyond borders. With digital marketing consultancy, brands do not have to wait for their customers for the promotion and sale of their products and services. It takes its place in all electronic devices and media tools of potential customers with advertising strategies prepared by digital marketing experts. In addition to traditional marketing, digital marketing consultancy saves businesses time and cost. Therefore, it aims to make more sales with less effort. It gets faster results from potential customers within the scope of digital marketing activities and helps them respond faster to their requests and needs. It can get ahead of competitors who are not yet in digital, and enables companies that continue their digital activities to follow their work more easily.
Which strategies does a brand’s digital marketing specialist mainly apply to promote the brand’s online presence, brand awareness and product and service?
First of all, social media platforms suitable for the brand must be ready. Because users on the internet always do research before shopping for products or services. We need to introduce the brand identity to potential customers in the best and correct way in social media and give them confidence. At this point, especially social proof and references play an important role. Comments and messages about the brand on the internet should be followed to learn the impression we leave on users. The website of the business owners, if any, is checked. In order to provide the fastest and most reliable service to potential customers, efforts should be made to maximise the quality of the website. It should not be forgotten that the algorithm also follows these elements.
A low quality, slow website reduces the quality of the brand’s advertising and may prevent it from getting the results it wants. In our preliminary work with brands, we explain the importance of media tools to our customers and present the website quality results to them. At the point where all media tools give good results, we create digital marketing strategies for the needs of brands and start working.
Is the digital marketing strategy of social media accounts, websites and e-commerce sites different?
Absolutely. The basis of our work is to know the brand and its customers well. It is not right to try to apply the same advertising strategy to a corporate company and an e-commerce company. In addition, although they are in the same sector, we also have customers who demand different studies. Some of them reach us for more sales, some to go up in Google rankings, some to promote their brand in the best way in digital. It is our duty to determine digital marketing strategies that will meet the demands and needs of brands and to continuously develop these strategies.
What are the dangers waiting for brands that do not need digital media consultancy?
The biggest danger is being forgotten. Nowadays, you are recognised as much as your presence on the internet. While their competitors carry their brands to everywhere where there is internet, businesses that lag behind in digital work will not go beyond their own neighbourhood, they will count where they are, and if they are lucky, they will survive with certain sales.
Business owners who want to move their brand to digital but try to manage this process alone can be exhausted by physical work on the one hand and digital work on the other, or give up at the first digital obstacle they encounter. Because the internet is like an ocean. If you want to move forward without a route, you will get lost.
What are the common misconceptions about digital marketing consultancy?
I can say it is the profession itself. Although it is a sector that is frequently encountered with its activities, unfortunately, the name and profession of ‘digital marketing’ still does not have a clear image in people’s minds. When it comes to digital marketing, people think of e-commerce activities such as Amazon and Trendyol. In fact, the strangest question I received in this profession was ‘Do you sell electronic cigarettes?’. There are too many business owners who are unaware that the advertisements in many media tools are the work of the digital marketing sector. They want their products and services to appear on all digital platforms like competing companies, but they don’t know the name of what they want. For this reason, we definitely make a preliminary interview before starting our work with businesses.
I tell businesses who I am, what digital marketing is and how I work. Because as much as I know my client, my client should also know me and be aware of the work I will do for him/her.
What do you think about the development of artificial intelligence? How will it affect digital marketing and its experts? Do you think artificial intelligence will replace digital marketing experts?
For the moment, I am very happy with the development of artificial intelligence, because the development of artificial intelligence means that digital studies gain importance. As a digital marketing specialist, artificial intelligence has a great place in our work. Content ideas, texts, animations… These are just the beginning. I think that people who work in digital marketing and similar fields and do not benefit from artificial intelligence will be far behind the experts who develop their work with artificial intelligence in the future, even if they do not realise it now. If we are going to carry out digital studies, we need to be able to follow the developments in that world.
As long as this continues, artificial intelligence will continue to be used as a tool, not a goal. Of course, artificial intelligence continues to develop rapidly and surprise us every day. If we do not develop and keep up with this change, we will lose this war.
What should be done to get the right digital marketing training? Is it also necessary to learn artificial intelligence applications that will be used in the future?
First of all, they should definitely reach the experts of this subject. Unfortunately, not every person who receives digital marketing training has enough equipment to provide training in this sector with the name of an expert. In addition to a certain knowledge, there must be working experience. It is difficult to carry out studies in this field by watching part-part videos on social media and Youtube. People who are already trying to progress in this way feel that they are doing wrong because they cannot fully understand the logic of working. I know because I felt this way in my first digital marketing training. When I received a second training from a different expert, I was able to say ‘okay’ and continue, otherwise I had already quit. However, education never ends in digital studies. Getting a good digital marketing education only creates a solid foundation. However, in this process where digital studies are developing rapidly, it is not enough to proceed only with basic information.
Especially artificial intelligence brings very different dimensions to the sector. Staying behind these developments means staying behind in the profession. In order to be a good digital marketing expert and represent our clients’ brands in the best way, we need to be open to learning and development.
prcarnetworld.com 