Throughout its history, the Association has been overtly negative toward an actively conceived, organized, and executed public information program, except for two brief periods of time when the attitude could be best described as lukewarm. I am referring to the two different time periods when Dr. Burness Moore (1962-68) and I (1975-81) were chairpersons of the Public Information Committee. This Newsletter is a notable bright spot in that dark history. Dr. Moore launched the Newsletter as an instrument to convey newsworthy articles to the members and then via this column a reciprocal flow of news and opinions from the members.
Dr. Moore held press conferences and made copies of papers available in an accessible press room. Pamphlets about psychoanalytic training programs for qualified professionals and general information for lay persons which were initiated during my tenure as chair are in the process of being completed by Dr. Esman's committee. I inaugurated annual workshops to instruct local affiliate society representatives in some basic public information techniques and to learn from each other. A public information kit was prepared and given to each representative. These workshops are continuing. These contributions are noteworthy and very commendable, but much more should be done to bring psychoanalysis to the attention of various publics.
The American Psychological Association has not been reluctant nor negative. They have in place a well-funded program and recently purchased the popular and widely read magazine “Psychology Today.” Likewise, the American Psychiatric Association's program has grown into a well-functioning operation, fostering good journalism through a national media award and offering workshop training sessions in proven public information techniques for interested District Branch members.
Parenthetically, it should be recalled that the public information committees of both the American Psychiatric and American Psychoanalytic Associations were inaugurated by one and the same person, Dr. Robert Morse, in 1947. However, our program has not flourished. In fact, it has stagnated, nor has the Association responded to the express wishes of the majority of the membership who expressed a strong desire in the Psychoanalytic Practice Survey for an aggressive and meaningful program.
Imitation of our psychiatric or psychology colleagues is not a sufficient reason for an appropriate public information program, but I am firmly convinced that informing prospective patients of the availability of psychoanalytic treatment at our low fee clinics is an important and vital reason by itself without considering the benefits of informing prospective students of the core psychoanalytic programs and the various outstanding extension division programs our institutes offer. The lay and professional publics must be repeatedly informed about the availability of these therapeutic and educational opportunities.
One frequently voiced criticism against what I advocate is that the psychoanalytic situation and the transference are altered and/or distorted when an analyst becomes too real by speaking to the public via the media. In my experience, when intelligent and well-thought-out information is given, nothing of the sort happens. In discussions with many distinguished colleagues throughout the country my own observations have been amply confirmed.
Another commonly voiced criticism is that previous efforts have been expensive failures. The facts are that approximately $4,000 was allocated for meetings held during the six years I was chairman—a very modest expenditure indeed! While not everyone was satisfied with the coverage, an awakened interest was generated in our field.
A related criticism is the demand for measurable results. This is rather strange coming from colleagues who are familiar with the difficulties of providing proof of the validity of their work but who remain nevertheless confident in the psychoanalytic method and their competence to apply it whenever indicated. While it is admittedly difficult to measure the results of a creditable public information effort, it is a fact that our clinics do receive many more inquiries after a favorable article (and even an unfavorable one) appears in the media.
In Chicago, we have had an extensive program for many years which we feel generates a steady flow of patients for our clinic, which delivers each year over 30,000 hours of low fee treatment. Our public information effort is many-faceted, including interviews for newspapers and magazine stories, a weekly radio program, named public lectures (such as the Helen Ross Lecture), a suburban lecture series in cooperation with New Trier High School's adult education program, a course for lawyers on the relationship between the law and psychoanalysis, a seminar for psychiatric residents, a series of individually tailored staff development and consultation programs given to Chicago area public school teacher's and administrators, a lecture series addressed to practicing psychiatrists, and a film series in collaboration with the Art Institute of Chicago.
One of the most difficult aspects of a good public information program is controlling the content of articles. While it is possible sometimes to arrange a pre-publication consultation on the written material, it must be remembered that journalists are not accustomed to submitting their work for review, and what they write is subject to revision by their editors. What has to be done to ameliorate these problems is to convey knowledge and information about our field through developing, over a long period of time, a relationship of mutual trust with responsible journalists. Prominent scientists in the physical, social, and biological sciences agree that an informed public is necessary for the survival of their science. This is no less true for psychoanalysis and, in my opinion, an aggressive, intelligent and inspired public information program is essential for the survival of psychoanalysis locally and nationally.
Effective public information must be done with the assistance of experienced
media professionals who can organize and implement a well conceived program. An experienced public information professional can help us implement what we want in an active program, but would of course be closely guided and supervised by the Public Information Committee, not just blindly turned over to that person.
What a trained professional is equipped to do is arrange and implement press conferences at the national meetings on subjects related to papers offered there (in cooperation with the Program Committee), but oriented to what would be timely and newsworthy. This requires much thought and planning; preparations are needed well before the meetings. It is especially necessary to have personal contacts with interested and competent writers and editors of the significant publications in the city where the meetings are held, as well as distribution to the author's local media.
Psychoanalysts simply do not have the contacts nor the time to do all this themselves. It is very time consuming, and without such a service it is virtually impossible to coordinate a creditable program. We have busy clinical and teaching responsibilities, and the Public Information Committee meets too infrequently and its members are too widespread for effective, coordinated, shared responsibility. '
We should be prepared to meet the costs involved and not just leave it to chance curiosity aroused by the press release announcements of the national meetings. (These, incidentally, are well prepared by the Central Office personnel.) Furthermore, it is not enough to set aside a press office for media persons to wander in. The media expert should be in attendance to meet and coordinate conferences between our members and the media.
It is imperative that we generate substantial interest in psychoanalysis through appropriate newspaper and magazine articles as well as radio and television appearances. If we choose to not follow what I am advocating, then we must settle for a backwater existence while others less qualified or well trained will be sought out and heard. The public deserves authoritative information about our field and it is our duty to share with the public our knowledge.