As Dr. Esman points out, the original charge given the Committee on Public Information (CPI) was to deal with the press—specifically in connection with our scientific meetings and in general on behalf of the Association with respect to the press. I take the term “press” to refer to the mass communication media, its journalists, writers, and other staff. The activities of the committee have varied somewhat since it began, depending upon the current chairman's attitudes, personality, interpretation of the CPI's functional role in relation to the meaning of public information, and of course, the input from the administration, but have generally remained within these defined boundaries.
I do not believe it is appropriate to polarize viewpoints concerning the functions and activities of the CPI as being simply either aggressive or conservative, as some suggest, since these terms connote a multiplicity of meanings not relevant to the functioning roles of the committee. I suggest as alternative terms, “extension of function” or “maintenance of function.”
The original charge probably carried the inference of a maintenance functioning role—to maintain a press room during scientific meetings; to be available for questions from the press; to arrange for interviews of authors of scientific papers; to offer clarifications and explanations of the program material when requested; to arrange for copies of papers and abstracts to be available in the press room; and in general, to assure the press representatives of a friendly, cooperative and comfortable reception during the Association Scientific Meeting.
Additionally, whenever issues appeared in the press, or when journalists or science writers needed information or comments or answers to public statements concerning psychoanalysis or its members, the CPI would be available to act on behalf of the Association for such responses.
As far as I am aware, the committee's chairmen and members have, fortunately, always been judicious and cautious in their responses, and in instances of significant controversy have consulted with the administrative officers for guidance prior to public responses.
Extension of function goes beyond the press room and extends public information
to our membership, other psychoanalysts, colleagues in psychiatry and medicine, mental health workers in related fields, and the public at large. I believe this extension of our audience is appropriate, particularly to those in the medical profession, especially psychiatrists.
This is not so radical a departure from the original conception of the role of the CPI as it might seem. It has already been undertaken by past and present chairmen while maintaining their presence to the press. Such an extension can be considered even conservative in direction, insofar as the clinical, educational, and research activities of the accredited psychoanalysts and the American Psychoanalytic Association are made more visible and more meaningful to our colleagues in the medical profession and in the allied health services (psychologists, for example) with whom we must collaborate and from whom we receive the major portion of our referrals for consultation and therapy.
As an example, when Burness Moore and I co-chaired the committee, he organized a very successful institute for the press and mass media representatives, with the assistance of a paid public relations consultant. The institute was held at the time of our scientific meeting and speakers included prominent members of our Association who discussed psychoanalytic fundamentals, conveying the dedication of our Association to principles of excellence in education, the maintenance of standards of practice and behavior by psychoanalysts, and the sponsoring of research. Everything was free, including lunch.
I am entirely sympathetic to such an active dissemination of public information, providing it is done with proper decorum and dignity. It is my impression that periodically—perhaps every four or five years—a similar program for journalists and writers would be appropriate and probably well-received. Whether such programs should be undertaken by the CPI or the Program Committee is an administrative matter, but I see no reason why this could not be a joint undertaking. However, I do not believe we need a public relations consultant to assist in such endeavors, nor should we provide free lunches; in fact, I would recommend a minimal charge for participants to eliminate any expense accruing to the Association.
Other examples of useful and appropriate activities which have been undertaken at various time include publication of summaries of our scientific meetings and informational brochures on aspects of psychoanalysis and our Association.
All such extended activities require creative and innovative thinking from the chairman and members of the committee. There are times when such things as current popular thinking, themes in the press, changes in the youth subculture, or new developments in psychoanalysis may warrant the attention of the committee. The appropriate response (seminar, pamphlet, press release, letter) or the appropriate audience (press, mental health workers, physicians, or lay public) can be explored and suggestions or recommendations made to other involved committees and/or the administrative officers of the Association.
Does such extension of function require the services of a public relations consultant to be maximally effective? My personal experience in working with public relations people (at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, the American Psychoanalytic Association, a psychoanalytic research foundation, and a psychiatric hospital) has led to a decidedly negative view as to how helpful such a person can be to the CPI.
A consultant's activities would be largely directed toward facilitating relationships with the mass media, journalists, and science writers. He would also be involved in an “outreach” program—such things as seeking out and arranging meetings with these persons for the sake of presenting a favorable image of the psychoanalyst, so that they can in turn transmit this positive image to the general public in their writings and commentaries; or to be able to neutralize a negative press whenever it occurs.
Although a public relations consultant could also ally himself to the APA and other allied mental health organizations, I question whether this would actually be helpful to our members or the Association itself. Since most of our members also belong to the APA, we
can be more effective by communicating directly through our liaison members with the APA or through direct contact between the officers of the respective organizations. Our relationships with the APA have become increasingly harmonious and mutually cooperative and we would certainly have access to that organization's highly skilled public relations unit for any advice or assistance for specific problems or in regard to issues which affect both psychiatrists and psychoanalysts.
The trouble is that if we hire such a consultant, we pay not only his salary but additional secretarial services, perhaps for an assistant, for costs of lunches and dinners, costs of conferences, travel and hotel expenses, and more. In addition, when issues or controversies pertaining to psychoanalysis, psychoanalysts, or the Association appear in the press, such clarifications, explanations, or opinions as are requested by the press require, in my view, an informed psychoanalyst anyway. A public relations consultant is usually useless in these situations, and at times can create harm. Therefore, the exceedingly high cost of such a person does not justify the results over the long term; a relatively small dues-paying membership should not be saddled with expenses which are out of proportion to the other more serious financial requirements of the Association.
In conclusion, however, my negative feeling about paid professional public relations assistance does not mean I believe in a low profile. I believe that we should promote high visibility when possible of our Association, members, and our affiliate societies and institutes, and our science of psychoanalysis. This should be directed to our colleagues in medicine and science and especially to our closest potential ally, the American Psychiatric Association and its membership, as well as to the press and the public at large.
If we are going to be promotional with respect to our image and our science, let it be done with absence of modesty concerning its potential benefits, but with honesty concerning its limitations. An active and creative Committee on Public Information, utilizing the full resources of the Association, can develop innovative projects which will inform in useful and conscientious ways and benefit our Association and its members. Such an extension of function has my enthusiastic support.