Comments on: OK, Now I’m Confused

By: COMOPS Journal » COMOPS Journal Top Posts of 2009

COMOPS Journal » COMOPS Journal Top Posts of 2009 — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:37:15 +0000

[...] OK Now I’m Confused (April 17). Steve Corman comments on an apparent blurring of lines between public affairs and public diplomacy in the State Department. [...]

By: COMOPS Journal » Odd Definitions and Promising Themes in McHale’s Speech

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:04:49 +0000

[...] of a few years back. Speaking of public affairs, McHale did not take this opportunity to unpack apparent recent changes in that function at [...]

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:38:36 +0000

Angelo, et al: The PD/PA at State distinction isn’t academic; it’s the law. Smith-Mundt. Don’t waste our time treating it a simply a semantic exercise. It’s the entire organic/statutory basis for American public diplomacy. The legal minds now serving as President and Secretary of State shoudl understand this well.

By: Angelo Fernando

Angelo Fernando — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:02:36 +0000

Steve
I can see why we get get trapped in the semantics of PD and PA. The way I look at it is the way I look at marketing and PR: boundary blur. Or for that matter internal and external comms. the firewalls have collapsed.

The present administration appears to be fully aware of how domestic and international policy outlets need to be in sync, as opposed to the being exclusively as a conduit for propaganda or press releases.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:42:02 +0000

Steve: Your underscore muddled thinking and conflated terminology. And such misuse is nothing new in parties in power at State. The reality in any case is that the State spokesman speaks to the world, not just the U.S., the perogative of “public affairs” in practice. The danger is something very different: that “PD” positions and resources mandated under Smith-Mundt for only foreign audiences effectively be turned into “PA” mouthpieces.

By: editor

editor — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:01:29 +0000

John, thanks for the comment. As I said in the post, these definitions can be fuzzy. So the publicdiplomacy.org definition of PA includes international media. I think this is a recognition that when the State Department, holds a press conference or writes on its blog, this does not just affect domestic audiences. But as it says the emphasis is on domestic communication and this is how it has been in the past at State. Nothing says they can't change things. But given that they've got the PA guy doing clearly PD things, there seems to be some kind of conceptual shift that hasn't been explained. The military does draw this distinction too, at least in a couple of sources I have seen like this article from Joint Force Quarterly and the Army's IO Doctrine (see "related capabilities"). Of course, according to recent reports the PD part of the military mission seems to be going away, so I guess this is going to change too.

By: John

John — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:15:05 +0000

Speaking from the perspective of the U.S. military, we tend to consider Public Affairs as outreach to any civilian group, whether foreign or domestic.

I don’t know how State intends to divide the responsibility, but from my experience Public Affairs is charged with interactions between the public and the corporate body (the actual State Department), while Public Diplomacy is an operation conducted by State to improve the perceptions of America as a whole.