while the lecture content this week didn’t really introduce any fundamentally new concepts, it was interesting to see the combined application of a few of the different topics we have studied. It is becoming clear that the identification of publics and stakeholders goes much further than just a way to target a message. The grouping if traditional publics seems like a very useful tool for facilitating a thorough identification of publics, making it possible to apply stakeholder management theory.
Having said that, I find that stakeholder mapping seems to be a never ending process. The example we did in the tutorial this week, I could have spent hours narrowing down and down each group. I’m curious to learn more about determining how broad or narrow my stakeholder or public analysis needs to be. When is a broad grouping sufficient, and when do we need to really narrow it down?
Before this course, I hadn’t really thought about news media as a public before, but it makes a lot of sense. I’d always thought of the public, and the media. Separate entities. Separate focus. But the notion of media as gatekeepers puts it in perspective. I also hadn’t thought of governments as publics, but that makes sense in a similar way.