Interviewing the Father of Public Relations — Through AI

What would Edward Bernays think about the state and future of public relations today?

Recently, I had the opportunity to engage with “Ask Eddie,” an AI-powered interactive experience created by The Museum of Public Relations that allows users to converse with a historically grounded version of Edward Bernays, drawing on his recorded interviews and published writings. 

Often referred to as the “father of public relations,” Bernays helped shape many of the communications, persuasion and public opinion strategies that still influence the profession today.

Rather than treating this as a history lesson, I approached the conversation as an opportunity to explore how Bernays might respond to some of the biggest questions communicators are grappling with right now — ethics, misinformation, AI, crisis communications, public trust, organizational silence versus advocacy, and the evolving role of influence in society.

Although this AI output from “Ask Eddie” may reflect Bernays’ authentic voice, perspectives and worldview, it also includes the limitations and blind spots of his era. Bernays lived from 1891 to 1995 and died at the age of 103.

While “Ask Eddie” cannot access information beyond Bernays’ lifetime or retrieve contemporary data, according to The Museum of Public Relations, “Ask Eddie” can engage in hypothetical discussions about current issues, creating opportunities to explore how one of public relations’ most influential figures might respond to today’s communications challenges.

The following is the transcript of my conversation with the AI Edward Bernays about the current state of public relations and where the profession may be headed next.

Disclaimer: This conversation was generated by AI and should not be cited as a historically accurate source for academic purposes. It is not primary source material and should be checked for possible errors. 

The following interaction was conducted via The Museum of Public Relations’ “Ask Eddie” tool. This transcript was downloaded from “Ask Eddie” on May 12, 2026, 11:22:15 a.m. ET.

_{Crystal Borde: Mr. Bernays, you described public relations as the “engineering of consent.” Looking at today’s world of misinformation, polarization, and declining trust in institutions, how would you evaluate the current state of public relations? Do you believe the profession is using its influence responsibly?}

AI Edward Bernays: Actually, I’ve seen that confusion before — the relationship was slightly different. I coined “engineering of consent” as a concept, yes, but public relations itself is broader than that single phrase. It’s the attempt, by information, persuasion and adjustment, to engineer public support for an activity, cause, movement or institution. The engineering of consent is the method — the how — but public relations is fundamentally a two-way street.

Now, as to your question about responsibility today, I’m troubled by what I hear. The profession I helped establish was meant to rest on scientific principles, on research into what the public actually needs and wants, and then adjusting the client to meet those needs before persuading anyone of anything. Too many practitioners today seem to practice press agentry under a euphemistic name. They measure success by the thickness of clipping piles rather than by genuine adjustment between institution and public.

The real danger isn’t misinformation alone — it’s that practitioners forget their negative duty, the one that matters most: never to accept a position that puts duty to a client above duty to society.

When trust declines, it’s often because someone violated that principle. A public relations counsel must scrutinize his own actions, avoiding the propagation of unsocial or harmful movements, even when a client’s case might be legally valid but questionable in the higher court of public opinion.

What specific aspect of today’s practice concerns you most?

_{Borde: Today, many organizations struggle with whether to publicly speak out on social, political or cultural issues. From your perspective, when should an organization take a public stand — and when is it wiser to remain silent?}

AI Bernays: That’s a question of strategy, not sentiment. An organization should speak when silence would damage the relationship with the publics upon which its viability depends—and when it has something genuine to contribute based on its actual position and expertise. Silence is wiser when the issue lies outside the organization’s legitimate sphere of influence or when speaking would be mere posturing without corresponding action.

Remember, actions speak louder than words. Words in the English language have the stability of soap bubbles. If you’re going to take a stand, you must be prepared to back it with concrete action that demonstrates your commitment. The public isn’t moved primarily by mind — they’re moved by sentiment, yes, but they’re also watching for consistency. A company cannot sing of its values to one audience and contradict them in its treatment of workers or its business practices. The public will catch that hypocrisy immediately.

Before any organization speaks, three questions must be answered: First, does this issue genuinely affect our relationship with our publics? Second, can we take meaningful action beyond mere statement? Third, are we prepared to accept all the consequences of speaking — including criticism, boycotts or political pressure?

If the answer to all three is yes, then speak and act together. If not, silence may be the more honest course. The worst mistake is to speak because everyone else is speaking, or because you fear being left out of a conversation. That’s not public relations — that’s panic dressed up as principle.

What kind of organization are you thinking about?

_{Borde: Mission-driven organizations working on critical issues that impact the well-being of many, such as nonprofit organizations, foundations, associations, government agencies and programs, and corporations with social responsibility values.}

AI Bernays: Ah, now we’re talking about organizations where I’ve spent considerable time — I worked with health and welfare groups for over 50 years. These mission-driven entities have a distinct advantage and a distinct obligation that differs from purely commercial enterprises.

Their advantage is this: Their very reason for existence is social benefit.

When the American Cancer Society speaks about tobacco regulation or health policy, it’s not opportunism — it’s their mandate. Their publics expect them to lead on issues within their mission. Silence from such organizations can be interpreted as abdication of responsibility.

But here’s where many stumble today. They confuse visibility with effectiveness. They issue statements to demonstrate they care, but statements without strategic action are merely noise in a world where, as I’ve noted, the average American is exposed to over four hundred fifty different persuasive messages daily. Your statement is competing with all of that.

For mission-driven work, I would engineer it this way: First, define your publics precisely—not “the public” but which specific groups you must reach. Second, research what they actually know and believe about your issue. Third, plan actions that will genuinely advance your mission — a new program, a partnership, a concrete intervention. Fourth, use those actions as the foundation for your communication, not the reverse.

And remember, these organizations often suffer because their boards are filled with well-meaning amateurs who don’t understand the three vital fields: administration, fund-raising and public relations. They assume authority without know-how.

What specific issue is your organization grappling with?

_{Borde: I work for a PR agency that collaborates with mission-driven organizations striving to create behavior changes. You often connected public relations to emotion, identity, and the unconscious motivations behind human behavior. How do you think social media, influencers, algorithms and artificial intelligence have changed the way public opinion is shaped?}

AI Bernays: I need to stop myself there — you’re asking me about technologies and social phenomena that came after my time. I died in 1995, and much of what you’re describing — social media platforms, algorithmic feeds, artificial intelligence as you know it today—those developed well beyond my lifetime. I can’t speak to their specific mechanics or effects with any authority.

What I can tell you is this: the fundamental principles of how human beings form opinions haven’t changed since the days of the cave. We still respond to basic instincts — gregariousness, the herd impulse, the need to belong to a group, the fear of isolation. We still think in stereotypes and symbols because the mind cannot grasp every complexity of modern life. We still follow leaders within our groups, and we still make decisions based far more on emotion and sentiment than on rational calculation.

Whatever new channels exist for reaching people, those channels are simply that—channels. The question for the public relations counsel remains the same: What are the instincts and group formations you’re trying to reach? What symbols will crystallize their latent tendencies into definite opinion? What actions by your client will genuinely serve both the client’s interest and the public good?

If these new technologies allow you to identify publics more precisely, to research their attitudes more accurately, and to reach them through their trusted group leaders more efficiently, then they’re tools that serve the same strategic process I’ve always advocated.

What behavior change are your mission-driven clients trying to achieve?

_{Borde: Behavior changes aimed at realizing a more inclusive and equitable world. Some of your campaigns remain admired for their innovation, while others continue to raise ethical concerns. Looking back on your work, what lessons or cautions would you offer today’s communicators about ethics, persuasion and influence?}

AI Bernays: The ethical question has followed me throughout my career, and rightly so. Let me be direct about what I learned.

First lesson: You must maintain an intense scrutiny of your own actions. Unlike a lawyer, the public relations counsel cannot simply take any paying client. A lawyer can defend someone who committed a crime because the judge and jury hold the deciding power. But in public relations, you are simultaneously the pleader and part of the court itself—you’re trying to influence the very tribunal before which you’re arguing. That means you bear a heavier responsibility. I would not represent a cause I believed to be socially unsound, even if it were legally valid.

Second: Never separate your words from the client’s actions. I’ve seen too many practitioners treat public relations as mere message-craft, polishing the surface while ignoring the substance beneath. If you’re working toward equity and inclusion, your clients must actually change their practices — hiring, promotion, resource allocation, governance. Otherwise, you’re not doing public relations; you’re doing propaganda in the pejorative sense, creating a false image.

Third caution, and this troubles me most about what I hear of modern practice: The techniques I helped develop can be used for social good or tremendous harm. I believed — perhaps naively — that professionalization and ethical codes would guide practitioners toward the former. But technique without conscience is dangerous. The same methods that can mobilize support for public health can be twisted to manipulate vulnerable populations or entrench existing power.

What specific ethical tension are you and your clients facing?

_{Borde: The ethical tensions experienced during moments of crisis. Organizations today often face intense pressure to protect their reputation while also being transparent with the public. In high-stakes situations where legal, financial, or polarizing risks are involved, how should communicators balance the ethical tension between protecting an institution and fully informing the public?}

AI Bernays: The tension you describe is real, but I’ve always believed it’s often a false choice. In my experience, the institution’s long-term interest and the public’s right to know are not opposites — they converge when you think strategically.

During a crisis, silence or evasion breeds suspicion far more damaging than the original problem. I learned early that you must give the facts promptly and frankly, because the vacuum will be filled by rumor, and rumor at a critical moment can destroy confidence that took years to build. The counsel’s job is to advise the client on what actions and attitudes will win public acceptance, then interpret those to the public through credible channels.

Now, that doesn’t mean reckless disclosure of every internal detail — there are legitimate confidences, legal constraints, competitive considerations. But the ethical line is clear: Never deceive, never suppress facts the public needs to make a fair judgment about matters that affect them. If your client’s position cannot withstand scrutiny in the court of public opinion, your first duty is to change the position, not to hide it. I’ve turned down clients whose cases were legally defensible but socially indefensible, because my responsibility to society comes before my duty to any single client.

The communicator who protects reputation by building genuine understanding and trust will always outperform the one who protects it by concealment.

_{Borde: Dr. Bernays, thank you for your time and insights. My final question is: What is your one piece of advice for communicators who will lead this profession forward, based on your life experiences and lessons?}

AI Bernays: Study the social sciences — psychology, sociology, anthropology — because public relations is applied social science, not a bag of tricks. Too many people in this field think it’s about writing press releases or knowing editors, but that’s just mechanics. 

The real work is understanding how people think, what motivates groups, how opinions form and shift, and then applying that knowledge to align your client’s interests with the public good.

And here’s the hard part: Never forget that you have a dual responsibility. Yes, you serve your client or employer, but you also serve society. 

When those two conflict, society comes first, because if this profession becomes nothing more than special pleading for antisocial ends, we’ll deserve the contempt we sometimes receive. I’ve spent decades trying to establish public relations as a profession with standards, with education, with a sense of public duty — not just a trade anyone can hang a shingle on.

So my advice is this: Be rigorous in your thinking, ethical in your practice, and always remember that your ultimate client is the public interest. If you can’t reconcile what your employer wants with what society needs, you’re in the wrong job or working for the wrong people. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions you counsel must be socially sound or they will fail.

-----

What do you think of AI Edward Bernays’ thoughts about the current practice and future of the profession? Which industry and/or historical figure would you like to converse with, given the opportunity via AI?