Comments on: Digital Age Gives PR Folks Easier Way to Say No http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:49:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1017 Dan Gillmor Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:07:11 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/#comment-1017 Keith, I'm sure you're not alone, but obviously there are lots of folks in your profession who are happy to say Yes to anything that comes with money. Keith, I’m sure you’re not alone, but obviously there are lots of folks in your profession who are happy to say Yes to anything that comes with money.

]]> By: Keith Kamisugi http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1016 Keith Kamisugi Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:48:28 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/#comment-1016 Dan, I hope I'm not alone in my profession by saying this, but as a PR practitioner for 10 years, I've never believed in representing a client that I didn't believe in. People/companies have no "right" to representation as it relates to PR. Dan, I hope I’m not alone in my profession by saying this, but as a PR practitioner for 10 years, I’ve never believed in representing a client that I didn’t believe in. People/companies have no “right” to representation as it relates to PR.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1015 Dan Gillmor Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:48:24 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/#comment-1015 Seth, you can keep saying it. I'll keep agreeing in part and disagreeing in part. The re-intermediation is not the utterly top-down system of the past half century. It just isn't, and your repeated worries won't make it so. Today's example is definitely an interesting one, and there was a frenzy created on purpose by people who abuse the system. No question about that. But one of the organizations that opposed the section of the bill was the ACLU. I read the thing and concluded, reluctantly, that it was poorly drafted and could -- could -- invite some trouble. We need to expose the astroturfing. This bill wasn't necessarily the way to do it. Seth, you can keep saying it. I’ll keep agreeing in part and disagreeing in part. The re-intermediation is not the utterly top-down system of the past half century. It just isn’t, and your repeated worries won’t make it so.

Today’s example is definitely an interesting one, and there was a frenzy created on purpose by people who abuse the system. No question about that.

But one of the organizations that opposed the section of the bill was the ACLU. I read the thing and concluded, reluctantly, that it was poorly drafted and could — could — invite some trouble.

We need to expose the astroturfing. This bill wasn’t necessarily the way to do it.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1014 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:35:49 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/#comment-1014 But Dan, this is nonsense: "Today and especially tomorrow, anyone can tell a story, unmediated" (it's only true in the sense that you can talk to the crickets, if you enjoy that - if you want to be *heard*, it's a different story entirely). I keep saying it: <strong>THERE IS RE-INTERMEDIATION!</strong> Microsoft wasn't giving top-quality laptops to certain bloggers out of the goodness of their corporate heart. The advances in exploiting the re-intermediation are a PR flacks' heaven. No fact-checking! Disclosure "optional"! No "chinese wall" between editorial and advertising! On and on ... Today's example: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/22/bloggers_astroturfing_bill" rel="nofollow"> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/22/bloggers_astroturfing_bill</a> "The story was spread by users of Slashdot, reporters at The Inquirer and many politics and technology bloggers, whose reports all referred to ATA's release and passed on its claims as Gospel truth. Credit definitely goes to ATA and Fitzgibbons for identifying a message and an audience that would whip up support for the removal of a proposal that threatened to increase the transparency of ATA's direct mail endeavors. Let no one say that they are not skilled in their work. The bill made no direct mention of bloggers, but Fitzgibbons had the vision to recognize in the blogosphere's endemic paranoia and aversion to fact-checking a perfect means of spreading opposition to section 220." But Dan, this is nonsense: “Today and especially tomorrow, anyone can tell a story, unmediated”
(it’s only true in the sense that you can talk to the crickets, if you enjoy that – if you want to be *heard*, it’s a different story entirely).

I keep saying it: THERE IS RE-INTERMEDIATION!

Microsoft wasn’t giving top-quality laptops to certain bloggers out of the goodness of their corporate heart.

The advances in exploiting the re-intermediation are a PR flacks’ heaven. No fact-checking! Disclosure “optional”! No “chinese wall” between editorial and advertising! On and on …

Today’s example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/22/bloggers_astroturfing_bill

“The story was spread by users of Slashdot, reporters at The Inquirer and many politics and technology bloggers, whose reports all referred to ATA’s release and passed on its claims as Gospel truth. Credit definitely goes to ATA and Fitzgibbons for identifying a message and an audience that would whip up support for the removal of a proposal that threatened to increase the transparency of ATA’s direct mail endeavors. Let no one say that they are not skilled in their work.

The bill made no direct mention of bloggers, but Fitzgibbons had the vision to recognize in the blogosphere’s endemic paranoia and aversion to fact-checking a perfect means of spreading opposition to section 220.”

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1013 Delia Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:38:10 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/23/digital-age-gives-pr-folks-easier-way-to-say-no/#comment-1013 Dan, I don't see it happening at any significant scale (which means the questionable client can always find someone else) any more than I see it happening for lawyers (plenty of criminal lawyers don't want to know it if their clients are guilty...) D. Dan, I don’t see it happening at any significant scale (which means the questionable client can always find someone else) any more than I see it happening for lawyers (plenty of criminal lawyers don’t want to know it if their clients are guilty…) D.

]]>