| Page 3 of 4 < > |
Blog Wars
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"Remember that reporters do not tell you every story idea that came from a flack -- and so stories do start with PR pitches that I've often said if I ran a paper, I'd have flack-free days: Every story in today's paper came from actual reporting! (It'd probably be a thin Saturday.)
"Reporters may be smart enough to rewrite the verbiage in press releases (unlike the hapless blogger in the Times story caught quoting Walmart's flackery without attribution -- a practice Edelman, smartly, warned them against). But they don't tell you all the and facts and viewpoints they use from flacks.
"Reporters do not tell you about the meetings, lunches, drinks, and help given them by flacks.
"There is no scandal in the Times story. And in fairness, the Times doesn't directly present it as a scandal. It points out how Edelman is transparent about its activities and even advises bloggers to be open. No, The Times is merely reporting how PR works. Only the object of this PR is the public, not the press. And some of these people, these bloggers, aren't as slick as reporters in knowing how to deal with this.
"So my first response is to help bloggers with advice: If you write a post inspired by what you get from a company or its PR agent, say so. If you use facts or quotes from a company, politician, PR agent, or press release, say so (better yet, link to it). If you get anything from a PR agent -- things, business meetings, social events -- say so. Your public has a right to know where your information comes from so they can judge it accordingly."
Want to know Edelman's view? CEO Richard Edelman has his own blog:
"The blogosphere is an excellent new source of story ideas for mainstream media. It can be a refreshingly open marketplace for candid exchange of views. It enables the online editions of traditional media, such as bbc.com, to build communities of interest around specific subject areas and to retain and involve readers for a longer period. But the blogs have also challenged the authority of mainstream media, by holding reporters to account on factual errors, by claiming scoops on stories, by becoming personalities and by exercising their right to opinion.
"We encourage all our clients to reach out to the blogosphere. It should be part of any smart communications program. We also encourage our clients to blog themselves. . . . Of course we give information to bloggers, just as PR people for generations have done with print media, and I'm a little surprised that the print and broadcast media are surprised.
"Bloggers can take care of themselves in this evolving world. They should be careful to disclose receipt of product samples, membership on advisory boards or any other financial consideration that might affect their impartiality. They, just like journalists, do not need to disclose their sources, but they should attribute specific content to a company or another blogger if used verbatim."
The ports deal looks to be sinking: "Republican House leaders last night split with President Bush and said they would derail a Dubai-owned company's bid to take control of operations at six major U.S. ports," says the Washington Times . "'It is my intention to lay the foundation to block the deal,' said Rep. Jerry Lewis, California Republican and House Appropriations Committee chairman." Clearly, it's an election year.
Byron York , the National Review guy who's been writing more for the New Republic, dissects the GOP unhappiness with Bush:
"Republicans are angry for political reasons. . . . For them, the port deal is symptomatic of the high-handed way the White House treats its congressional allies. For years now, many lawmakers have been willing to put up with such treatment, because they believed there was a finely tuned political machine in the White House that would ultimately prevail. Now, they no longer believe that, and they're worried.


