“Awful PR,” “blocked” access, “withholding” information and “anonymous” threats all make for sensational headlines and undoubtedly generate page views. However, we invite Ms. Landman and the commenters here and elsewhere to examine the facts more closely, especially in light of published comments Mr. O’Dwyer has made on repeated occasions that raise legitimate questions concerning his credibility and objectivity toward PRSA. To wit:
“I am mad at [PRSA] ... I am never going to forgive them any more than the victims of the Nazis in World War II gave up on reparations. It took them 50 years to get them, but I’m never gonna let [PRSA] off the hook on that.”
(Source: 39:25 of “FIR Interview: Jack O’Dwyer,” Jan. 21, 2009. Available at http://bit.ly/fhKtFe.)
PRSA was indeed incorrect in saying that Mr. O’Dwyer did not cover PRSA’s 2009 International Conference; he published a single item on one of the four-day Conference’s keynote addresses. That statement – which Mr. O’Dwyer somehow obtained from a private email sent to a third party –was not the only reason why Mr. O’Dwyer was not granted International Conference press credentials, however.
When deciding to whom press credentials will be granted, PRSA takes into consideration a variety of factors, such as the nature of the event; the editorial focus, influence and reach of the publication; the subject(s) and extent of the planned coverage; and the degree to which media attendance will impact event operations and/or the experience and participation of event attendees. Our media policy (http://bit.ly/cN4K6t) is not substantially different from the media policies of any organizations that engage frequently with the press.
Every day, companies large and small choose the media with which they will interact, whether via invitations to press events, exclusive rights to news announcements, embargoes or, in extreme circumstances, denial of access to information. The fact is that more than 20 traditional and social media reporters and bloggers attended our 2010 International Conference; you might ask them about PRSA’s views on access and transparency. You might also ask the Center for Media and Democracy’s own Judith Siers-Poisson, to whom press credentials to our 2008 International Conference were granted (Ms. Siers-Poisson ultimately was unable to attend).
It does bear noting, however, that Mr. O’Dwyer has never been denied press credentials to attend PRSA’s National Assembly, which is a working meeting of elected PRSA Delegates that takes place each year immediately prior to our International Conference. Mr. O’Dwyer returned the courtesy this past year by breaching four stated press policies for that day: by attempting to photograph and record the proceedings, by conducting an interview during the meeting and by attempting to gain access to the Delegate luncheon. (While we do not permit recording or photography, we will willingly supply photographs to members of the media upon request.)
As far as making the list of our Assembly Delegates available, we would ask, “for what benefit?” Transparency, when the identity of our Assembly Delegates already is well known to the Chapters, Sections, Districts and Committees they represent? To mount a campaign for or against a certain issue pending before the Assembly, when our national bylaws prohibit such activities?
We would also ask the same question about making a transcript of our National Assembly available. The meeting is open to any member who would like to attend, as well as to credentialed media. Further, Roberts Rules, which PRSA follows except in specific cases where our National Bylaws supersede Roberts’ guidance, state that the minutes of the meeting are preferable to a transcript for the purposes of maintaining an “official record.” Of course, we make the minutes available to our members.
Finally, we would ask the same question of the reasons for making a PDF version of our member directory available. It would be nice for those who want to spam our members with unwanted product and service offerings, but of little value when we have an easily searchable online Member database for our Members to use. Or, try searching LinkedIn for “PRSA,” which generates more than 14,000 results.
As for the threat made against Mr. O’Dwyer, PRSA does not accept or excuse any threat made against any company or individual. An important footnote to this aspect of the story, however, is that neither the authenticity or source of the fax allegedly sent to Mr. O’Dwyer is known. What’s more, the contents of the alleged threat are mischaracterized here.
Principled stances like these may not be palatable to everyone, or facilitate the pursuit of their personal agendas. However, they are the reason why PRSA has existed since 1947, and why more than 32,000 professional and student members, as well as countless industry suppliers, academic institutions and major corporations around the world, are proud to associate with us.
Arthur Yann is PRSA’s vice president of public relations.
cato and reason are not "right-leaning". they are libertarian. they support open borders, along with no evironmental protection laws, no laws against drunk-driving (look it up on the reason site), and plenty of other wacky things.
if we need an immigration system that is labor based, then our system needs to mirror that. but it's the democrats that want our current family-based system to stay. we already allow over 1 million immigrants to arrive here annually since the early 90s.
the so-called alternative (complex organism model? LOL) leftists and looney libertarians come up with is laughable, and does nothing to prevent future illegal immigration. declaring everyone legal means open borders, and no rational sovereign nation would go by that policy. it will do nothing but further drive down wages, create an endless cycle of worker exploitation, and further the destruction of the environment. the "progressives" will be doing the bidding of supercapitalists, most of which could give a rats ass about you or me.
what we need: real border fencing like that which works in san diego, fixes to our trade policy, e-verify, no more corporate welfare or farm subsidies, incentives for businesses to hire american workers and who do business here, and if necessary, and program for a limited number of workers to do TEMPORARY work.
This is a ridiculous "consumer advocacy" issue. There are all kinds of charm shops and the like that sell bracelets and amulets and little stones that "carry healing energy." They certainly don't harm people and it's an insubstantial sum of money. At least people have found a way to make a living - with "magicial jewelry" - if the consumer parks their brain on this subject, I see this has comparable to paying a guy on a street corner for a tarot card reading. What about religious crosses, for that matter? Are people who manufacture Christian crosses bilking the consumer?
So What? Go after companies who are really doing harm. How about health insurance companies? Big oil and what they're selling us? About 'bout the magical belief that we should be paying 500,000. for decent housing?
Why wait for Obamas reply? Do you think he will bite the hand that feeds him? He is a part of the tragic problem that infects our government and as a consequence our society, and indeed the future of mankind on this planet. The greed and avarice of those who have gained political and economic control over the salt of the earth, the public. These self proclaimed elite who consider themselves "special" and worthy of the domination of everyday men employ every tactic available to prevent the people from joining as a peaceful species and ending the master/slave era of mankind. This is one of their tactics, to turn us against each other over trivial issues so that we can not overturn their rule! Let us all focus on the things that matter for the survival of man on this planet and throw off the chains of corporate political domination!
It has long been obvious how the republicans have learned from the fascists use of propaganda and made great improvements on the use of the mass media to distort truth and control public perception. For those who lack the ability to think critically the rhetoric is so easy to swallow and saves them the trouble of having to use their brain. For the rest of us it is sickening to see the bastardization of the english language go unchallenged by not only the opposing party, but the guardians of education all across this country. Words like liberal, which means "free", "not restricted" which implies openmindedness, has been made a dirty word by republicans. And "truth" is something they constantly distort or obscure.
As far as campaign tactics go they are no longer needed because another thing that is patently obvious to those who still believe their eyes, is the fact that votes and voters no longer count for anything. Our elections have been hijacked by the right and the secret. In fact the left has been hijacked by the right as you can see that no matter who is in office it is corporate communism that prevails! Their control of communications and media makes it virtually impossible to organize any opposition even if the dim witted were to come to their senses.
Since the value for political speech is limited due to phoney elections, the only real value for "dog whistling" is for public persuasion, more accurately called "mind control". Just like the unsuspecting German people were caused to rise up against their fictitious enemy "the jews", Americans have been brainwashed to hate a variety of "enemies" whom the republicans have deemed undesirable.
Those who border on the edge of reality use to receive treatment and were generally cared for even if they were poor. The late great actor Ronald Reagan while he was acting the part of president (he was just acting) put an end to treatment of the mentally disturbed and as a result these people are now on the streets, easy pickings for the republican propaganda of hatred.
People like Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin make me want to puke. How anyone can buy into their trash is beyond me. They are obviously of limited intelligence and only those with less would give them the time of day. I personally don't believe they have the popularity of a brown paper bag. More media lies to affect those who lack the ability to think for themselves.
“Awful PR,” “blocked” access, “withholding” information and “anonymous” threats all make for sensational headlines and undoubtedly generate page views. However, we invite Ms. Landman and the commenters here and elsewhere to examine the facts more closely, especially in light of published comments Mr. O’Dwyer has made on repeated occasions that raise legitimate questions concerning his credibility and objectivity toward PRSA. To wit:
“I am mad at [PRSA] ... I am never going to forgive them any more than the victims of the Nazis in World War II gave up on reparations. It took them 50 years to get them, but I’m never gonna let [PRSA] off the hook on that.”
(Source: 39:25 of “FIR Interview: Jack O’Dwyer,” Jan. 21, 2009. Available at http://bit.ly/fhKtFe.)
PRSA was indeed incorrect in saying that Mr. O’Dwyer did not cover PRSA’s 2009 International Conference; he published a single item on one of the four-day Conference’s keynote addresses. That statement – which Mr. O’Dwyer somehow obtained from a private email sent to a third party –was not the only reason why Mr. O’Dwyer was not granted International Conference press credentials, however.
When deciding to whom press credentials will be granted, PRSA takes into consideration a variety of factors, such as the nature of the event; the editorial focus, influence and reach of the publication; the subject(s) and extent of the planned coverage; and the degree to which media attendance will impact event operations and/or the experience and participation of event attendees. Our media policy (http://bit.ly/cN4K6t) is not substantially different from the media policies of any organizations that engage frequently with the press.
Every day, companies large and small choose the media with which they will interact, whether via invitations to press events, exclusive rights to news announcements, embargoes or, in extreme circumstances, denial of access to information. The fact is that more than 20 traditional and social media reporters and bloggers attended our 2010 International Conference; you might ask them about PRSA’s views on access and transparency. You might also ask the Center for Media and Democracy’s own Judith Siers-Poisson, to whom press credentials to our 2008 International Conference were granted (Ms. Siers-Poisson ultimately was unable to attend).
It does bear noting, however, that Mr. O’Dwyer has never been denied press credentials to attend PRSA’s National Assembly, which is a working meeting of elected PRSA Delegates that takes place each year immediately prior to our International Conference. Mr. O’Dwyer returned the courtesy this past year by breaching four stated press policies for that day: by attempting to photograph and record the proceedings, by conducting an interview during the meeting and by attempting to gain access to the Delegate luncheon. (While we do not permit recording or photography, we will willingly supply photographs to members of the media upon request.)
As far as making the list of our Assembly Delegates available, we would ask, “for what benefit?” Transparency, when the identity of our Assembly Delegates already is well known to the Chapters, Sections, Districts and Committees they represent? To mount a campaign for or against a certain issue pending before the Assembly, when our national bylaws prohibit such activities?
We would also ask the same question about making a transcript of our National Assembly available. The meeting is open to any member who would like to attend, as well as to credentialed media. Further, Roberts Rules, which PRSA follows except in specific cases where our National Bylaws supersede Roberts’ guidance, state that the minutes of the meeting are preferable to a transcript for the purposes of maintaining an “official record.” Of course, we make the minutes available to our members.
Finally, we would ask the same question of the reasons for making a PDF version of our member directory available. It would be nice for those who want to spam our members with unwanted product and service offerings, but of little value when we have an easily searchable online Member database for our Members to use. Or, try searching LinkedIn for “PRSA,” which generates more than 14,000 results.
As for the threat made against Mr. O’Dwyer, PRSA does not accept or excuse any threat made against any company or individual. An important footnote to this aspect of the story, however, is that neither the authenticity or source of the fax allegedly sent to Mr. O’Dwyer is known. What’s more, the contents of the alleged threat are mischaracterized here.
Principled stances like these may not be palatable to everyone, or facilitate the pursuit of their personal agendas. However, they are the reason why PRSA has existed since 1947, and why more than 32,000 professional and student members, as well as countless industry suppliers, academic institutions and major corporations around the world, are proud to associate with us.
Arthur Yann is PRSA’s vice president of public relations.
This is a ridiculous "consumer advocacy" issue. There are all kinds of charm shops and the like that sell bracelets and amulets and little stones that "carry healing energy." They certainly don't harm people and it's an insubstantial sum of money. At least people have found a way to make a living - with "magicial jewelry" - if the consumer parks their brain on this subject, I see this has comparable to paying a guy on a street corner for a tarot card reading. What about religious crosses, for that matter? Are people who manufacture Christian crosses bilking the consumer?
So What? Go after companies who are really doing harm. How about health insurance companies? Big oil and what they're selling us? About 'bout the magical belief that we should be paying 500,000. for decent housing?
Pages