Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by cglee on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @03:29PM
(#2533775)
Selective truth != truth. I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest. I don't have anything against companies who are dishonest, but let's call a spade a spade: PR companies are spin doctors. They're dishonest. That's not quite straight out lying, but to me the very definition of dishonesty is not presenting all of the truth if you can.
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by wibblenut on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @06:45PM
(#2534375)
You're right, but "dishonesty" is a dirty word, despite not necessarily always being bad or immoral. It's up to journalists to perform balanced reporting. We trust them to do that.
Lazy journalists that simply rewrite press releases, emails from their friends, or otherwise fail to do any meaningful research are the ones truly deserving of the label "dishonest" (amongst others!).
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by lsc on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @09:01PM
(#2534684)
>I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest.
do you vote with your dollars in this regard?
If there was a bigger PR penalty for not revealing unpleasant truths and maybe more support for a company that does reveal unpleasant truths about itself, more companies would be more open.
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by truthtechnician on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @09:37PM
(#2534778)
Whether he votes with his dollars or not is irrelevant to the fact that selectively presenting the truth to influence people is dishonest.
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by lsc on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @09:48PM
(#2534804)
right, but it has everything do do with the profitability of honesty.
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by yuhong on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @09:53PM
(#2534819)
Yea, I have considered "legacy" PR fundamentally flawed for a while now.
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by yuhong on Thursday May 12, 2011 @03:15AM
(#2539696)
"Legacy" PR being based on one-way broadcasting of a message and manipulating perception. It is just fundamentally flawed. There is a PR 2.0 movement which moves away from this stuff and is much better.
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by ollysb on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @04:28PM
(#2533966)
If I was the PR company for google I'd be pretty pleased with the 12 stories they have on the HN front page at the moment.
Re:PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
by jgroome on Tuesday May 10, 2011 @12:20PM
(#2533012)
Very true. Reminds me of the concept of "churnalism" outlined in Nick Davies' book Flat Earth News [1].
Thanks for the link. Am now off to read that essay.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Davies#Critical_reaction_o...
PR is not dishonest. Not quite. In fact, the reason the best PR firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest. They give reporters genuinely valuable information. A good PR firm won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they don't want to destroy it by feeding them mere propaganda.
If anyone is dishonest, it's the reporters. The main reason PR firms exist is that reporters are lazy. Or, to put it more nicely, overworked. Really they ought to be out there digging up stories for themselves. But it's so tempting to sit in their offices and let PR firms bring the stories to them. After all, they know good PR firms won't lie to them.
A good flatterer doesn't lie, but tells his victim selective truths (what a nice color your eyes are). Good PR firms use the same strategy: they give reporters stories that are true, but whose truth favors their clients.
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html