News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client. Parent comment

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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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!).

[ Parent | on HN ]
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]