Saturday, September 29, 2007
Jack O'Dwyer published an article about me!
I just found out that Jack O'Dwyer published an article about me and my blog post on "Public Relations in Service to Society" earlier this week. I'd link to it, but it's for subscribers only.
I was a little surprised that Jack forgot to mention it in the many e-mails we've exchanged in the past few days.
I suppose the lesson Jack wants me to learn is not to pick on the guy who buys ink by the barrel. Luckily, in the age of blogging, I get to publish my own response. In general I thought the article provided a fair representation of my post on how PR should be taught. As I pointed out to Jack, he himself has often published criticism of the practice as well as public relations education, so I would think he would be among the first to endorse an approach that tries to emphasize public interest over personal profit.
However, a couple of things were unfair. Jack concluded his article with part of a comment to my post by Marcel Goldstein in reference to the poor quality of PR graduates he has encountered. But he left out the first three sentences: "this post reminds me of the best about blogging in that you provided a fresh perspective to an old issue. You have broadened my view and I am greatly appreciative. I think sometimes practitioners, such as myself, have lost sight of the larger picture about PR education in our frustration at the quality of basic entry-level hire skill sets." I think this makes it clear that Marcel was trying to find a solution, not criticizing me or my post as Jack's article implied.
I think Jack's characterization of my reasons for not wanting to discuss the recent discussion about PR education ("is too busy to take up a discussion of PR education with this website and is not qualified to act as the spokesperson for PR education") was a bit simplistic given the daily, sometimes lengthy but always sincere and honest e-mails I sent him this week. For example, one of my reasons for not wanting to comment is that I have not read his article on Don Wright's speech. It's difficult to comment on something about which you have no knowledge. (I have since read the interview with Don on Strumpette.) I did state that I don't have the authority to act as a spokesperson for PR education since I am only familiar with my own school's program, and I suggested that he contact a more appropriate spokesperson from one of the accrediting boards or the PRSA educators academy.
Finally, in one of his e-mails to me, Jack mentioned that several other PR educators also refused to talk to him. If he publishes a story about any of them, will someone please forward it to me?
On the bright side, a link from Jack's Web site is the most exposure this blog has ever received. If trying to embarrass me results in having people put some thought into public relations and its role in society, that's okay with me. Sadly, though, according to Feedburner, only 5 people have clicked through in two days.
I was a little surprised that Jack forgot to mention it in the many e-mails we've exchanged in the past few days.
I suppose the lesson Jack wants me to learn is not to pick on the guy who buys ink by the barrel. Luckily, in the age of blogging, I get to publish my own response. In general I thought the article provided a fair representation of my post on how PR should be taught. As I pointed out to Jack, he himself has often published criticism of the practice as well as public relations education, so I would think he would be among the first to endorse an approach that tries to emphasize public interest over personal profit.
However, a couple of things were unfair. Jack concluded his article with part of a comment to my post by Marcel Goldstein in reference to the poor quality of PR graduates he has encountered. But he left out the first three sentences: "this post reminds me of the best about blogging in that you provided a fresh perspective to an old issue. You have broadened my view and I am greatly appreciative. I think sometimes practitioners, such as myself, have lost sight of the larger picture about PR education in our frustration at the quality of basic entry-level hire skill sets." I think this makes it clear that Marcel was trying to find a solution, not criticizing me or my post as Jack's article implied.
I think Jack's characterization of my reasons for not wanting to discuss the recent discussion about PR education ("is too busy to take up a discussion of PR education with this website and is not qualified to act as the spokesperson for PR education") was a bit simplistic given the daily, sometimes lengthy but always sincere and honest e-mails I sent him this week. For example, one of my reasons for not wanting to comment is that I have not read his article on Don Wright's speech. It's difficult to comment on something about which you have no knowledge. (I have since read the interview with Don on Strumpette.) I did state that I don't have the authority to act as a spokesperson for PR education since I am only familiar with my own school's program, and I suggested that he contact a more appropriate spokesperson from one of the accrediting boards or the PRSA educators academy.
Finally, in one of his e-mails to me, Jack mentioned that several other PR educators also refused to talk to him. If he publishes a story about any of them, will someone please forward it to me?
On the bright side, a link from Jack's Web site is the most exposure this blog has ever received. If trying to embarrass me results in having people put some thought into public relations and its role in society, that's okay with me. Sadly, though, according to Feedburner, only 5 people have clicked through in two days.
Labels: education, ethics, public relations
"More important than the curriculum is the question of the methods of teaching and the spirit in which the teaching is given" --Bertrand Russell
