Influenced or censored? Compromise or compromised?
March 27th, 2008 |
Not too long ago Robert Peek, a PR professional and Director of Corporate Communications at Jacksonville Port Authority, criticized me for using an obscene/profane word in a column I write for Talent Zoo. Robert felt my use of the word was “gratuitous” and not in keeping with who I am and the kind of work I do (corporate communications in particular). So I asked the webmaster to edit the column for me to remove the offending word.
I had called b******* on corporate communicators who claimed ignorance of social media ethics or suggested that emerging media was a frontier of communications that presented new and unforeseen ethical challenges. These claims are a dodge, the timeless virtues of ethical behavior still apply, and it’s not that hard to know when you are being deceptive or manipulative. Unless of course you’re immoral to begin with. But I digress.
Robert made some excellent points, and responded unemotionally and with a well reasoned argument against my use of the word. After some reflection, I decided to change the editorial, replacing b******* with Nice try. I even turned to a colleague, fellow Talent Zoo columnist Jocelyn Brandeis of JBLH Communications, who gave me invaluable help with the edit. It works almost as well and has changed the editorial from PG-13 to G. This was a case in which I felt I needed to honor the conversational aspect of social media. What good are a blog, RSS feeds, pings, trackbacks and commenting if I ignore the comments and criticisms I get? I certainly don’t ignore the praise.
Which leads me to the questions in this post’s title. Was I influenced by Robert, or was I censored? Was changing the editorial, something I have rarely done except in the case of a fact error or misspelling, a valid compromise or did I compromise my integrity? You’re the experts. What do you think?
Tags: editorial integrity, obscenity, profanity, joel postman, robert peek, influence, censorship, Jocelyn Brandeis
| Share This | Sphere This |
The puritanical nature of American corporate communications never ceases to amaze. For a reality check take a look at this recent Lucy Kellaway column in the Financial Times (warning: adult content deemed suitable for those able to manage investment portfolios, ministers of finance and other grown-up readers of the financial press only)
Comment by ian — March 27, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
I salute Joel on his decision. PR practitioners have been clamoring for years to be taken as seriously as doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses and other educated professionals. Profanity in corporate communications hurts this effort. It’s not about being puritanical — curse all you want while thowing back a few beers after hours — it’s about being professional in our work. Joel hasn’t compromised his posiition at all. His article is just as effective without the profanity. Bravo for his well-reasoned thinking.
Comment by Robert Peek — March 27, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
It’s really a style thing and judgement call on your part. Sometimes profanity does get in the way and impairs the flow of the article, sort of like a big neon sign that jumps out at the reader. But sometimes you may want that, and of course you have the right. I stay away from using profanity for the most part,, not because I’m a Puritan but because it rarely helps me make my case. Are you being censored? Only if you want to be–it’s your call.
Comment by Mark ivey — March 28, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
I think you made the right decision on the edit given the audience. “Baloney,” “load of manure,” “bullhockey,” etc. are all nice euphemisims for the BS word.
What they lack, however, is passion. When you’re talking about ethics, and the “see no evil, hear no no evil” plausible deniability that many agencies adopt as their reasons for flouting them — again and again and again — then BS seems the appropriate term. Given the entire context of the article, I believe the reader can pretty much deduce that what you’re referring to (de?) merits the BS badge.
I dunno. Maybe I was raised different from some PR people. But when I see flagrant fouls such as blogola, astroturfing and outright lying by agencies I *thought* I respected, I feel like I’ve been punched in the gut. And if I were in your shoes, I might write “nice try,” but I’d be thinking, “You lying sacks of ****. Who, exactly, do you think you’re fooling?”
Comment by Sue Radd — March 29, 2008 @ 9:49 am