Comments on: Influenced or censored? Compromise or compromised? http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/ Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:26:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Sue Radd http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-180 Sue Radd Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:49:07 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-180 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?" 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?”

]]> By: Mark ivey http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-174 Mark ivey Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:04:19 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-174 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. 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.

]]> By: Robert Peek http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-168 Robert Peek Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:03:53 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-168 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. 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.

]]> By: ian http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-167 ian Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:56:58 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/influenced-or-censored-compromise-or-compromised/#comment-167 The puritanical nature of American corporate communications never ceases to amaze. For a reality check take a look at <a href="http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=fuck&y=9&aje=false&x=9&id=071022000116&ct=0" rel="nofollow">this recent Lucy Kellaway column in the Financial Times</a> (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) 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)

]]>