I checked my email the other day and found an item from Jack O’Dwyer in response to my rebuttal of the Aaron Perlut piece about the PRSA/O’Dwyer conflict in Forbes.
I’ve found that no one does a better job of undermining the arguments of Jack O’Dwyer than Jack O’Dwyer – so I have little editorializing to do except to point out the following things:
- The use of the third person. I actually kind of like this because it’s a very old-timey journo sort of thing to do. Kind of like wearing fedoras and rushing to find payphones to call in copy.
- No rebuttal of the charge of hacking the PRSA website. Jack continues to deny that his office accessed the teleconferences without authorization, but insists that they have every right to do so (if they had). The charge that someone from his offices hacked into the members-only section of PRSA’s website, however, he remains completely silent on. (That’s saying something because as you can see Jack can’t keep his mouth shut about anything).
- The hoary copyright claim chestnut. Again, Jack demonstrates why he’s ethically-obliged to hand over coverage of PRSA to someone else in his ‘organization’ (which I imagine to be a bunch of underfed cats scurrying around a studio apartment, the walls of which are covered in newspaper clippings connected by red yarn and pushpins). He’s “reporting” on an organization he has a grievance against, which the Society of Professional Journalists deems a conflict of interest. Notwithstanding the reality that PRSA’s circulation of O’Dwyer content likely constitutes Fair Use, Jack should file a copyright infringement lawsuit or shut up about it. Fish or cut bait, man. Read more…
Today, Aaron Perlut penned a piece for Forbes magazine titled “The Case of Jack O’Dwyer vs. PRSA” that explores the titular conflict. Unfortunately it’s woefully incomplete and devolves into an exercise in false equivalency.
Here are some of the major problems with the Perlut piece:
1. Though he discloses his connection to both sides (being a PRSA member and actually writing for O’Dwyer’s isn’t a legitimate enough equivalency to establish neutrality), Perlut goes to heroic lengths to paint the conflict as a wash with both sides sharing blame: Read more…
Many thanks to Nancy F. Hughes, APR for alerting the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) to a recent report published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that blasts everything produced by the Public Relations profession as ‘inaccurate spin.’
The report, titled “Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide,” was written by Baruch Fischhoff, PhD, Noel T. Brewer, PhD, and Julie S. Downs, PhD and distinguishes “risk communications” from “public affairs (or public relations).” Read more…
Regarding “journalist” Rupert O’Dwyer’s recent screed about the Public Relations Society of America:
“Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should: […] Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”
Writing a prescribed course of action and then listing the names and email addresses of the “Top 50 Society Chapter Presidents” is “advocacy” – not news reporting. Just sayin’.
In other news, the crickets who have been chirping during O’Dwyer’s non-response to the phone and website hacking allegations against his organization are getting really tired.