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.
From: Jack O’Dwyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 9/2/2011 8:32 AM
Subject: Perlut Columm as seen by O’Dwyer
Thanks for writing about me.
Here’s my coverage of the two Society teleconferences Wednesday as provided by members who have a perfect right to do so. Rosanna has stopped taking “live” questions. They have to be submitted on a website first. I did not “hack” into these calls nor have I ever hacked into any calls. The Society owes us a lot of money because it sold more than 50,000 copies of our articles. I have a boxfull of the copied articles in my office if you wish to see them. Their “info pack” service was built on our articles which comprised 25% and more of some of the studies.
Please post the blog below on your website. I tried but don’t have the right codes. No codes are needed to post stuff on our website. We print lots of comments from Society leaders but they never allow a single comment of ours. –Jack
As one might imagine, I’m disinclined to acquiesce to Jack’s request to post his long-winded, conspiracy-theory-riddled blog post.
Curiously, the end of the email contained some inline text from a previous email from someone by the name of “Wesley Pedersen”:
—– Original Message —–
From: Wesley Pedersen
To: Jack O’Dwyer ; email@example.com
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:06 PM
I read the Perlut piece. He’s bending over to be fair to both sides, but he has provided no real conclusion. He is not telling you anything I have not told you for years….Wes Pedersen