Talk:PR Watch

Ed Poor was incorrect when he wrote:

Although it's name would seem to indicate a more general purview, it is not a general media watch organization but is devoted solely to countering advocacy by what it calls "anti-environmental" think tanks and "industry front groups" and their public relations firms.

This statement is incorrect in the following respects:

1. The name "PR Watch" does not indicate a "general media watch organization." Rather, it indicates a publication specifically focused on watchdogging the public relations industry.
2. PR Watch is not devoted solely to countering anti-environmental think tanks and industry front groups. This is clear from looking at past issues or at the list of past articles which I have added to the article. The article on British-American Tobacco is not about an "anti-environmental think tank" or an "industry front group." The article about Ecos Corporation actually criticizes an environmental consulting firm (and past issues have criticized Greenpeace). "The Pentagon's Information Warrior" is about the Rendon Group, a PR firm that represents the U.S. military -- hardly an anti-environmental think tank or industry front group. "Spy TV" is about interactive TV and privacy -- an example of the fact that sometimes PR Watch tackles issues of media and democracy that go beyond the actions of specific PR firms. Finally, "China's Corporate Friends" is about corporate lobbying on behalf of a foreign nation and doesn't say anything at all about anti-environmental PR.

It's fair to say that PR Watch is generally sympathetic to environmental causes, and my revision makes that clear. However, it is not correct to say that PR Watch "only" covers environmental topics.

Finally, Ed Poor's insertion of the phrase "so-called" before the name of the Center for Media and Democracy adds nothing to the article except his dismissive point of view, so I have removed it. I'm sure he would do the same if I started adding the phrase "so-called" before the "reverend" in "Reverend Sun Myung Moon" or if I referred to S. Fred Singer's organization as the "so-called Science and Environmental Policy Project." People may not all agree that Moon should be "revered" or that Singer's organization is "scientific" and "environmental," but saying that they go by those names is simply a fact, not a point of view.

--Sheldon Rampton 00:10 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

OK: having reverted to SR's version, I can now see what the differences are. Essentially they amount to an extended discussion of PR Watch's funding with various gratuitous smears thrown in for flavour. If the smears are edited out, is it worth including? In its entirety, probably not - it is far too long and detailed to balance with the rest of the entry (verging on the "primary source" barrier) and I should like to see some confirmation of its claims before we commit to them. However, perhaps there is some content that ought to be retained.Someone will need to wade through it and see what can be done. Tannin 03:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Letting a democrat activist write a self-description of his own political activism is scarcely supportive of a neutral point of view. Rampton removed the phrase "so-called" from a reference to the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy but intentionally omits from the Center's name the identity of the founding family, which gained its fortune from IBM's exploits and from an executive's salary at general motors. Rampton represents himself as an expositor of propaganda but uses his organization and attempts to use Wikipedia to advance his point of view. The lead paragraphs in the article attempt to "clean up" Ramptons shrill hate-language directed at corporate employees by surrounding his hate speech in quotation marks.

If a person cares to do the homework and ADD information to that which is there, or if they care to balance contributions from both sides of a conflict, fine. But deleting information about activists' funding sources is disinformation and will not stand. What we are witnessing is Rampton's usual effort dominate dialogue especially dialogue about his efforts, and to silence opponents while mascarading as a proponant of open democratic dialogue. If you don't plan to participate in free speech, lock the article and describe it as a controversial subject. But don't plan on mascarading as a free speech project if you also plan to favor elite propagandists like Sheldon Rampton and John "chickens cause mad cow" Stauber.

In response to an revision tag noting the oddity that a group would be accused of both left-wing bias and corporate ownership, well, "we report, you decide". Which is not true? Though PR Watch occassionally criticizes the political stance of an environmental group, "disinformation" exposed on the site most often supports the boilerplate platform of the liberal mainstream. And the Schuman Center for Media and Democracy was indeed founded with IBM money. It might be hard for some to comprehend, but the left often tries to preserve their preferred social order with reforms that are not always in the direction that would be chosen by grass-roots or rank-and-file supporters of the well-heeled liberal organizations. The left and the politics of the left are just as prone to corporate interest as are those of the right. The left has largely succeeded, though, in representing itself as the only alternative to corporate control. There are other options that involve local community control of land and industry and that are not popular. Note PR Watch claims to support the "labor movement", but does not mention workers drives to seize control of the factories where laborors otherwise live out their lives in servitude.

Does any of that bizarre ranting above bear on the topic at hand? Tannin

Insulting and name calling does not affect a neutral point of view, not does it promote democratic dialogue. Yes, it made sense to me the first time I read it, and the writers critique of PR Watch and their corporate sponsors offers a fresh analyis that is badly needed in a dualistic environment.

So: the questions to be answered here seem to be:

• Who is this anon poster and why is he logging in under multiple IPs pretending to be different people?
• What does he have against PR Watch, and why does he care so much? Was his organisation one of those exposed by PR Watch? Or is there another reason?
• Why does he spew abuse everywhere and provide misleading edit summaries?
• Given that we know he is a highly biased and motivated individual (so far as this particular topic is concerned), can we afford to trust the information he is claiming to provide?
• Or should we delete the whole lot on the grounds that none of it can be trusted?
• If the answer to that second-last question is "yes" (i.e., we can trust at least part of the information provided), then how much of that vast slab of minutiae should be retained in the article, and what parts should be trimmed out as over-wordy and irrelevant?

Tannin 07:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)