http://www.insidepr.ca/index.php/2008/12/17/inside-pr-142-wednesday-december-17-2008/ Exploring the state of public relations Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:08:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.insidepr.ca/index.php/2008/12/17/inside-pr-142-wednesday-december-17-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-488887 CindyKroeger Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:31:14 +0000 http://www.insidepr.ca/?p=370#comment-488887 Anyone using social media knows that posts on Twitter (or blogs, or FaceBook, etc) are personal opinions. They are meant to start conversations. Similar to networking during a cocktail party, you can choose to join a conversation in a group, stand on the outskirts and listen, or catch a piece of the discussion and move on to something in which you're more interested. Regarding etiquette and ethics, in the corner of the cocktail room a group could be discussing their opinions of the 3-piece band that played a set for their entertainment. They wouldn't necessarily call across the room to have the band members join in their discussion, especially if they were making negative comments. In MY OPINION, this type of real-life example is the same as what should be expected when using social media for discussion purposes. Anyone using social media knows that posts on Twitter (or blogs, or FaceBook, etc) are personal opinions. They are meant to start conversations. Similar to networking during a cocktail party, you can choose to join a conversation in a group, stand on the outskirts and listen, or catch a piece of the discussion and move on to something in which you’re more interested. Regarding etiquette and ethics, in the corner of the cocktail room a group could be discussing their opinions of the 3-piece band that played a set for their entertainment. They wouldn’t necessarily call across the room to have the band members join in their discussion, especially if they were making negative comments. In MY OPINION, this type of real-life example is the same as what should be expected when using social media for discussion purposes.

]]> http://www.insidepr.ca/index.php/2008/12/17/inside-pr-142-wednesday-december-17-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-482606 Ira Basen Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:19:19 +0000 http://www.insidepr.ca/?p=370#comment-482606 Enjoyed your discussion about my Canadian Institute speech. I thought it was fair, accurate and thoughtful. In other words, it was everything Joe's original Twitter comments were not. I don't get the impression from your discussion that you believe I presented an "odious cariacature" of PR, or that I made provocative comments without providing sources, and yet those were just some of the things Joe accused me of. But of course, people following Joe's Twitter stream would have no way of knowing whether his comments were accurate or not. It was only after I raised a stink that Joe invited me into the conversation by publishing my e-mails to him, and my speech. I appreciate the fact that he did that, but shouldn't I have been invited in from the start? Wouldn't that be a better way to ensure that a real conversation takes place? Wouldn't that represent the true spirit of social media? Perhaps you could have another conversation about the etiquette and ethics around the use of social media tools. What is really accomplished by sending out Twitter messages about a speech that no one outside the room can reference? Why not at least wait until its over and take time to reflect on the message? What are the obligations to fairness and accuracy? Can we not still value things like civility and respect, even in the space of 140 characters? Enjoyed your discussion about my Canadian Institute speech. I thought it was fair, accurate and thoughtful. In other words, it was everything Joe’s original Twitter comments were not.
I don’t get the impression from your discussion that you believe I presented an “odious cariacature” of PR, or that I made provocative comments without providing sources, and yet those were just some of the things Joe accused me of. But of course, people following Joe’s Twitter stream would have no way of knowing whether his comments were accurate or not.
It was only after I raised a stink that Joe invited me into the conversation by publishing my e-mails to him, and my speech. I appreciate the fact that he did that, but shouldn’t I have been invited in from the start? Wouldn’t that be a better way to ensure that a real conversation takes place? Wouldn’t that represent the true spirit of social media?
Perhaps you could have another conversation about the etiquette and ethics around the use of social media tools. What is really accomplished by sending out Twitter messages about a speech that no one outside the room can reference? Why not at least wait until its over and take time to reflect on the message? What are the obligations to fairness and accuracy? Can we not still value things like civility and respect, even in the space of 140 characters?

]]>