SM Expert Defren Drops Big Stinky Duty in BloglandPosted by Amanda Chapel
Well, yiiiish! A few days ago, friend of PR Blogland, Todd Defren, Principal of Shift Communications and creator of the Social Media Press Release, dropped a duty whose stink still ranks the joint. I mean... God Damn! Somebody alert the EPA! Whoa! WARNING: Passionate rant directly ahead. But before we begin, let me be clear: this is not about Todd. This isn't personal. It's about the asininity of the popular belief he's well articulated ironically. On Thursday, Todd posted a blog article titled "The Duty of the Internet." In summary: "I was struck this morning by the juxtaposition of two very important stories having to do with the Internet’s role in the world. Specifically, its role in promoting transparency and freedom of information." The first was a New York Times article on this week's Digg geek revolt and the widespread posting of the DVD anti-piracy code. The second was a Wired article on the Army considering clamping down on soldier blogs. Relating the two, Todd concluded, "Let freedom ring." First off, Todd underscores the "futility of censorship." WRONG! It's not censorship to protect one's property. Excuse me, the futility is in the now apparent failure to lock one’s door to keep out the horde of marauding geek looters. The freedom we enjoy is not the freedom to trespass; it's the freedom to own property without government or mob interference. THEN, to somehow relate that to the Army controlling the battle environment, WTF! To warn that "the Army could extend restriction on communications even to private email," is to not understand the military and/or war. There is no private anything when you're in the Army. You're not even a "you". YOU'RE A SOLDIER! AND FINALLY, to wrap that f-ed-up juxtapose in Martin Luther King, excuse me?! Hurray for the looters; three cheers for the loose lips that sink ships; "Let Freedom Ring!" UNBELIEVABLE. WTF Todd!!! In an effort to foster acceptance in Blogland, you put up your worse post ever. You first side with a concept completely antithetical to what you do for a living and who you represent; you then take a dog leg left and demonstrate a completely naïve understanding of what war is all about; and then you rob from a cultural icon to put a pretty PR bow on it. This is the very stuff that makes PR ridiculous and embarrassing. END NOTE: We've since brought this to Todd's attention. He gracefully admitted that "Not every post is gonna be a winner." Translation: Excuse me. Bookmark This
 Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
As I also said in our email exchange, I think you've mischaracterized my post, and our subsequent dialogue. When I said, "Not every post is gonna be a winner," I meant a "winner" in your opinion; it was not meant as a slight on my post. For whatever that's worth.
Also, "the futility of censorship" line came from the NY TIMES; I merely quoted it. You might take up the issue with NYT reporter Brad Stone. More to the point, specifically, the point that I did not seem to get across, was this: Super-intelligent code wizards put a lot of time & effort into hacking some DRM specs. I treated that development with some whimsy and even republished the code, but only because it was already so widespread already. I have every faith that the corporate content creators & distributors will re-engineer their DRM protections quickly, rendering the hack useless. And that's fine by me: they created the content, paid good money to do so, and we should play by the rules. THIS point was lost, I admit. What I was trying to say was that I'd like it better if those same brainiacs who cracked the DRM code could apply their talents to allowing battlefield grunts the ability to post to their blogs without fear of gov't intervention. And THAT may well be a point that you and I disagree on, Strumpette. I agree that in "war time" the soldier ought to obey the rules. Certainly I am NOT advocating that soldier-bloggers jeopardize their mission or fellow soldiers through radical transparency. However, I do also think that a) the Internet empowers these true voices (of horror, fatigue, frustration, hope) to tell us true stories that we NEED to hear and, b) that hearing those voices may motivate critical policy changes, and, c) that no soldier would even consider posting info on a blog or in an email that would fuck with this comrades. When I get a chance, I will post your comment from Fri at PR-Squared, and if it's okay with you I will also re-publish the reply I've left here, in response.
"I meant a 'winner' in your opinion; it was not meant as a slight on my post."
Here I thought you could learn from your mistakes. But now apparently, you want to spin it. Wrong move Todd. Excuse me, your post was ridiculous and if you were smart in PR, you'd chalk it up to an error in judgment... not defend it. "Also, 'the futility of censorship' line came from the NY TIMES." I don't give a damn whether it came from the moon. You quoted it because you support it. "I treated that development with some whimsy and even republished the code, but only because it was already so widespread." With whimsy? Since when is looting whimsical?! You demonstrated solidarity with a mob of thieves. "What I was trying to say was that I'd like it better if those same brainiacs who cracked the code could apply their talents to allowing battlefield grunts the ability to post to their blogs without fear of gov't intervention." And that is nonsense. The battlefield is not a place to fucking blog! "Without fear of gov't intervention," are you serious?! IT'S THE FUCKING MILITARY! "Certainly I am NOT advocating that soldier-bloggers jeopardize their mission or fellow soldiers through radical transparency." Good. Glad to hear it. "However, I do also think that a) the Internet empowers these true voices to tell us true stories that we NEED to hear and, b) that hearing those voices may motivate critical policy changes, and, c) that no soldier would even consider posting info on a blog or in an email that would fuck with this comrades." No. There are no "howevers." None. Again, a soldier is NOT an identity. He/she is part of an organism whose mission is to kill the enemy and protect us. Period. No soldier has a voice for policy change. Nor should they! That's totally ludicrous... and dangerous! Again, your logic demonstrates dramatically the abject naiveté that is at the root of the PR blogging movement. Just because you have a voice and a microphone, doesn't mean you should be opinionating about topics apparently you know very little about.
Yes I "have a voice and a microphone" and often admit, to a fault, that I speak on subjects where my opinions are based on what little I know. But, it's my voice, my microphone, and most importantly my true identity on display.
You have a voice, you have a microphone, and yet we can't be sure what you actually know about first-hand, because we don't know who you are. In any event, though it's never fun to be attacked like this, I acknowledge your points: on reflection I regret publishing that code because I do not agree with cracking DRM. As for the soldier-bloggers, I agree that they should not be active participants in policy, but also think that their voices could play a passive role, i.e., by inspiring/horrifying their audiences. The idea that soldiers are "organisms" is why old men feel free to play games with the lives of young men. Were you in the military? Lose friends or family to war? Have a kid nearing draft age? We can agree to disagree.
"Yes I 'have a voice and a microphone' and often admit, to a fault, that I speak on subjects where my opinions are based on what little I know. But, it's my voice, my microphone, and most importantly my true identity on display. We can't be sure what you actually know about first-hand, because we don't know who you are."
Wrong move Todd. That's a cheap and irrelevant argumentative tactic. I had NOTHING to do with you articulating asinine beliefs. Here's your logic: I sided with the looters; I'd like to see the resume of whoever caught me. I presented an argument that potentially endangers lives and assumes I know more than experienced senior military command; but Amanda must bear some of the blame for bringing it up. No. The debate is about the issues you raised. Bottom line: what you presented is ridiculous and NOT defensible. "In any event, though it's never fun to be attacked like this." If you want to now position yourself as victim, you are a victim of your own mouth. Excuse me but the marketplace of ideas is a constant. "The idea that soldiers are 'organisms' is why old men feel free to play games with the lives of young men." First, I said that soldiers are part of an organism. Your contention here is not only base liberal flatulence, it's naïve and dangerous. There are no individual personalities on a team. In war, on a battle field, to kill or be killed is the definition of extreme prejudice. Control is not debatable; it's essential. "We can agree to disagree." No. Our ideas are NOT equally legitimate. What you said was uninformed and just flat out WRONG! Again, your logic demonstrates dramatically the abject naiveté that is at the root of the PR blogging movement. Just because you have a voice and a microphone, doesn't mean you should be opinionating about topics apparently you know very little about. For the record, loud and especially stubborn is the failure of Web 2.0.
Hmm, not sure why this one got so heated.
Amanda, are you OK with the whistleblower at Abu Ghraib or should that person just follow orders? I'm not sure if it is the best use of time (or network-centric military computing - yes, I have a client in this space), but I'm a bit troubled that soldiers as of today are no longer allowed on MySpace, YouTube, MetaCafe and Pandora (is this qreat site doomed?) and other social media sites. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/14/defense_dept_blocking_myspace_youtube/ In conclusion: Impeach Cheney! End the War!
Sorry, I left out the name of this hero: Joe Darby
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/07/60minutes/main2238188.shtml Add Comment
|
I know you're supposed to pretend not to notice. I know it's not polite. Bad PR actually. But we're close, right? I mean, if a friend won't tell ya, who will?