I understand that Mr Reynolds does not know what PR is (how many journalists do) and so he is forgiven for mistakes of nomenclature.
His quote from Walter Cronkite brings back memories:
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.
"On the off-chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.
"But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors but as an honourable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
"This is Walter Cronkite. Good night."
This was a moment when war was decive but propaganda diplomacy was a failiure.
If only they had use public relations, that last, and perhaps this present war, would have been less bloody.
Toni, we see here the break between old and new PR paradigm.
These concepts are significant to the constituencies involved. The exchange also demonstrates that we have a lot to lean about the nature of conversational relationships.
Historically, a person would provide a paper and circulate it for approval and comment – and that is what happened.
Now, there is a different way.
What if the paper is made available using any of the many forms of social media. It needs to be in one of the formats that can be progressively opened up for wider consultation, contribution and participation. It can be surrounded by debate and discussion (email, IM, Blog, wiki, Skype conference, meeting, congress etc), progressively it becomes the common property of all active, aware and latent participants.
This is not soft v hard, old v new it is just a way of creating a conversation. It is as old as mankind and as new as the Internet.
Well entrenched and robust views are still available in this model and progressively more evidence, research and resource can and should be added to enhance its value (peer reviewed knowledge added to any property enhances its value). Reasoned consideration can be in the hands of all participants – even the whole world.
The new way needs avail contribution to a conversation among active, aware and latent participants.
The nature of transparency, porosity and agency is the at the heart of this way of doing business.
As it turns out, you posting the papers, is a move in this direction but suppose the debate and discussion used modern communications tools. Would that not be more useful powerful and relevant?
The very fact that the initial paper is an old fashioned word processed document set the agenda.
The medium affected the message as much as the contribution by the participants.
One alternative might start like this: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhd98n6g_26f2twh2 and can then be moved to any number of channels for communication such as as a wiki, word document attachment by email, an email, a web page, a blog post, an instant message or even as (dead tree) paper.
Public Relations is changed but we have to walk the talk.
Ignorance, of course, is no defence when the participants are …… communicators?