The title was misleading and was updated to reflect that. Other than being upset by the title without actually hearing the content of the conversation, is there something wrong with our position on disclsoure here? If you have the time to read through the materials carefully I think you will see that we acknowledge fully the gray areas here, which is what we are trying to ascertain.

The comparison of the Edelman situation to your posting pseudononymously (sp??? word choice???) was merely situational in nature for the point of comparison, I dont believe it was direct - but may be mistaken.

I appreciate your perspective and thank you for the link. Personally I do understand there are situations where disclosure is not allowable or appropriate, we just need to identify as many of them as possible so the real people who are getting into this field more seriously have an understanding of right and wrong. That is the real end point we are trying to reach.

Sincerely.

Chris Heuer
Co-Founder, Social Media Club

Chris Heuer, Shel Holtz, and I recorded the latest edition of the New Media Release NMRCast for Shel’s award-winning For Immediate Release (FIR) podcast….

Here, by way of example, there’s a HUGE difference between what Strumpette does and what Edelman is.

Strumpette uses pseudonymity as a shield so it/we can voice dissent without fear of reprisal. Edelman uses fake blogs and non-disclosure to help themselves and/or their clients surreptitiously sell and/or defraud various targeted publics.

Now granted, a society can do without the likes of Edelman picking your pocket while it touts the benefits of smoking. BUT, without dissent, you don’t have democracy.

Okay, I know… for the literal mind, this is a near impossible distinction to fathom. But you’re just going to have to try.

Sincerely,

Amanda Chapel
Managing Editor
Strumpette

PS For more I suggest this piece by Cluetrain co-author David Weinberger: http://www.strumpette.com/archives/162-Cluetrain-author-dispels-absolute-transparency-myth.html .