You are correct that Mr. Carr’s article was not about the public relations industry, but instead about the performance of the industry in handling of CEO’s. During the course of the article he happened upon an interesting concept for a definition of PR from the perspective of a journalist – those that actually define PR.

You mention PRSA Code of Ethics, but fail to follow the first principle of good PR. On both of my articles that have criticized your organization, PRSA was given the chance to comment before the articles were published but chose not to. Instead, attacking in comments my organization and me personally as an “extortionist”, when I offered the services of Newsroom Ink to PRSA at no cost to your organization.

“And this isn’t the first time that Mr. Lallo approached PRSA in an extortion-like way about using its services. In an article he posted entitled, “‘Overqualified’ – Code for ‘Too Old,’ Professional Organizations Should Step Up to Help All Communicators,” was this gem.” – Arthur Yann comment on Talentzoo.

In a posted response to the extortion-like article by IABC International Chair Adrian Cropley he stated, “This is a great thought piece and has my brain juices flowing. I think you are right to call on the professional associations to help at both ends of the spectrum. IABC as part of our strategy development this year is starting to look at ‘whole of Career’ development. We must ensure that we meet the needs of our members and profession for career development, up-skilling, re-skilling and continuous education.”

Out of that so-called extortion-like article came a site similar to the offered made to PRSA – BeHeardAutin.com, a service of IABC Austin to local, state and worldwide communicators. Members of IABC, PRSA and other communication organizations now follow the site internationally. The total cost to the chapter was a $300 fee payable to my Vice-President of Technology Tony Cecala to integrate the old IABC Austin website into the new newsroom.

I personally ate over $5000 in expenses to set up the site – wow that is sure extortion gone wrong. I also pay out of pocket the upkeep and fees on the site.

You continue to paint me as a supporter of Jack O’Dywer, which I am when it comes to the right for reporters to have open access. But I also support PRSA, and any organizations, rights to keep financials private, as long as all proper government regulation paperwork has been filed truthfully and properly – if questions arise then you are fair game to inquires by the press.

Arthur, from you I have seen no positive initiative to lead your organization. In all of your posts, which must take a up a fair portion of your work day, I have seen nothing but criticism and defense. Your PR effort has now positioned the organization into a corner where good journalists must now ask the question – “What does PRSA have to hide?”

When Newsroom Ink published the first article on O’Dwyer “PRSA’s Reputation Crumbles, Faces Crisis of Integrity“, my organization supported –and continues to support- his right to access, as well as all journalists’ rights, to open access as to cover a story in a manner appropriate manner. If any journalists fail to act in a professional manner, then they should be subject to ejection – not by story content, but by professional conduct.

It is indeed sad you think it is important for an organization dependent upon a symbiotic relationship with the press to bury their head in the ground like an ostrich in the face of adversity. More importantly, like a bull facing a matador, the name of Jack O’Dywer is a red cape that you cannot seem to resist charging into without first seeing if there is a deadly sword on the other side.

For the record:

PRSA is not a “main proponent of shutting media out.” PRSA’s Code of Ethics holds “advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information” as a core principle, so as to maintain the integrity of relationships with the media, government officials and the public.

My “comment to an article posted on Newsroom Ink” was this: “PRSA is a private member organization and our national Leadership Assembly is a private meeting of our members. We’re well within our rights to bar any and all reporters from attending.” That is not setting “a policy of banning all reporters from covering PRSA’s annual assembly,” but acknowledging our right to do so. To my knowledge, PRSA has refused only a single request for media credentials in 65 years of holding its assembly, and we clearly outlined the reasons why we took such an unprecedented step here (http://ow.ly/8WNfM) and here (http://ow.ly/8WNhZ).

PRSA and the allied professional organizations working with us are not attempting to “define ‘public relations’” with a “catchy new phrase” to “whitewash the profession.” As we’ve stated here (http://ow.ly/8WNVo) and elsewhere, our purpose is to engender a dialogue and debate about what public relations is, what practitioners do, how we do it and who benefits from our services in the modern, digital era.

What is a “sad oxymoron,” though, is that “journalists” purporting to cover — and sell to — the public relations industry are so intent on tearing it down, especially given that spending on traditional and digital public relations services in the U.S. increased to $5.7 billion in 2010 (a 12.8-percent year-over-year increase), and that 50 percent of firms participating in a 2011 year-end survey of members conducted by the Council of PR Firms reported double-digit growth in 2011.

Clearly, there are those who hold public relations in much higher esteem than Mr. Lallo and his strange bedfellow, Mr. O’Dwyer.