Well theres a heck of a lot of money & more than I guess 70 years of formal study of PR etc. Concepts such as controlling the message and selecting the 'public face of entity', and not letting people peer behind the curtain, are deeply embedded in much of the commercial, and indeed non-commercial world. So Im saddened it has happened to you, but rather surprised we havent heard more about this sort of thing happening.
Even an internet forum that randomly sprung into existence with no commercial entity behind it, and that was run in the genuine spirit of being 'for its members', fell victim to the tempation for those making stuff happen to hide away from public discussions much. Us and them reared its ugly head even with no $ being involved at any stage. So even if we forget about the commercial instincts that are out there, the classic PR that will make many organisations remain in the past and avoid genuine vlogging etc, I think there are other human instincts which will cause similar stuff to happen. It seems related to me to phenomenon such as 'shying away from criticism'. I mentioned the other day how saddening lots of the text comments on youtube are, I wonder how many people have been putoff exposing a bit of themselves on the net forever as a result of these and other things. So we've got fear of criticism, and desire to feel 'in control' as major reasons why this sort of thing may happen. Thats before getting into any of the naffer reasons such as actually having something to hide or being excessively egotistical or obsessive about controlling own image. Of course its also very feasible that many commercial reasons may exist for keeping control and denying rights to do stuff with video to others. Personally I think that these and the previous reasons I said are fair enough in most instances, just the same as people have a right to privacy. Its certainly fair that this right should be lost under certain cases, eg a murderer is going to lose right to privacy during their trial etc, and a company that was harvesting organs to sell to rich old people deserves to be exposed. Its very tricky, a balancing act where I dont think generalisations will necessarily create any sane rules. Lets say for example Im putting on a conference, but I want to control who is allowed to video it. Well Im totally torn between the rights of people to video it, and the right to have some control over what happens at your own event. It probably sucks for all concerned,but the fear that leads to reactionary decisions is understandable. What really sickens me is when a shocking and important event is exposed via video (such as the alternative saddam hanging), and I see mainstream politicians and media talking heads talking about how disgusting the VIDEO is, and the fact that someone took the video without permission. Surely its the EVENTS that are shocking, and these sorts of responses to the video tell us a lot about our 'open and democratic' way of living. Rumsfeld was a classic example of this - always berating the media for covering the stories or releasing the photos or video, never mind the reality of what these things are depicting, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], Gary Short <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well the link was at http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/ but as > you can see it's gone. I was asked to take it down by The Carnoustie > Golf Links after the Royal & Ancient applied pressure. There was no > Licensing issue, the R&A just wanted there to be one singer, one voice; > like I said it's total PR 1.0 BS, they want to control the message and > not engage in a conversation. > > The thing is it wasn't even their vlog, it was the host venue's. They > applied pressure to the hosts (my customer) and made them take it down, > so it's not even their "water" they "poisoned". > > -- > Cheers, > Gary > http://www.garyshort.org/ >
