- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I found that delightful and hilarious. The PR dept is so petty. Yeah, that one got my goat. They ought to be
realcareful with this one. Balance of gay and religious rights? Guess where most people see the scales of imbalance tipped right now. Taking additional steps to further highlight the most selfish aspects of the recent press conference only erodes any good will they may have built up. Balance of gay and religious rights. That’s what they want to make absolutely crystal clear as the “core” of their message? Here’s an idea… just love people and show tolerance,
that can be a standalone message. Merit a favorable image, don’t demand one. I wonder how much of the odd (being nice) PR is the PR department vs. the PR department constrained on what they can say. Let’s hope they don’t get in a urinating contest with a newspaper because according to my first wife who is in the business, you will never win. LOL. I don’t know ANYTHING much about professional public relations. But I can tell you ** that** is just about the WORST POSSIBLE tactic to take: schooling journalists and newspaper editors on how to write appropriate article titles. I can’t think of a worse way to poke the sleeping bear. As I’ve discovered, they do this all the time. I suppose that’s fine, but it’s still kind of funny, and in this case, it’s pretty irritating. Let me quote my own twitter feed on this topic:
Quote:To protect the disenfranchised from real discrimination, it is important that we protect the privileged from imaginary discrimination.
hawkgrrrl wrote:To protect the disenfranchised from real discrimination, it is important that we protect the privileged from imaginary discrimination.
Wow, succinct. A quality I lack.
Unfortunately, it has to be admitted there is a genuinely nasty element in the gay rights movement as well. When that gets coupled with aggressive atheism (and that does happen), it provokes an equally nasty reaction. There is a prominent politician who fits this bill round here. I agree with the guy when he stays off religion (he’s not a bad politician) and sometimes gay rights, but he basically hounded another politician just for being a member of the church. Said member was not some raving homophobe, but was being bullied for his religious preference.
I don’t think fighting bigotry with bigotry is the answer. Whether it’s backward elements in our church, or the foaming mouth brigade in gay rights…
Some articles really did butcher their reporting – especially some headlines that were written, obviously, to get reads. SamBee wrote:Unfortunately, it has to be admitted there is a genuinely nasty element in the gay rights movement as well.
This actually kept me for quite some time seeing the validity of some of their claims. I now am in a much different place on this issue. But when they say things equivalent to, “You either you agree with everything we think or you are against us” and “if you don’t agree, you are full of hate” it really was counterproductive.
At first, I saw nothing wrong with the church’s PR statement — but I have seen through history that when you take on the press, the press takes you on — more than they usually do. Rather than allude to the one NY Times post that put an inaccurate spin on the church’s press release/news conference, I think they should’ve just been content that most of the news outlets got it right, and moved on. I have to say — a strong presence in the press doesn’t seem to help the church much. I feel that when GBH went into the media years ago, it did as much harm as good — retrenching old attitudes toward the church, etcetera, and highlighting them to people who may not have known.
LookingHard wrote:SamBee wrote:Unfortunately, it has to be admitted there is a genuinely nasty element in the gay rights movement as well.
This actually kept me for quite some time seeing the validity of some of their claims. I now am in a much different place on this issue. But when they say things equivalent to, “You either you agree with everything we think or you are against us” and “if you don’t agree, you are full of hate” it really was counterproductive.
I don’t like the way either side has handled the whole gay rights thing. I wish that more moderates could have made their voices heard on both sides. (I also don’t like the way that gay is represented as secularist, and religious is represented as homophobic in the media… neither are completely true. You only need to look around here for example, to see practicising church members who hold fairer views about gays.)
If the church gets into politics, I would like to see it doing so more positively. Being for things, rather than against them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.