On 12 November 2012 15:45, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Note, in other words, that the "defence" of the PR editing here is entirely deflection
To an extent. It also represents frustration along the lines of: "whenever one of us does a bad thing we get lambasted in the news, but when they do a bad thing it gets no traction or notice"
Note that PR Week seems to have avoided asking for comment from CIPR, who put out a statement on the matter with WMUK joining in:
http://newsroom.cipr.co.uk/cipr-responds-to-reports-of-rlm-finsbury-editing-...
So at least it's not actually unanimous.
- d.