His father is a great PR pioneer, and he, himself, shows a lot more chutzpah than most public relations agency heads, who rarely take a stand on anything, up to and including the disgraceful Ketchum-Armstrong Williams ethics debacle of two years ago.

Richard, in contrast to his pussyfooting peers, is more of a standup guy. In particular, he has become a champion of the Internet and social media, even famously launching his own blog.

More important, the Edelman CEO has become a proponent of "public relations ethics," especially in the failure of PR professionals to identify – or worse, purposely hide – their affiliations in order to influence public opinion.

In this regard, Richard has correctly blogged, "The best public relations is done in the open, with real debate on the issues."

Of course, he is right and is to be commended for his candor.

And this is the reason Richard Edelman finds himself in cyberspace stew today.

It has been revealed that a pro-Wal-Mart blog "Wal-Marting Across America" – ostensibly launched by a pair of average Americans, "Jim and Laura," chronicling their cross-country travels in an RV and lodging in Wal-Mart parking lots – was, in reality, a Wal-Mart front, launched by the company's PR agency, Edelman.

Indeed, unbeknownst to the blogging community breathlessly keeping tabs on Jim and Laura's 10-day odyssey, Wal-Mart paid for the couple's airfare, RV rental, gas, food, and other expenses. In return, the couple – in real life, a moonlighting Washington Post staff photographer and his girlfriend – made nice on Wal-Mart and all the swell employees they ran into on their journey across the fruited plains.

When Business Week blew the whistle on the bogus blog, the Washington Post went uncharacteristically ballistic. Normally, the Post's Executive Editor Leonard Downie is a shrinking violet when it comes to disciplining reporters who better-deal the paper for lucrative side deals; the most egregious example being Post prima donna Bob Woodward, who regularly bypasses his own newspaper to save his juiciest reporting for his books.

But in this case, when the normally docile Downie learned of the Wal-Mart/Edelman deception, he went bonkers; the twit, literally, hitting the sham:

"We do not allow our staff to freelance for competitors, government or special-interest groups," the Post editor fumed. "We can't work for one side or another in a public debate."

But the blogosphere --- that viral community of Web-obsessed geeks - could care less about the Post. Their furor was reserved for Edelman -- the company and the man --for apparent hypocrisy.

Richard, it turns out, had earlier gone after Washington PR firm, the DCI Group, for failing to fess up to its involvement in an anti-Al Gore video spoof that swept across the Net.

Wrote Richard on his blog about DCI, "PR firms have the right to be advocates for their clients…..We should stop thinking that short term tactical advantage is intelligent strategy."

Now enmeshed in the blog fog of fury that enveloped him, a sadder but wiser Richard Edelman correctly stepped forward and admitted that the late, lamented Jim and Laura blog was "100% our responsibility.....our error in failing to be transparent about the identity of the two bloggers from the outset."

On Oct. 20, Edelman blogged that all staffers must take a class of ethics in the social media and that a 24/7 "hotline" is being established so that the me2revolution team can provide counsel and best practices guidelines for communicating in the blogosphere.

That said Richard and his Edelman team will certainly remain under close scrutiny in blogworld for quite sometime.

Now enmeshed in the blog fog of fury that enveloped him, a sadder but wiser Richard Edelman immediately admitted that the late, lamented Jim and Laura blog was "100% our responsibility.....our error in failing to be transparent about the identity of the two bloggers from the outset."

And then late last week, Edelman blogged that all staffers must take a class of ethics in the social media and that a 24/7 "hotline" is being established so that the me2revolution team (whatever that is!) can provide counsel and best practices guidelines for communicating in the blogosphere.

So Richard correctly stepped up to the error of his charges, having learned the sad reality of 21st century public relations: "If you live by the blog, you die by the blog --- or at least get bludgeoned by the bloggers if you mess up."

Jeff Seideman, Boston (10/26):
It continues to amaze me that anyone would place even two cents worth of trust in anything said on a blog. The reason why we in PR work to get coverage in legitimate news ourlets is precisely because the coverage can be trusted because it's their business to be truthful and accurate. Blogs are exactly the opposite; they breed dishonesty and rumor the way petri dishes breed disease.

SFGrant (10/26):
Jim Bruni [see below] is quite right. This is a ticking time bomb, and Richard Edelman has a major responsibility to now lead on this issue. Of course, he is not the only one.

How many times have we all heard PR people brag about posting "fake" commentaries on bulletin boards, and now posing as legitimate bloggers to advance a client's interests. It happens all the time. Hopefully it will happen a lot less now. But, the problem goes much deeper.

The new practitioners of buzz marketing are skating on the same thin ice. Does anybody really believe that the firm BzzAgents would get the same kind of client results they have claimed in their glowing press coverage, if they truly and consistently required their agents to fully disclose? They say they do this, but I suspect it does not happen all the time. Again, a ticking time bomb.

At least BzzAgents purport to subscribe (like Edelman) to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association's core policy of disclosure. I have read a lot about P&G's major buzz marketing efforts, and they flatly state that they don't think they need to have their agents disclose the P&G connection. Pretty unbelievable, and reckless. Again, ticking time bombs that will further erode consumer trust in the new age of digital marketing.

James Bruni responds to SFGrant (10/30):
this is so true. As a prank, I sent an email to PayPerPost, offering $50 per post (and a $50,000 budget) if their bloggers could post the following -"What is good for WalMart is good for America". The CEO called me the next day and said, "we can achieve positive posts and meet your PR goals..." I responded, "no kidding..."

James Bruni (10/24):
Great commentary. I raised this issue in my oped for Odwyer's back in August, and knew it was a ticking PR timebomb. To his credit, Rich did a mea culpa. But, his ethics measures don't go far enough. He needs to clean house fast.

The best & brighest of the Blogosphere (Gomes, Rubel, etc.) have failed Edelman. Gomes once told me, "We can buy virtual ink by the barrel." And, these are the guys who are running the ethics training?

The Blogosphere has coined a new term, "flog" (for fake blog), that will surely outlast Edelman's Me2Revolution. Start over, Rich. We agree with you and my friend Jason Calacanis (of Weblogs) who says, "Blog or Die."

Jane Genova, Marketing/Executive Communications Pro, New Haven, CT (10/24):
Rich Edelman was smart enough to get in early on social media so I know he will be smart enough to figure out how to get on the other side of this Wal-Mart fiasco.

Thinkman2 (10/24):
The staff will take a class in ethics????? What is it that one teaches to adults and professionals with great responsibility that they should not already know about ethical conduct? I have never understood that concept.

I am reminded of George Carlin's commentary: "I know honesty is the best policy; but if that fails, remember: dishonesty is at least second best!

Also fed up! (10/23):
What about the chain of command? Who authorized this silliness? Who didn't stop to question whether or not it was ethical? Who should get booted out of the company? Actions will speak louder than ethics classes.

Fed Up In NYC! (10/23):
Is Mr. Edelman contending there was simply a lack of transparency or that the basic premise of this program was illegitimate?