Wes Pedersen (3/11):
McHale's plan makes eminent good sense. Our propaganda machine that helped bring an end to the Cold War was dismantled when Congress decided there was no real need for it any more. Congress was desperately wrong, and we have been paying the price in ineffective international communications ever since.
I have, in recent responses to other O'Dwyer correspondents, emphasized the importance of maintaining ties to Pakistan. It is good to see that this vital nation will once again figure highly in our communications efforts. (Disclosure: This writer's columns on U.S. and international affairs were, early on, featured in Pakistan's leading magazine. They were placed there by the U.S. Information Agency.)
Veep (3/11):
I'm glad we're overhauling this obviously dated section of American PR. I would like to see the government reach out to the private sector -- our industry -- more to foster collaboration on these issues. Judy McHale isn't a PR pro, she is a former media executive. She knows communications, to be sure, but it would great for our industry, and our country, if we could get involved.
Wes Pedersen (3/11):
Veep is right. McHale needs to reach out to private industry. For 10 years, I headed the Office of Special Projects at USIA, working closely with the PR heads of all manner of companieas to obtain materials needed for the agency's international communications.
North American Rockwell, prime contractor for Project Apollo, produced, at my request, the lavishly illustracted book, "Man on the Moon," for free. Agnes DeMille wrote the book, "Dance in America," and charged not one cent. The list of such cooperation is long.
Not once was a request to the head of a corporate PR firm (or oustanding artist such as Ms DeMille) ever turned down.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (3/11):
Sorry to be the cynic in the crowd, but there are far too many generalizations in the lady's reported comments. One has to wonder how these organs of the "new diplomacy" which is late in coming will be manipulated either now or succeeding administrations.
What pushes some of my buttons is the combination of how we have invested in public information and relations. For example, we have blown close a billion bucks just on the Iraq/Afghanistan situation, a good bit with noncompete PR contracts. We have invested in a reported $250 million operation for military stuff at Ft. Meade, Md., and seem to be all over the place in the "sales department."
It is very difficult to tie together the State Department dipolomacy, the military operation and how any other government PR places fit together. Our image(s) abroad are not only shaped by the State Department.
PR hopeful (3/15):
Got to start somewhere. Sitting around complaining about past efforts and future plans gets us nowhere. We voted for change. This lady is offering it. Give her a chance before bitching.
Wes Pedersen (3/15):
Joe, a few days ago, the Financial Times had a page devoted to a chart identifying the various (and many) federal intelligence agencies. Soon, perhaps, we will see a similar chart identifying the different agencies involved in U.S. PR and information work. There is, as you have indicated, no unity.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (3/15):
Thanks, Wes. Your own long background in the federal PR service makes you more knoledgeable than most on the subject. For PR Hopeful, this was not bitching at all. What I wrote and stand behind is the fact we already had foggy imagery abroad and the comments did little to create a broad approach. Frankly, it is enough time already to have established a comprehensible national approach, and, as Wes points out, we seem to be off in all directions. |