Moving away from the contentions of Mark's personal political views and the righteous indignation of the (presumably) conservative readers of this blog (I think it was Steve C. who once wrote an article about his puzzlement at why the Conservatives, who have pretty much had the government sewn up for the past 8 years always seem to be so ANGRY. I thought that was a really good point. Of course their anger now may be justified, as the Democrats seem to have a truly viable candidate this time around). But I digress.

The idea of individually refuting rumours continuously, is reasonable, and I would suggest imperative during a campaign because of the mud-slinging environment virtually every campaign nowadays is held in. Campaigns also have millions of dollars available for such activities, and/or lots of volunteers to do the type of research that is required for such a task.

However, a business, which is financially constrained by a fixed budget would be unlikely to have the financial wherewithal to implement such a website. Even if the money was available, given the structures and priorities of most businesses (excluding Wal-Mart - insert eye-roll here!) they wouldn't agree to assign the budget to "rumour patrols"

I do agree with Mark however, that it is a new standard aspect of a PR/Communications person's responsibilities to be aware of and monitor all the various online discussion taking place about their business or their clients, so that they can be on top of any truly major issues that may need to be addressed.

It can't be much of a conspiracy if the conspirator provides full disclosure. Thanks, Mark.

But I must say, this election will provide much for those of us in the PR community to learn from. This is the first major election where YouTube, Facebook and the full range of social media will come to play. Combine this with a higher-than-usual turnout for younger voters and you have something to watch. The Obama approach combatting the rumors is admirable and may work to some extent, but any time you try to refute a rumor you tend to give it some credibility. Since rumors can't always be proven, proving them false by dealing with each directly can be a nearly impossible task. Taking it to the next level by trying to trace the rumor back to its source can easily be turned on the candidate by characterizing this as a sort of witch hunt. If we all did this every time, Wal-Mart could trace the myriad of negative stories about it (unfair competition, sprawl, workplace policies, etc.) back to organized labor. The problem is, between the source and the light of day there are many very complicit and credible enablers who do not want their own agendas to surface. Kind of like a conspiracy.

I have always loved conspiracy theories. They are usually very inventive, and the theorist usually conveys a righteous indignation that is quite infectious.

That's why I enjoyed the comments on this post so much.

I am particularly fond of the suggestion that I wrote the Obama post in order to sneak in the old rumor that McCain fathered an illigitimate child.

While I would love to believe that little 'ol PR Junkie, with its 1,000 page views a day, is going to put Obama over the top, I have some serious doubts that we're that influential here.

Let me address some of the other theories about my real intention in writing the post:

1) That this blog is really just a front for Obama supporters. Look, I adore John McCain. In fact, I may be voting for him in November. While it is true that I am indeed a card-carrying member of The Liberal Media Elite (LME), I am one of those in our all-powerful cabal who think John McCain is secretly one of us.

OK, he did kow-tow to the GOP right, and he did make nice with the Bushies, but most of that was positioning for the primaries. Here is a man who labored for years to reduce the role of money in politics. He recently came around on climate change, and he's actually been seen talking to poor people in New Orleans.

Anyone who knows anything about McCain knows that he secretly detests George Bush and most of what Bush stands for. Like others in the Liberal Media Elite (LME), I do have problems with his desire to continue the Iraq war and that may ultimately determine my vote.

Finally, don't you just want to hug anyone who is so disliked by Rush Limbaugh? It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.

Second, my membership in the Liberal Media Elite (LME) has nothing to do with the various posts cited by Jon.

The Daily Show post is about young people and how they view Jon Stewart as a more credible news source than CNN, Fox News and other mainstream media channels. This has enormous ramifications if you work in advertising, public relations and media relations.

My post about Obama's fightthesmears.com web site is just an echo of what many web experts have already said: That Barack's team is ahead of anyone else in online PR, crisis management and messaging. My point is that we should study what the campaign has done and consider some of its tactics for our organizations. Thanks, Joan, for understanding this.

My Hillary post is really just an attack on Mark Penn, the latest PR person to soil the profession by whoring himself out to anyone who writes a check (in this case, the Colombian government).

So, there it is.

Please keep sending your conspiracy theories this way.

I do love them so.

Regardless of who did it, this idea of a rumor-fighting website is intriguing. Whether you're working for a political candidate or for a company that's getting community resistance to its plan for a new megastore or coal plant, the idea of addressing rumors as they surface, and offering a place to collect new rumors, is not so bad. It could, of course, turn into a "nah-ah" situation, with the opposition taking the same rumors and giving them substance; but especially if there are links to articles, quotations, photos, or research that give legs to the claims in the refutation or substantiation sites, it gives the public more to go on. I use Snopes.com all the time to find out whether I'm being forwarded truth or crap. Maybe if you'd back away from what you perceive to be Mark's political affiliation and have a look at what he's bringing to our attention, you'd see the value in Obama's tactic and how it could apply to other PR situations.

That's right, Jon. The liberal media elite have taken over PR Junkie. Where will it end?!?

Shame on you Ragan. How stupid do you think we are? Obvious you wrote the post for one purpose only -- to wrap the 'rumor' about Senator McCain in an accolade for Mr. Obama. I thought you had more talent. Why don't you publish content that elevates, not degrades, this profession.

A little recap of recent posts and videos: Scott McClellan defending his book, Jon Stewart as the new Walter Cronkite, Moyers giving O'Reilly "a taste of his own medicine," Hillary's loss, and now another pro-Obama piece about how the presidential candidate is fighting "lies and smears" - lies and smears, that is, according to Obama's website.

Gee Mark. Can you be a little more transparent in your agenda? Why not just put an "Obama in '08" banner across the top of your blog? I realize that politics relates to PR, but let's move on to subjects relavant to most of us who work in corporate America, not in politics.

I really don't care if you're pro-Obama and you want to express your opinion. But why here? There are plenty of Democratic blogs out there. At least have the decency to turn this into a political blog instead of disguising it as a PR blog.

By the way, lies and smears are part of politics. They ALL do it, even B. Hussein Obama. Is this a revelation to you?