Talk:Leipzig Declaration: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Standing corrected (in part) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::I'm familiar with ''PR Watch'' and his other projects. You completely misunderstand the purpose of the site, however. It is not "devoted to environmentalist views", it is devoted to documenting the deceptive use of public relations campaigns by corporations. This ''frequently'' involves environmental issues, but Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have also reported about the use of PR in wars, by dictators, by tobacco companies, by tech companies like Microsoft and so on. I really recommend reading both books for getting a better understanding of the subject in question. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 21:29 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC) |
:::I'm familiar with ''PR Watch'' and his other projects. You completely misunderstand the purpose of the site, however. It is not "devoted to environmentalist views", it is devoted to documenting the deceptive use of public relations campaigns by corporations. This ''frequently'' involves environmental issues, but Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have also reported about the use of PR in wars, by dictators, by tobacco companies, by tech companies like Microsoft and so on. I really recommend reading both books for getting a better understanding of the subject in question. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 21:29 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC) |
||
:: I stand corrected. His website is '''''primarily''''' devoted to environmentalist views. Nevertheless, it is not a general media watch site, but only points out PR that disagrees with his own views (not all of which are environmentalist). --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] |
|||
Revision as of 21:31, 15 January 2003
Thanks, turns out we worked in parallel on the article. Your version is better, so I'll just dump mine. (Note to copyright hawks: Sheldon Rampton is the author both of the cited book and the Wikipedia article.) --Eloquence 09:43 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
Sheldon Rampton's "PR Watch" is not objective but only looks for people that disagree with his environmentalist views. His view of the Leipzig Declaration is one-sided. --Uncle Ed
- I disagree. The article presents both sides of the debate accurately. All you did was insert a couple of headlines, which doesn't add any more or less neutrality to the article than previously. If there is a response from the creators of the Declaration about the findings reported on here, I'd like to hear about it. It is, however, typical in the case of such PR stunts that they are ignored once their purpose is fulfilled. Also, why did you remove the "S. Fred Singer's" before SEPP? It is important in this debate to identify organizations with individuals, especially if the same heads keep popping up again and again .. I'll therefore add this back in. Also, where did Sheldon express "environmentalist views"? Did you read the referenced books? --Eloquence 21:21 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with PR Watch and his other projects. You completely misunderstand the purpose of the site, however. It is not "devoted to environmentalist views", it is devoted to documenting the deceptive use of public relations campaigns by corporations. This frequently involves environmental issues, but Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have also reported about the use of PR in wars, by dictators, by tobacco companies, by tech companies like Microsoft and so on. I really recommend reading both books for getting a better understanding of the subject in question. --Eloquence 21:29 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. His website is primarily devoted to environmentalist views. Nevertheless, it is not a general media watch site, but only points out PR that disagrees with his own views (not all of which are environmentalist). --Uncle Ed