Bio not provided
@belllindsay Here is a RE TWEET by the very same man - from two days ago --- an elected councillor of the City of Hamilton - who has been one of the central Tweeters to spread the flames of hatred against the consultants - someone to whom research and facts are immaterial to the "game" :
20 Jan .... Even PR Daily has heard of #HamOnt's PR campaign gone so, SO wrong! #OurHamilton http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/13623.aspx# … [[ "Retweeted by Sam Merulla" ]] What you call a "PR apocalypse" was nothing more than a well orchestrated public lynching. I hope someday, you do get around to researching this in depth and correcting your story -- for it would be a great shame, if any Canadian PR professors or PR agencies were to end up using your article verbatim, as a case study.
2 years ago on Five Simple Steps to a Classic PR Disaster
@belllindsay Civilized conversations can only happen when one stops being so defensive and moralistic when one is called out for being slanderous and ill-informed. This is where your moral and ethical journalist compass went awry: "The problem started when The City of Hamilton hired a firm based in another city to build and launch the campaign." What you are telling your readers is that the "culprit" was the consultant company -- even before you have presented a prosecution worthy case. There was no problem well into 60% of the contracted work, up until part of the community engagement piece to be done over social media was initiated. Did you care to find out anything about the work done up this stage, the relationship between the city and the consultant upto this stage --- before you went ahead and slandered the company in Step 1, itself? Your journalistic compass simply broke down, when you deleted my comments by claiming it to be: "rather inflammatory content". What the normal world considers inflammatory is "public swarming", and false claims by media experts. Calling out those who spin loose stories in the name journalism or PR insights... stories that destroy reputations of others with no shred of evidence that could be held up in court, is not an attack on your credibility. You simply fell on the your own credibility and trampled all over it when I merely presented the facts. That it hurts you now so much is immaterial. Think about how much hurt your ill-researched article may have caused those you slandered to begin with. By deleting my comment on the "11 MYTH of a poor campaign" - you managed to get rid of the Updates which you ought to have made promptly, when it was brought to your attention. ::::::: For the readers here, again the comment deleted here by the author, can be found under Update, in its entirety at: http://metrohamilton.ning.com/profiles/blogs/does-hamilton-s-twitter-universe-represent-the-whole-city Why is it so hard to accept that you made a big mistake, and give an apology that is convincing? I am so, so sorry that "I caught you". I hope this is civilized enough a conversation for you. -- Mahesh P. Butani
**UPDATE: "Myths about the poor campaign" is published at: http://metrohamilton.ning.com/profiles/blogs/does-hamilton-s-twitter-universe-represent-the-whole-city
ginidietrich, AmyMccTobin: My apologies if you feel my comments are a rant. I was just mirroring the title and tone of this blog in my first line. I do not work for DP, nor am I in the PR industry. A simple Google search would have told you who I am -- (interestingly those who joined in the lynching also told that DP should have just googled HSR!! and then concluded that DP did not have a clue of what they were doing!! :)... Don't you think you have been unfair and defamed character with your story - when it is clear that you have not researched the piece you wrote, but just picked up what you found on the Internet and regurgitated it into 5 points? This is honest question. You'll appear to be in the PR industry, and are very passionate about deconstructing incidents such as these. If any learning has to occur from this, it is important to sift thru spin and fact. I have presented what are facts. It is up to you to recognize it and verify it for yourselves, or discount it and continue with the expanded lynching. In presenting facts, names have to be named unfortunately. A crime was committed. It was not a "new-media community conversation" that went awry, it was a premeditated act, which cascaded into a national embarassment for all who participated in it, and continue to do so. -- Mahesh P. Butani.
You are wrong Ms.Lindsay... your SPIN sucks!! What happened here is more than an overreach of a small town echo chamber. Here is how this 'trivialization' got started by an individual with his explicit public call to "swarm" Dialogue Partners via twitter. There was no thought to the legal consequences of inciting such directed public action. Without allowing Dialogue Partners time to offer an explanation, the inciter acted as the arbiter of DP's website design, and went on to act as the "Judge, Jury and the Executioner" of whom he considered had grossly wronged the entire city of Hamilton. And the mob, maybe 50 or even less, took the bait and started their one-liner public swarming with sarcastic comments, jabs, juvenile comebacks and re-tweets. Does such a juvenile call to swarm in the most brazen manner, represent the beliefs and aspirations of the rest of 500,000+ Hamiltonians? Even the local press along with the three councillors dived right into it, ...read more at: Can a few people define a city's culture or its future? http://metrohamilton.ning.com/profiles/blogs/can-a-few-people-in-hamilton-define-its-culture-or-its-future and http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/01/20/hamilton-dissecting-the-dialogue-partners-debate.html#data