The young dead soldiers do not speak.
Nevertheless they are heard in the still houses.
(Who has not heard them?)....

They say,
We were young. We have died. Remember us.

They say,
We have done what we could
But until it is finished it is not done.

They say,
We have given our lives
But until it is finished no one can know what our lives gave.

They say,
Our deaths are not ours,
They are yours,
They will mean what you make them.

They say,
Whether our lives, and our deaths were for peace and a new hope
Or for nothing
We cannot say.
It is you who must say this.

They say,
We leave you our deaths,
Give them their meaning.

-- Archibald McLeish

Um, no, of course it isn't. But this polemic against VNRs says otherwise. I'll let my previous comments on this overheated topic stand.

Here's the PRSA news release. And read this if you want my take on this silliness.

PRSA PRESIDENT AND CEO JUDITH T. PHAIR TO TESTIFY DURING SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING ON PENDING VIDEO NEWS RELEASE LEGISLATION

NEW YORK (MAY 10, 2005) - Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) President and CEO Judith T. Phair, APR, Fellow PRSA, has been invited to testify during a full committee hearing this Thursday, May 12 at 10:00 a.m. EDT, on U.S. Senate Bill S. 967 - pending legislation that, if passed, would require any video news release (VNR) produced by a U.S. Government agency to carry a frame-by-frame disclaimer when broadcast that identifies the sponsoring agency. The invitation was sent by Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

"PRSA believes that VNRs should be produced and disseminated with the highest levels of transparency, candor and honesty," said Phair. "That means public relations professionals - both in and out of government - who are involved in the production of VNRs and audio news releases must in all cases reveal to broadcasters who the sponsors are for the causes and interests represented and disclose all financial interests related to the prepackaged products."

Phair will join a yet-to-be-disclosed group of witnesses invited to testify concerning the need to require broadcasters, cable providers and others to specify, according to government regulations, the origin of prepackaged news stories produced by federal agencies.

The hearing will be broadcast via a live webcast. To view the webcast, click on the following link: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1497 or visit www.senate.gov. The hearing may also be broadcast on C-SPAN (check your local provider for the daily broadcast schedule). Phair's testimony to the Senate Committee will be available following the conclusion of the hearing.

Excerpted from MediaPost's TV Watch, by Wayne Friedman:

With fewer creative minds left to develop TV shows, television programmers have finally given up - they are now entertaining the thought of using advertising agencies as TV producers.

Fox Television Stations has signed a first-look programming deal with the hot Miami, Fla. agency, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the agency that is the brains behind some of the best advertising campaigns, for clients such as Burger King, Google, Earthlink, Gateway, Virgin Atlantic Airways, and Victoria's Secret...

Everyone has ideas for TV shows... Why not go to the people who are already producing 30-second and 60-second TV shows? Sure, they are schilling products. But isn't everyone? Of course, everyone will leap to the natural thought that CP+B, with this deal, is really looking to create branded entertainment for their clients - the faux new wave of TV programming, where consumer products are woven into the story line of programs...

In reality, there isn't much money to be made in branded entertainment... CP+B realizes it can make more as a producer of a TV show, which can have back-end and merchandising rights, and if successful can be a big profit center for any company, including an advertising agency.

For Fox, this is a no-lose situation - it gets a first-look for anything CP+B comes up with... History has already shown advertising writers can become successful TV programming writers, so there is precedent this can work.

In recent months, more PR firms are reluctantly -- and awkwardly -- pitching stories to bloggers as they do to other media. But "citizen journalists" often end up feeling like second-class citizens in the process. The bloggers get the last laugh, of course, because they can -- and ALWAYS do -- write about their unjust treatment. Here's one hilarious example, provided in painful detail by John Gorenfeld.

The new PRWeek has a Q&A with LA Weekly writer Nikki Finke, who says that fewer PR practitioners appreciate the role of journalists, and journalism, these days. As she puts it:

The minute you get them on the phone, you already have four strikes against you. That you exist on this planet, that you are daring to ask a question, that you're trying to write any kind of truthful story, and fourth, that you're a miserable human being, and part of a race of mankind who should be wiped off the face of the planet. It's impossible.

I've always thought that the meaner the flack is, the meaner the press will be against the client. And I wish clients took that into account when they do the hiring. They may think they're getting a pit bull, but it's the press who's gonna bite them. Look at the greats in PR, the real old-time greats…these were people who were and are very engaging with the media. You actually got the feeling they liked reporters.

Finke lays it on a bit thick, but I agree that fewer PR folks today fully understand and appreciate journalists -- a trend at least partly attributable to the fact that more corporations are tapping beancounters or slick marketing types (rather than, say, former journalists) to lead that function.

That said, I don't think PR pros should kiss up to reporters, either, which is the model that Finke seems to prefer. Personally, I love and respect journalism -- and that's why I have no problem letting reporters know when they are being irresponsible or discourteous, and thereby discrediting their profession.

Sorry that I'm catching this a bit late, but there's a nice story in Slate about the positive impact Jim Romenesko's blog has had on the practice of journalism -- specifically, providing a forum for journalists to act as watchdogs for the profession.