Henry Copeland Defends Dr. Myra’s Honor; Hope She’s Paying You Enough

Excellent point, Mr. Anonymous. In fact, "funny stuff" on the Internet that "no one ever would take seriously" has been reported as fact again and again.Putting intentionally false entries on Wikipedia is the equivalent of someone who throws an empty beer can out his car window and then wonders why people whine about pollution. It's information pollution -- period.Oh, and it's not that funny, either.

I find it amazing that advertising people will say, "Oh what's the harm? It's funny" when they are making up Wikipedia pages and generally disrespecting resources that a lot of people take seriously. You can make a joke without causing people to question what's real and honest and what's not. And if the ad people want to say, "Oh, anybody who reads that wikipedia entry should know it was a joke..what's the big deal?" Well then there's also the case of JOhn Seigenthaler, where someone wrote on his Wikipedia entry that he was responsible for the Kennedy assassination. Just a joke, right? That kind of joke ends up in print as fact sometimes, as this blog and other blogs hav pointed out.

For all I know, "Dr. Myra" is stock photography. Maybe you can buy her yourself from Getty Images and rename her "Dr. OnMessagefromWagnerCommunications."

Do you think Dr. Myra would be hot if she took off those glasses and let her hair down a bit?Maybe if I had the right cell phone nearby???

Well, it's a great case study for PR and marketing: what not to do.Don't have a fake blog come and comment on a real blog. Don't add a Wikipedia entry on your fake blog and fake company.Don't go on the offensive when people call you out as a putz, crap, or whatever term you would prefer to use for this astroturf.And, once again, it shows why PR should be in charge of any blog campaign. We're used to dealing with criticism and understand the need for honesty and transparency.