The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is a good
professional organization. It helps practitioners to improve their
skills. Sometimes, however, its writers slip into advocacy instead of
education. Consider this online piece
on the communication challenge of climate change. The author starts
reasonably enough with a sentence on “conflicting views.” He even writes:

[M]any
observers, including Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, question the scientific
absolutes of the global warming theory and emphasize that severe
economic fallout could accompany forced climate change controls.

 But the only link in the article is to http://www.fightglobalwarming.com. The author also laments:

Even
though many state governments have enacted regulations, it looks like
Congress will not be ready to pass mandatory GHG regulations this year
considering dedicated opposition in the House, the Senate and the
current Administration. (The 2006 elections, though, may shift
priorities.)

Then he finally remembers
that PR is a business with paying clients, not journalism with free
rein to embed opinions in straight pieces.

As
PR practitioners, are we ready to help corporations show the world how
they are striving to be good corporate citizens and tackle the climate
change challenge?

The answer from a business point of view, of course, is simple ? if our clients want us to move in that direction, we will.

Why not prepare corporate and other
clients to defend their views, whatever they may be instead of nudging
the client to support feel-good government intervention that may harm
the client and the economy?