|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
I suspect he isn't getting journalists
to quote him as much these days. The
taint is real, and he can't escape. At
first, no one seemed to care. Well, few
did. But now that the tide has turned,
people surely see that his predictions
turned out not to be so solid, being
PR essentially. He's smarter than most
PR people, so it worked for a time, but
PR is still PR. And that means it's
more propaganda than analysis.
PR people have some success, but not
because anyone admires PR. If their
stuff gets picked up, it's either because
it's unique info or because there is no one
else to quote or they have cultivated
a journalist. That's basically it.
Before the truth came out, people believed
it was sincere analysis, and they got
caught up in it. After finding out the
money connection, no one sees it the same
among real journalists. So except for
outlets that are basically also shills for
a party, no one is quoting him any more. It
took a while, but it is happening. So that
must be of concern to him. The problem he
faces now is, he knows nothing about US law.
I have a similar weakness if I tried to cover
EU law. I am not fully familiar with it, and
law isn't something you can just read about and
then you know it. You do need some experience
in real life to catch the nuances. And it is
the nuances that he consistently misses or gets
wrong. That's my opinion, anyway.
And if he wanted my advice, it'd be to stop
pretending to offer analysis and go full-throttle
as a PR or lobbyist guy. He's good at that,
and I say that sincerely. It was the pretense
that didn't work long term. If he straight up
opened a PR shop, he'd get business, I am sure,
and there'd be no taint, because people would
know what it was he was offering, so they wouldn't
feel used. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
