| I'd love to know who those AAP members contacting AAP "in a panic" about having to sever formula ties were. |
Originally Posted by songbh  Satire is protected by the First Amendment -- this is free speech, the same right that enables us to speak truth to power. Throwing expensive lawyers at a highly-respected and valuable but entirely volunteer-driven e-mail list?? Tacky at best, abusive intimidation at worst. Why does the American Academy of Pediatrics hate not only breastfeeding but also the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? (Answer: because they both threaten their easy money from the formula companies.) |
Originally Posted by MaterPrimaePuellae I totally agree with Dr. Gordon's position, and I thought that the letter made a good point--- but I don't think that signing someone else's name to a widely distributed document is protected by the First Amendment. If the AAP had issued a statement advising formula feeding and full, CDC schedule vaccination, and signed it Dr. Gordon, I doubt we'd all just shrug and say, "Well, you know, the first amendment..." |
Originally Posted by MaryJaneLouise Dr. Gordon's letter was POLITICAL satire, POLITICAL speech. It's just like when Jon Stewart says, "George W. Bush did XYZ silly thing today" or "Obama said ABC outrageous statment", when obvoiusly they didn't. |
Originally Posted by MaterPrimaePuellae I totally agree with Dr. Gordon's position, and I thought that the letter made a good point--- but I don't think that signing someone else's name to a widely distributed document is protected by the First Amendment. If the AAP had issued a statement advising formula feeding and full, CDC schedule vaccination, and signed it Dr. Gordon, I doubt we'd all just shrug and say, "Well, you know, the first amendment..." |
Originally Posted by bluepetals This was my exact thought as well. It might be different if it were a spoken thing like the Jon Stewart show, but this was in writing and included a signature line, didn't it? To us, obviously a joke. To others, maybe not. Not that I don't agree with Dr. Gordon 110%, of course. But like the quote above says, if the situation were reversed, would we laugh it off....? |
| And now, after making this a legal matter, a representative of the AAP is standing up talking in public - at a social media keynote broadcast to the world - to ask a social media expert how they could go about harnessing the power of social media to manage the mess they've got themselves into. ... John from the AAP talks about the legal threats they have issued, ...Amber tells him to solve their problem with a blog and a twitter account. What was he thinking? Just - what? How does any of this make sense? And, as tigtog asks, is his resume up to date? Cleanup in Aisle Nine. |
| Unfortunately for the AAP, this makes absolutely no sense. The PR problem for the AAP is not Jay Gordon's silly, one-off press release on a subscriber-based email list. The problem is the fact that a virtual army of bloggers and online activists already hold a deep suspicion and animus toward the AAP as a result of their questionable ethics regarding the specific issue of infant formula promotion. If the AAP really wants to use social media effectively, the organization has to start their efforts with a clear-eyed, honest recognition of this context. ... What this means for the AAP is that from a purely strategic point of view, they need to decide that the brand is 100% okay with taking money and swag from the infant formula companies, and then be 100% ready to proactively explain and even promote that position via social media. |
| Why is it of interest? It's a chap from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in this video called only "John", quietly panicking about the organisation's latest public relations disaster: Jay Gordon's April Fool press release stating that the AAP would no longer accept sponsorship from infant formula companies. |
