Sorry for the delay… i know i *did* promise a comment, so here you go.

I think one of the most interesting points about the whole set of issues here is that you can turn the question on its head. The activity of PR can’t be encapsulated in one unilateral theory of communication from organization to audience; and you make this very clear in the discussion of the proliferation of media and fora for the creation, manipulation and transmission of ideas.

Heath’s quote nicely contextualises the problem and emphasises the processual nature of PR, rather than a ‘thing’ which professionals dispense at their own will. I suppose the question is how do we get from the position that Heath descibes to making a contribution to modern society?

Personally, i’m skeptical of Skerlap. The process of PR is too idealist; i.e. the mechanisms for reaching the “truth” are rarely or totally available; which needs some adjustment to reflect modern society. For example massive asymmetries of power (and therefore persuasiveness of each voice) between parties involved, Skerlap also seems apolitcal (the dimensions of agenda, rhetoric and truth are interwoven, but not neccesarily aligned) and factors of inclusivity and exclusivity (e.g. the digital divide in th UK or censorship in China [Google]) - between all these competing dialogues it is a large step to get a truth claim… hmmm ramble ramble

does modern society stand as a distinct group who are technologically ‘enabled’ or is it as ubiquitous a group as the term society should imply? (hmm a bit too socio-political).

I like your answer, it outlines the stands of theory out there and begins to illustrate the shortcomings of trad. approaches.

Jason Whitmen