I found this morning's press FASCINATING.

It's long been my contention that what we see in terms of the supposed 'War on Terrorism' is in fact one of the last major confrontations between fundementally different world views. The 19th and 20th centuries were characterised by the conflict of cultures as Western imperialism spread across the globe before turning back in on itself and fighting two world wars. Once the western world finally got bored of conflict and forged a broad concensus, the next ideological clash came with communism. Post Cold-war, the break up of the Soviet Empire and the increasing corporatisation of China, we are left with a world which, whilst culturally diverse, doesn't at first glance seem to have any major conflicting power-bases. Unless of course we wind back the clock to an issue which has been brewing since Mr Darwin made his uncomfortable observations and threw a spanner into the unchallenged works of theology. Unchallenged, as in earlier centuries, those representing the interests of theology had a habit of burning the people who tried. Being clever and making some pretty obvious conclusions could shorten your life. As an aside, I wonder how modern Christians equate the evil of 2000 years of torture and murder in their religion's name with the concept of a loving and existant God? No doubt those who suppressed and persectuted scientists hundreds of years ago in our own culture also used the justification that 'heretical' theories and publications 'intended insult'.

The War on terrorism I'd say, is the next clash and its actually a war of secular values and the philosophy of short-termist logic, against the philisophy of superstition and delusion. Both extremes appear utterly abhorent to me. However, when he completed his Origin Of Species, Darwin completed a process begun by Gallileo, Copernicus and a host of other scientists who'd been forced to conflict with clerical dogma and supressed or persecuted as a result. In the end, science proved (if nothing else) that the word of the cleric or that which was interpreted in the translation of a very old book was NOT necessarily the literal truth. What an irony that the Muslim world, the very culture which protected and tollerated the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans which in turn made the Renaissance and the evolution of science possible, is one so often characterised by such appalling modern intollerance. Isn't it the same type of intollerance once shared by the crusading Christians, and isn't it the same one which now holds back the developement of the Mulim nations? How would a modern Muslim state have handled the equivalent of a Darwin? What a shame that they seem to show much of the same rabid justification to kill in the name of a deity - or even a human prophet - as (back to Darwin and Creationism) the Christian right-wing in America applies to issues like abotion or the death penalty. Two modern extremes find themselves on opposite sides with the moderate secular world in between.

I listened today, agog with disbelief after reports of flag burning, death threats and banners inviting fellow Muslims to 'butcher' those responsible for the cartoons of Mohammed (PBUH!). Part of the justification which they used (and which appears all over the bbc online 'your views' forum courtesy of various self-professed Muslims) is that the West showed similar contempt when an Iranian minister expressed doubts about the accuracy of the perception of the Holocaust. I seem to remember disgust and vocal condemnation, even from those who have their own criticisms of Israeli policy, but did anyone threaten the equivalent to a Fatwa? Hardly. Since when has mere offence, however appalling or heartfelt, even if designed as a deliberate provocation, been a moral justification or excuse for murder? In this country and much of Europe, not for several hundred years. If Islam is the culture and philosphy of peace and tollerance which so many Muslims would like us to believe, why such a widespread reaction? Is the evolution of Islamic civilisation really so far behind? I was distressed by the sacking of the Jordanian editor by his Egyptian proprietor who dared to suggest that the Muslim world might be over-reacting, given that the Western World had already been subjected to the barbarism of seeing hostages beheaded on video tape, not to mention suicide bombings and 9/11 committed in the name of their religion. He dared to suggest that it was hardly surprising the The West had a biased perception of Islamic intollerance if people reacted with violence to what was, compared to the London bombings, a matter of cultural misunderstanding. It seemed to me that his comments showed a rare wisdom in terms of empathy and understanding - and the fact that he lost his job as a result can only reinforce the obvious conclusion. Why is so much of what we hear from the Islamic world dominated by such rage? Is it as a result of ignorance or intellectual impotence, derived from cultures of conformity, which do not exposed individuals to philosophical challenges or questions beyond the teachings of the local Iman?

DEVILS ADVOCATE I'm a thirty something PR 'professional'. I use that term loosely, because despite attempts to the contary, I'd contend that PR doesn't really qualify as such. PR remains a grey practice, sitting somewhere between Marketing, Advertising and Events Management - with the definitions often pushed or pulled between any of those departments, depending on available budget or the need to shift responsibility or blame.

RUBBISH IN, RUBBISH OUT

Yep - there are plenty out there who'd like us to believe that PR is a science rather than an art, but sadly, my feeling after ten years in the job, is that the pseudo-intelectualisation of PR has far more to do with some practitioners attempts to PR PR, than the reality of the practice. And my justification? How many people can even properly define or agree what PR is - despite the best efforts of the double-barrelled grandees of the IPR? Precious few in my experience. The broader view continues to be that PR is the practice of smoke and mirrors - the belief that someone can 'put some spin on that'. Some highly paid and supposedly experienced managers within marketing departments have used those precise words to me. They really still believe that its possible to polish the proverbial turd. It shocks me even more to see that high profile spokespeople within the PR industry seem to want to actually perpetuate that perception. No wonder the media continues to talk in terms of 'spin'. But then again, the high profile agencies who define the perception of PR need to perpetuate that notion in order to win new business by appearing to be capable of achieving what their propective clients think they want. Its literally a self-reinforcing illusion (or delusion, depending upon your perspective!). And to continue the analogy of the polished turd, as a result, some of it has soiled the PR practitioner's hands.

JOCASTA KNOWS BEST...

The broader corporate industry view seems to remain that PR is still an adjunct to marketing and something which deals with issues as 'projects' - as though they were sausages on a conveyor belt, just a set of products coming along at predictable intervals. I think it's why PR (along with advertising and specialist marketing) is so often farmed out to agencies rather than something which is seen as a thing in which organisations should invest as an important in-house knowledgebase. I'd suggest that's why blinkered corporations remain happily myopic as to the reality that the hundreds of thousands of pounds they are spending on a retainer, is more often than not being 'spent' by the agency on the peppercorn salary of a 21 year old grauate called Jocasta, who actually knows next to nothing about the products or services her employees purport to be promoting. She's cheap, she can pick up the phone and either take a note or read the prepared statement. Does she bring anything else to the picture? Meanwhile, her agency superiors front the client relationship but often have little to do with the day to day running of the account.

THE WORTH OF AN IDEA...

REAL 'professional' PR in my view should be about the shaping of strategy - rather than the continued use of PR as either a fire-fighting department or as a means of getting free editorial to support the launch of a product. For PR to have really achieved the hype of its OWN industry protestations of worth, it must be actively involved in shaping the evolution of products, service offering and company policy. My experience to date is that this level of influence is severely limited. I seem to be spending a hell a lot of my time thinking 'I/a colleague spotted and flagged that three years ago as a potential issue/opportunity and was ignored'. If we'd been working for a consultancy, especially a management consultacy with no more knowledge or experience but presenting a hell of a lot bigger bill - I suspect our ideas would have been listened to. Thats because the culture of the UK corporate machine seems pre-programmed to assess the value of an opinion with the amount of money that it cost to hear it, rather than its intrinsic worth. Middle management seem to be devoid of ideas which haven't been outsourced, regardless of the in-house talent which often surrounds them. As long as PRs are cheap to employ (and a steady production line of desperate debt ridden graduates like Jocasta will ensure that they are) much of the value of what we have to offer will continue to be diminished or ignored.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SHORT TERMISM

The trouble with proving ourselves through the accumulation of achievement is that so little of the positive can be measured on the bottom line by the bean-counters, and as we all know, we are all in thrall to the balance sheet. In the short term we can see the coverage and even attempt to measure and assess it - but how this translates into actual cause-and-effect brand preference or increased sales often takes too long to percolate through. I beleive that corporate decision makers base their 'strategies', such as they are once you've cut through the brand verbage, principally in terms of their own career aspirations: Basically, if your activity or proposal doesn't deliver spread-sheet friendly results within their three year CV window, you may be flagging the wrong opportunity regardless, as its irrelevent to their self-interest. PR in the meantime continues to be the repository for awkward questions, unwanted enquiries and as a means of keeping the press at arms length from the bigwigs - interspersed with the occasional mad panicked rush to coordinate press attention with some sort of launch. The irony of all of this is of course that the bean-counters are ultimately answerable to the investors - and the result of the press coverage surrounding ill-conceived vetures or successful coverage does ultimately make a difference. And until corporate culture evolves to adopt a more joined up philosophy, things are highly unlikely to change.