Golden State PR guy anonymously defends franchise on message board

Happens all the time. And as has been said in this thread, people do this because promoting the franchise's (or school's) best interests is in their own best interest. They think they're doing their job, smarmy as it may be. I don't know how these types can look in the mirror, but this is pretty typical for some of the fanboards, like Rivals sites.

For instance: After a prominent coach at a major school was fired a few years ago, a couple of brand-new "The administration did the right thing" posters showed up at the school's fansite. Prompted a small exodus, as supporters of the ousted coach felt they couldn't discuss their beloved coach without getting shouted down by what they thought were "plants." (They started a new board . . . on which the main topic of conversation was what jerks and idiots the people at the old board were).

Anyway, fanboards are tough places to wade into for professionals like PR people and, as has been discussed here, journalists. Easy for a "group" to turn into a "mob." And easy to find yourself written about in the SJ Mercury News.

 

I think it'd be more interesting news if it weren't him steering things in a positive direction. I'm sure many athletic departments and teams have staffers in some capacity posting on message boards, however unofficially they may do it ...

 

I know of a guy who works for a pro team who uses a fake name to post on message boards and, among other things, takes swipes his own organization. It could probably get him fired, but I'm keeping this knowledge in my back pocket. I gain more the way it is now. Honestly it's far more entertaining to watch what a complete tool he is.

 

Right on. A couple of beat writers post on our fanboard, ALWAYS under their own names. Same with the guys from the local sportstalker, although they don't post as often as they used to. We're happy to have them on the board, and as a mod, I do my best to make sure nobody takes a run at them.
(I respect your opinion on this, Moddy, and I'll admit I was leery of how it was going to work out. But so far, the vast majority of our posters appreciate the fact that they're willing to make an effort to interact with us.)

And if anyone from the front office posted on our board pretending to be a fan, I'd be sorely tempted to do precisely what the gang at WW.com did. To me, staying silent would be the equivalent of allowing them to use our site to promote the company line, but without identifying it as such.

 

People I have worked for have encouraged me to use a different screen name, so as to not give the impression I am biased (hell, yes, I am.... that's not going to change). I can see arguments both ways.

It's hard to royally rip someone you have to work with.

 

The local sports TV folks frequently comment on our Web site.

A November exchange went like this:

"Channel 11 woman: Why wait until tomorrow? I'll be watching it at 11 2nite!
Channel 2 man: Yup, you should be watching it on Channel Two!"

Maybe this would be a problem somewhere else. But here? I feel sorry for 'em. They get worse ratings than 2 a.m. Girls Gone Wild commercials, and this was probably the best plug they got all year.

 

I'm pretty sure this situation was the fan site asking the journalist to confirm what it had already determined regarding the post. Wildly different than the Atlanta situation if you ask me. There, the newspaper's IT dept was the sleuth, but here it was the fanboy site which asked the newspaper guy, who had the access that the fan site may note have. Not sure if that changes the situation entirely but it does seem like a significant distinction to me.

 

How does the sayng go: Distinction without a difference?

I'm just reacting to these boards -- whether the fan site or the newspaper's de facto fan site -- tracing IP addresses in attempts to identify the people commenting. Defeats the purpose of allowing "anonymous" comments, especially when we're not talking about anything libelous, illegal or obscene.

If everyone who posts on such a board knows that the people running it will -- as they see fit -- track down just who is posting, got to think that negates any sense that the board is providing a free exchange of opinions and ideas.

If you're critical of a newspaper on an allegedly open and anonymous board, but the newspaper then sics a reporter on you, that's weinie behavior. If you post stuff on a fan board and the board -- because your posts were positive toward the team that mostly draws criticism -- tracks you down for a reporter, still think it's weinie.

Just don't post -- or just delete -- the for-hire advocate's stuff. It's the outing part that makes me think less of the folks running both boards.

 

The comments, including those on this board, are NEVER anonymous. They are pseudonymous. The sites have no legal obligation to protect your identity. In most cases, they have every legal obligation to give it. That's why there are the multiple exhortations to be careful on here.

Plus, this is the kind of situation as to why I defended the AJC against that Atlanta Spirit blowhard. It IS a story when a team employee, especially one of some importance, is passing themselves off falsely on a message board. It's not the president being shot, but it's news. Again, ask the Whole Foods CEO how that works.

 

Worth noting that the GF, she works in corporate communications, went to a new media seminar and one of the things taught was how to sign up to message boards and blogs to leave anonymous comments.
To either give your organization press or to spin a situation.

 

i can't believe there are people who say this is ok. post all you want on the message boards. defend your organization to the death. promote the hell out of the good news. these are all fine.

but don't do it anonymously!!!!!! very unprofessional.