Honestly, going into this blog assignment, I thought it was going to be a breeze. I take that back, more like a strong wind. I though I would embrace the ‘blogosphere’, I didn’t.

I enjoy expressing my opinions through writing but when I began to read more prolific blogs, I realized I kinda sucked. That said, it was an interesting endeavor

But now, to quote the Tom Petty song, I’m heading into the great wide open. Well not really the great wide open, but San Francisco is close enough to the great wide open I think. That is where I’ll be spending my summer. I was lucky enough to earn a public relations internship at Live Nation, a ticket sales and live concert promotion company.

Thanks to Bill Sledzik and his PR online class, we’ve all been able to touch on a media channel that most of our class did not fully understand. Though I wouldn’t say I’ve become a blogger in the process, this class has introduced the power of social media to me. I hope to bring some of what I have learned with me to San Francisco.

So farewell for now, I may be back. It might not be through this particular blog, but who knows where I’ll be, or if I’ve improved my ‘blogging skills’ enough to bashfully return to the dark side.

Very recently, the Reverend made comments blaming the U.S. government for the Aids epidemic in a direct attempt to kill “black” people, and blames the United States for 9-11 (perhaps not so radical).

Somehow Obama has been drug into the media blitz of Reverend Wright’s opinions. In a statement made by Obama on April 28, he distanced himself from the pastor who once endorsed him.

“I am outraged at the comments that were made” said Obama, “It saddens me and shocks me. Reverend Wright does not speak for me.”

Though the comments by the Reverend were first picked up by mass media in mid-March, the story is still making its rounds on major media outlets. Perhaps Obama could have avoided some of this if he would have acknowledged he used to go to church with a “crazy” for a Reverend, but alas now we have something to talk about for the next month.

This story is particularly interesting because it deals with race, government conspiracy and terrorism. What recipe could be better to over shadow Obama’s message of hope and in my opinion, near-flawless campaign?

It seems to me the media is making this story into a kind of six degrees of separation. I wonder if Hillary Clinton or John McCain knew someone once, 25 years ago that used a racial epithet? Probably, and if so shouldn’t we hunt that person down so all the major “news” networks can help to influence their campaigns too?

 That seems fair. And isn’t all fair in media spin and politics?

MSNBC reported yesterday that during a rally in Raleigh, NC., Barack Obama may have disguised flip of his middle finger as a mere cheek scratch. Not only does Contessa Brewer not know if what Obama’s action was aimed at Clinton, but she doesn’t even know if he was actually flipping her off.

As enthralling (cough, cough) as this presidential race is, there has GOT to be something else to talk about. I’m sure these MSNBC correspondents can something up. Oh! Like maybe the global food shortage, the AIDS pandemic in Africa or Dancing With the Stars!Something  important.

This faux story had already made its rounds on RedState and Foxnews.com, but the middle finger claim was shot down as anything legitimate.

The perplexing aspect about this issue is that it’s even an issue at all. I belive entertainment reported as news is a direct result of too many news outlets.

Years ago when the major news networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) were American’s only source for news, the stations had to focus on the most important news stories of the day. News was a family event.

Now, mom and dad can watch CNN and the kids can watch E! News to watch Lindsay Lohan fall off ‘the bandwagon’.

But I guess if worse comes to worse Obama could always react like George Costanza. “It wasn’t a flip, it was a scratch, no flip, scratch”!

The Web makes everything easier right? You can research anything in a matter of seconds, contact hundreds of friends on Instant Messenger and e-mail assignments to a professor last minute (my personal favorite). Very recently, I’ve discovered the ‘beauty’ of online taxes. With the Web site TurboTax, I was able to complete my Federal and State taxes in 30 minutes.

When I checked the last box, on the last form, I sighed with relief. My first attempt at doing my own taxes was complete! However, there was more on the agenda I was not prepared for.

I was asked to donate to a presidential candidate’s campaign. I did a little research and discovered this practice has been around for some time. This being my first time doing my own taxes, however, I was frankly annoyed.

Not only do I owe the state a couple hundred dollars, but that is not enough. I should donate to Hillary’s, Obama’s or McCain’s campaign? No! Not gonna do happen Uncle Sam. I’m done owing you money for the year. I have an education to pay for so I can get a real job and give you MORE money.

One of those ideas was Synthetic Authenticity. Hmmm sounds like an oxy moron, however, the article written by John Cloud claims synthetic authenticity is driving America’s consumer market.

A major focal point of synthetic authenticity is the virtualization of American’s lives. People are making “friends” on Facebook and MySpace they have never met. Remember they aren’t your friends unless it’s confirmed. Major companies such as Microsoft and Apple are pitching products to bloggers.

James Gilmore and Joseph Pine II run an extremely successful consulting firm in Aurora, Ohio called Strategic Horizons. It was nine years ago these two wrote that businesses need to start selling the experience, not just the products.

Buyers aren’t just purchasing products according to the age old supply and demand laws. People are buying based on how they “feel” about a certain pair of shoes or the latest two door roadster. Products have to reflect what a person thinks they are, or what they strive to be. The obstacle for companies is to sell authenticity, even if they aren’t really authentic.

Admit that the marketing campaign is silly and actually has nothing to do with your product. Step up and create an experience that most buyers will enjoy. The Web allows companies to present themselves however they wish and maybe not for what their product actually does. If people can have totally different lives on the Internet, so can companies. But would it kill them to be a little more transparent?

50 million people have viewed this video in the past nine months. That’s almost 17 percent of our country! This video was released nearly a year and a half before the 2008 presidential election, when there were still several candidates in the running for the democratic nomination and Amber still appeared on the Today Show, Howard Stern, CNN and Fox News. Man, this viral thing has got me thinking.

We’ve been learning in my public relations on-line course that the Internet is viral. It clings to things and is carried by word of mouth. This video is perfect representation of the power the Internet is capable of. But swaying the public’s opinion on the next President of The United States? Certainly not…

Hey look, it’s a hot girl. Hey look, it’s about a presidential candidate. Does it really matter if people are watching for the wrong reasons? For Obama it did. He released a statement that he denied any affiliation with Amber and that he did not endorse her video. Let’s think about this. Obama’s camp felt this video was enough of a sensation that it could cause some kind of damage to Obama’s campaign. Does this say something about the power of the Internet, or the power of public opinion? Or do they go hand in hand? One thing is certain; 50 million people have lots of opinions.

Basically the video was a satirical take on our country’s blundered leadership. There are tons of these “You-tube” type videos around the Internet, but how did my pr prof at Kent State University get her hands on it? The answer is via e-mail. One of her pr “buddies” sent it to her and that person received it through e-mail from another pr professional. So is this pr? Does it have any pr value? If you actually watch the video it may.

“Then there’s the Royal Limbaugh coin with the Greco-Roman interpretation of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coultre under the heading one media, one voice”. Satirical? Yes. Effective? Possibly.

Does humor have a place in pr? Could  five minute privately produced on-line videos reach enough of the public to sway opinion? I don’t know but my professor showed our class, and I showed my brother, and my brother showed his politics professor at Notre Dame of Ohio, and his politics professor showed his class and…

Hey everyone, (or just the one or two people who may read my blog) I’d like to introduce myself for my first ever blog post. I’m a first year graduate student at Kent State University, and I’ve been given the somewhat daunting task of creating a blog that discusses public relations in some form. I’ve come up with the idea to discuss public relations as it relates to politics, but focusing on how right wing conservative personalities can shift public opinion. The blog is called prRush. A small tribute to my favorite (cough, cough) talk show host. I’ve often wondered how Rush and other right wing conservative “journalists”(?) get away with some of the things they say. Aside from being self proclaimed deities, they each must have one heck of a public relations team, and no doubt a full time “damage controller”. So, I’ve decided to take on the mock task of defending what these chest thumping, haha liberals gotcha good “journalists”(?) are saying. Hopefully by delving into this subject matter I will get a better grasp as to what really has an influence on public opinion, and if public relations really matters. I certainly hope it does. Public relations is what I’m going to school for, so I certainly don’t want to end up a pr “ditto head”.