I was willing to move past the issue, but PRSA appears to want to continue getting criticized over its accreditation process by indirectly defending itself.

PRSA’s been pushing a post on its blog called “Is Public Relations Accreditation Worthwhile?” which also has a video advocating the importance of the APR process.

Along with the video (launched June 10 on Youtube) is this statement:

“The National Capital Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America offers accreditation. For more information, please visit http://www.PRSA-NCC.org.”

In other words: It’s an indirect defense by being posted on PRSA’s blog, and it’s a soft sales pitch.

In light of criticisms, the question is how much more disingenuous can PRSA be?

In crisis communications, approaching a controversy in such a manner is called a diversionary strategy. Rather than face the issue head on, PRSA meagerly grappled with it but refused to link back the sources of criticism until criticized in the comments section of Michael Cherenson’s initial defense. Even then, rather than create a standard text hyperlink, PRSA chose to short link the articles with Bit.ly. The blogs remain unnamed.

PRSA’s handling of this situation sets a poor example for the PR profession. It’s as if the Society’s own ethical principles are selectively followed.

The free-flow of information? Not here, not now.

And to the PR folks who still read this blog: Please consider getting your APR if you haven’t already. While imperfect, it’s a valuable experience. At the same time, I think there’s something learn from PRSA’s handling of this situation.