Sometimes it just turns out that the subject, upon closer examination, doesn’t warrant the kind of further study that originally seemed possible. Starting with the timeline from the QU Chronicle events it quickly became apparent that the online portion of the story was secondary in the extreme. No argument, no digital media controversy. This one lands squarely in the realm more of legal interpretations vs. social/academic ethics and mores and doesn’t really get fuelled too much by the media questions.
I suppose it does actually fall squarely in the realm of communications, though, in the sense that the University president and his staff have botched this whole case from the getgo in 2006. Public Relations really needs to learn that sometimes it’s okay to admit there’s a problem, if you communicate it the right way. Have we learned nothing from political campaigns? Transparency is your friend when you are in a position of public view. Admit to the fact that something might not have been spoken the best way, and no one cares. Try to cover it up, and everyone whips into a frenzy. Maybe it’s just the human instinct that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Ah well. I guess I’ll have to actually relax this semester break after all.