I stumbled across a post from back in April that included a statement I had to re-read several times to make sure I had it right: “Most PR bloggers are rarely critical of the industry and are genuinely giddy about the power of blogging.” The post, from The Bivings Group’s Rita Desai, makes two sweeping statements in one sentence. I have problems with both of them, but mostly the first.

I don’t read every PR blog, but I read about 50 of them, and one of the things I like about them—what keeps me coming back—is the remarkable degree of candor most of them display in their criticism of the PR industry. Not every post, of course, but whenever there’s a reason to take a stand (such as a news report of an agency or practitioner breeching ethical standards), the PR blogosphere tends to speak with a strong voice. Some of the topics I recall addressed by PR bloggers, off the top of my head, include pay-for-placement, questionable uses of video news releases, astroturfing, spamming, sending news releases that contain no news, and introducing services the agency is unqualified to provide. There have been calls for more action by the associations that represent the profession and harsher consequences for unethical behavior. Heck, there’s even a blog from two PR practitioners that is dedicated to bad pitches! The fact is, the PR blogosphere is more critical of lax PR practices than just about any other venue I can think of.

The approach taken is generally constructive, since we all work in the industry and want to see it shine. We’re all passionate about communications or we wouldn’t be blogging about it. We’re looking for (and in may instances suggesting) solutions.

Not every PR blogger writes about these issues, nor is there any obligation to do so. A blog about PR measurement, for example, is not required to digress from its theme when someone in the profession behaves badly. But by and large, bloggers like Allan Jenkins, Neville Hobson, Paul Holmes and a host of others have been forthright in their criticisms. All of which leads me to ponder the danger of making sweeping statements without having actually studied the subject at hand. I don’t know Ms. Desai—I presume she’s a fine practitioner—but I have to wonder how many PR blogs she read, over what period of time, before making her claim.

The “giddy” bit bothers me less, but still, the word is defined as “having a reeling, lightheaded sensation; dizzy.” Yes, many of us are enthusiastic, but our enthuiasm is based on experience and research. Frankly, I experienced the same kind of dismissal when I enthused over message boards and email in the late 1980s, the web in the early 1990s, and instant messaging in the late 1990s. (I remember being in a meeting around 1991 and suggesting that every member of the board of the organization should have an email address; the response: “There goes Shel with his online crap again.”) I was hardly alone back in 1991, though, joined in the Casandra syndrome (able to see what’s coming but nobody will believe you) by people like Craig Jolley, Pete Shinbach, John Gerstner, Sheri Rosen, Charles Pizzo and others. I remember being told, “No company needs a website,” and “We will never have instant messaging in this company; it’s just another way for employees to waste time.”

Were we all “giddy” about the role online technology would play in communication? No; we were convinced, enhtusiastic, even evangelical, but always tempered with reason and research, and always counseling a strategic approach to the application of these tools. Of course, today everybody has email, every company has a website (or more than one) and half the workers in the US use instant messaging as a primarily work-related tool.

I’m sure I’m as guilty as anyone else of making sweeping statements, but after reading this one, I pledge to be more careful about it. I wouldn’t want to paint anyone with a brush based on a cursory review of facts that leaves an inaccurate picture on display that readers may assume was carefully researched and factually accurate.