John - Check your trackbacks, others have been writing about it since yesterday afternoon.
And I think the larger story here is about Edelman, not Wal-Mart.
Sorry, Kevin. I should have linked to your post, too.
I have been accused of being unfair to Edelman in the past, so if I was too Wal-Mart focused in my post, that was probably the reason.
I do agree that this is a black eye for Edelman but then again, I think the entire handling of the Wal-Mart account has been misguided, and part of the reason is the approach that was taken.
John,
You and Todd Defren/PR-Squared have some great commentary on this (Sorry, Kevin and et al, can only read so many).
I followed the story a bit with the reports of the WaPo photographer who got caught.
What I don't get is that, how can anyone -- particularly anyone in public relations or public affairs -- do something so public and not think it'll get found out and uncovered? How myopic is that?!
Mike
John - No problem, my note read snarkier than I intended.
Mike - What, you don't read EVERYTHING?! 
What's amazed me is how quickly the commentary has bloomed and how well-documented/linked it is. Yet STILL no word from Edelman...not even a, "yeah, we hear you, an official statement to come."
So... does all this mean that Edelman is duplicitous on its way to the bank? I am shocked!
- Amanda
If Richard has not commented on this apparent contradiction to much of what he has espoused this last year, I am sure there are reasons. Give him time.
John, your line about people continuing to shop at Wal-Mart is so true.
There's nothing about this story that will stop customers from shopping at Wal-Mart. To me, that's sad.
Not to step on anyone's political toes, but I equate it to what's happening in politics and the current presidency. It seems there's nothing that can happen, no matter how bad ethically or legally, that will force people to hold certain figures accountable.
Wal-Mart has that kind of sway. The low dollars will keep customers rolling in. I would say that you could add the customer service on to that as well, but I worked for a Wal-Mart once.
John - once again you are on target with a measured response - I agree with you, there does seem to be a disconnect between words and deeds. If this was Wal-mart's idea and they strong-armed Edelman, they probably should have declined the work - of course that's easy to say and a lot harder to do. But Edelman is in the reputation business and their #1 asset is their own reputation. If a client isn't willing to do a blog the right way, then don't do it. Some companies aren't ready to do it yet. I have learned this the hard way. Nellie
Richard's "apology" was terse, unrepentant and remorse-free. It was something he had to do, but at this point it's the equivalent of inserting one's finger in the about-to-burst dyke. He deserves zero credit, as he simply had no choice, and if the sky hadn't been falling there'd have been no mea culpa. To position oneself as the world's guru on corporate blogging and blog ethics/transparency, and then to dive head-first into this cesspool puts an irreversible stain on Richard Edelman's and his firm's reputation and blows to bits any claims the agency might have of being a pioneer in corporate blogging. All the vainglorious pronouncements Edelman has made in the pasto on transparency and integrity are exposed for what they are - empty phrases, full of sound and fury and signifying less than nothing. Had he really taken a stand in his post and truly sought to explore how and why this was allowed to happen maybe the world would be more forgiving. Sadly, he chose the "holding statement" approach, where you tell as little as possible and hope the world will forget and move on to other things. Shameful.
It's interesting to read the comments on Edelman's blog and Steve Rubel's, too. The PR bloggers mostly give them a pass ... but others are really taking them to task.
I guess the PR folks are hoping for a job offer down the road! 
I was interviewed for an quoted in the mediapost story. I expressed the idea that folks are experimenting with Identity.
Lonely Girl alienated a huge swath of her audience, but is still rated #2 on MySpace. Maybe Edelman considered the positive effect of a negative backlash.
Its not an approach I can agree with, but it may work.
Further thoughts on this topic posted to my blog here, http://traction.tractionsoftware...rmalink/
Blog270
Commenting by HaloScan
