John Stauber is an angry fellow.

• He condemns reporters. "Journalism," he says, "is in drastic decline. It's become a lousy profession."

• He laments modern society. "The reality," he bemoans, "is that the U.S. political and social environment is corrupt and deeply dysfunctional."

• But most of all, Mr. Stauber loathes public relations, the practice that, he says, has become "a huge, powerful, hidden medium available only to wealthy individuals, big corporations, governments and government agencies."

Now that's tough.

But alas for angry Mr. Stauber, it is also way off the mark.

The practice of public relations is neither some sinister, surreptitious force nor the exclusive province of the rich and powerful.

More often than not, in fact, public relations strategies and tactics are the most effective and valuable arrows in the quiver of the disaffected and the powerless. Indeed, throughout modern history, crusaders and activists of every stripe, from Martin Luther King to Saul Alinsky, from Mother Theresa to Reverend Al have used proven public relations methods to bring their arguments to a larger stage.

Often in the process, they have converted the skeptics and facilitated constructive social change.

Boiled down to its essence, the practice of public relations is the independent exercise of thoughts and opinions in a free and open marketplace of ideas. Public relations professionals — whether for corporation or agency, labor union or activist group — attempt to manage communications so that their organization's point of view is acknowledged, hopefully believed and even supported.

Are public relations people "biased," as Mr. Stauber charges?

Of course.

Their loyalty is to the institution that signs their paycheck. No one can dispute that point.

But — and here is a big "but" that people like Mr. Stauber can't bring themselves to believe — loyalty does not justify lying. The cardinal rule in public relations, as enunciated by the Public Relations Society of America and followed by every self-respecting public relations practitioner is: "Never lie."

In public relations, all you have is your credibility — with the media, with employees, with consumers, with investors and all the organization's other key constituents. If you lie once, you lose that credibility, particularly with the news media.

"Pish tosh," angry Mr. Stauber would argue. "Are you suggesting that public relations people never lie?"

No, I'm not. Unfortunately, too many in the field have been led to believe that lying is acceptable. A recent survey by PR Week magazine found that "one out of four public relations professionals admits to lying on the job."

This is most unfortunate and indefensible. But in a society where the President of the United States acknowledges he lied to the American public, the failings of a minority of public relations people are more understandable.

What else does Mr. Stauber find appalling about the practice of public relations? Consider his primary arguments.

• "The purpose of public relations campaigns," he says, "is not to facilitate democracy or promote social good, but to increase power and profitability for the clients paying the bills."

First of all, Mr. Stauber offers no proof or examples to corroborate his assertions. Second, a few of us still believe there's no crime in trying to increase your profits, especially if you're paying for it. But let's examine a couple of recent public relations campaigns to test his premise.

• In March, a group of concerned gun control advocates waged a national public relations campaign to promote the "Million Mom March on Washington." The campaign helped attract 750,000 participants and national publicity to raise awareness about stricter gun laws.

• In May, a nonprofit group named Oral Health America announced a multi-year, six-figure public relations campaign to raise dental care awareness and influence employers to adopt dental coverage.

Again, there is no question that the sponsors of these public relations campaigns have a clear bias. But isn't their purpose, at least partially, to "promote social change?" I bet they think so.

• "Half or more of what appears in newspapers and magazines is lifted verbatim from press releases," huffs Mr. Stauber. "Much of what you see on national and local TV news is actually video news releases prepared by public relations firms."

I wish.

The fact is that rarely, if ever, will television networks use video news releases. And the competition to get local TV stations to use them has increased enormously. Only those with bone fide news value ever make the cut. As to print journalism, Mr. Stauber better not tell The New York Times or Wall Street Journal or Washington Post or Newsweek or Time or Business Week or Forbes that half of what they use "is lifted verbatim from press releases." They'll have him committed.

It is true that public relations releases stimulate much of the subject matter that appears in the media. The reason is that everybody today — from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Dalai Lama to the Pope — has public-relations people pointing out to journalists what they believe to be newsworthy announcements. Sometimes, the media pick up these announcements. Most of the time, they don't. And if you don't believe that, visit a newsroom sometime and look at all the news releases in the garbage can and all the unused public-relations newswire copy.

Virtually never, however, are releases reprinted verbatim by any responsible publication. It's just not done, and I defy anyone to show me where this has happened. (It did happen to me once 30 years ago with a bank release in the San Juan Star. I still have the clip!)

• "A hazard isn't a problem if you're making money off it. It's only when the public becomes aware and active that you have a problem or, rather, a PR crisis in need of management."

Translation: Organizations, according to Mr. Stauber, don't correct hazardous problems unless they are forced to.

Maybe in the days of Ralph Nader and the Corvair. But today, smart organizations move immediately to correct critical situations and preserve goodwill.

In May, Ford Motor Company acknowledged to shareholders that its highly successful sports utility vehicle, the Escape, was harmful to the environment. The company vowed to correct the problem.

Also, last month, the National Transportation Safety Board vowed to improve its communications dissemination in the aftermath of plane crashes.

And speaking of the unspeakable, when Swissair crashed off Newfoundland last year, its CEO didn't hesitate to hold an immediate press conference in New York, fly to Newfoundland to survey the crash site and speak with family members flown there by the airline, and then return to New York to face the press again.

The inspiration for this kind of rapid public-relations response to crisis, of course, was Tylenol. When Johnson & Johnson CEO Jim Burke was faced with people dying from consuming his product, he didn't hesitate to pull the product from shelves — not once, but twice — to preserve the integrity of his product and company.

That was the greatest example of proper public relations in crisis, and serves as the model for the preemptive, public interest response that is the rule among clear-thinking organizations.

• "Corporations want us to believe that they are concerned, moral 'corporate citizens' — whatever that means. So businesses pump millions of dollars into charities and nonprofit organizations to deceive us into thinking that they care and are making things better."

Facts, Mr. Stauber. Give us some facts, man!

Here are a few.

Corporations donate around $9 billion annually to charities from the gargantuan United Way to the smallest local hospitals, schools, citizens programs, etc.

Mr. Stauber infers that a good chunk of this money is contributed for self-serving corporate purposes.

Duh.

It's their money, isn't it? Are they going to contribute to causes and individuals who fundamentally oppose them? That makes sense.

Many years ago when I toiled lovingly for The Chase Manhattan Bank and oversaw the company's $12 million contribution program, Chase CEO David Rockefeller used to talk about giving to groups like the Police Athletic League and Planned Parenthood and the Gay Men's Choir out of a sense of "enlightened self-interest." That's why smart companies give back to society.

And surprise, Mr. Stauber, it doesn't always work — even for the most powerful companies. Microsoft last year gave away $25 million in cash and $79 million in in-kind contributions. But despite this largesse, Bill Gates' empire is getting its head handed to it by Janet Reno, Joel Klein and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.

I suspect many of the minority teachers and students who have profited from free Microsoft software gifts may be on the company's side in the current antitrust witch hunt. Maybe that's Mr. Stauber's point. If so, I would respectfully submit that he's all wet.

• Finally, the angry PR critic, perhaps showing his true colors, laments that public relations professionals are most devoted to "marginalizing the radicals. They're the ones who see the inherent structural problems that need remedying."

So, Mr. Stauber believes that public relations is the "sworn enemy" of the radical and, therefore, societal change.

Would he accept a word of dissent, if not from me, then from famed Chicago labor organizer Saul Alinsky, author of the biblical "Rules for Radicals"?

"To the organizer," sayeth the labor sage, "compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation.... A free and open society is an ongoing conflict, interrupted periodically by compromises.... A society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be "compromise."

In other words, according to radical sage Alinsky, it is compromise in the constant competition of ideas that inevitably wins the day. The practice of public relations promotes such compromise solutions growing out of the free and unfettered competition of ideas and points of view and opinions.

Far from being a malevolent force in today's society, the practice of public relations is a positive factor in ensuring the dialogue that underscores our democracy.

What is also true though is that despite its power and value, few in the society really understand what is meant by the term "public relations." And in light of that, why don't we cut Mr. Stauber and his misinformed opinions some slack.

And next time you see him, give him a hug and tell him: "No hard feelings."

AS THE MEDIA WATCH THE WORLD, WE WATCH THE MEDIA.

The Media Channel is a not-for-profit project of OneWorld Online and The Global Center, and is produced by Globalvision New Media.