Re: [scbwi-houston] Patricia Polacco Explains Why SRA/McGraw-Hill Cancelled H...
You're asking good questions. (See Vikk's remarks below.) You are right. We
are making assumptions which may or may not be accurate. All I know about it
is what I read on the website - which is one side of the story. However, if
the account is factual, I still think it is improper to invite a speaker who
is associated with a set of ideas, and then as the event approaches, give her
the choice of modifying her remarks or opting out. It's a bit like presenting
someone with a pre-nup just before the wedding. The law does not recognize
those pre-nups as valid because they are regarded as "coerced".
But you're right. This set of choices may not have originated with McGraw
Hill. This situation may have been a blooper made by the Buchanan Agency, who,
(if they're not in the publishing business), might not have been
appropriately sensitive to the inferences that would be made. And who would not
understand that their attempts at damage control reflect more poorly on McGraw Hill
than anything Ms. Polacco might have to say. Same goes for IRA. If I were
McGraw Hill and/or IRA, I would make like a politician - I'd blame it on the
Buchanan Agency, deny all prior knowledge, and issue a new invitation to Ms.
Polacco to appear with no strings attached.
My question in all this is whether we're making a lot of assumptions. Do we
know exactly who instigated asking Ms. Polacco to speak? Did it come from
McGraw or from the agency? Did McGraw, once they learned she'd been signed on,
ask the agency to have her refrain from airing her position or did the agency,
once they learned of a potential problem, take it upon themselves to do
"damage control," and a shoddy attempt at it at best?
author / speaker / publishing consultant
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]