Twice in my recent life, I've come across the need of people to manage their image in a very active way. The first example is from Wikipedia, from the Village Pump:
I am an alumnus of Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity. After
publicizing the previously existing Wikipedia page for the fraternity,
various members of our National Board have expressed concern over the
contents of the Wikipedia entry not being under their control. I'm trying
to balance the desires of our National Board (specifically the Marketing
Director) with the standards of Wikipedia. I'm *not* including the disclaimer
that the Fraternity wants on all chapter and region websites, but have
provided a great deal of contact information for those wishing further
(and thus official) information. (its not on the current page, it was
modified, go back to the page prior to 1500 on 15May (two revisions ago
at this point)).
The marketing director would like for proposed changes to at least be checked
with a representative of the National Office (likely to be me, unless I
violently flee from it.)
Suggestions on balancing here? I *know* there will be a Wikipedia page for
my Fraternity no matter what happens because even if I erase it all, someone
will add to the information on the page. Would it be proper to place a note
stating that I would prefer to be checked with before changes are made?
There's that, and then there's an idea on Lawrence Lessig's BLOG, from a guest blogger, whereby companies and groups would need to disclose to members and get a signed consent from them if they discriminate in hiring/association, on grounds that to do otherwise would violate freedom of association of people, actualized a novel way, that people should be free not to associate with employers/groups that do that. It's interesting, and may have societal precedent in that organic foods and the regulations associated with them are designed to provide hooks for people to find out if something is in line with their ethics. In actuality, I'm not sure if it'd make a difference with employment, because nobody reads employment contracts anyhow. The notion against this kind of thing, which ties to the first presentation, is that groups should have the ability to present themself to potential members/clients/employees as they see fit. It's an interesting issue.
I spoke with one of the Nederlanders in my research group, and got some answers on why Pim Fortuyn is considered right-wing by some -- it's not that he was socially considered right-wing for his awareness of cultural changes, it's that he was fiscally a bit conservative, wanting to privatise some parts of government, notably health care.
JWZ has noted that there's a film festival going on near him soon, with interesting films galore. While I'm hundreds of miles away, and thus won't be able to go, it does look like an amusing list of films to see sometime.