Just some things to keep in my mind.
From a PR/Academic standpoint. Importantly, what has begun, is moving what once was a topic for blogs and posts, which go unoticed and can be duly considered started by a fringe group of disgruntled individuals, into the public square of debate.
Moving something like this into the public sphere is an essential starting point and an initial success in a PR Strategy - Now that mainstream jounralism, newspapers largly respected more for thoroughness and accuracy if not objectiveness. So, this is a great moment and huge success. At par with the Ray Franz milestone in this organization's history.
So, the follow up to keep the conversation growing, expanding, and in front of key opinion leaders, will come by the validity of the claims. So, I encourage all to continue to reach out to other organizations, especially news entities, appealing to common sense and isolate just a few talking points, avoid a heavy use of statements that make the arguement sound as if it were just sourced in what can be felt as a vengeful motivation, as that would defeat the purpose. - This would also combat the risk of being guilty of slander, etc. (I saw someone show concern about that on this thread.)
"Cover the Coverage"
Now that one, and then several, major entities covered the topic, the next strategic step mentioned above is called 'cover the coverage.' Encourage others to read what respected journalists and authorities have reported and quote their statements. Be as accurate as possible when using attribution. If anything, highlight what makes this an issue for world attention. Remember, churches and other community organizations are given implied trust by citizens in civil society. Thus, inciteful statements, like the ones being made in their literature and meetings, their stance on child abuse (Australia compliance is a huge point as it seemingly highlights their lack of proactive concern), etc. call in to question the merit of such public trust, especially if they are known for commonly approaching us in the public setting to share those ideas and beliefs, and even hope to be invited into our homes.
Lastly, I am posting something that I myself recently posted. In the actual response I made to a professed JW who commented on The Independrnt's article, I point out just the facts and what occured by the publishing of this story by The Independant. Stick to those types of talking points and then use personal stories to put a face to those points, adding actual experiences, and how it feels. Below is my second re-post on the story's comments section, where I include those intial comments to the JW and the result it had on his comments.
This was my entire summary, second, re-post:
"I find something interesting as I read through the almost 700 posts, how much professed Jehovah's Witnesses are adding to the discussions. It strikes me that there isn't much understanding of simple reasoning or common sense on their part. They lack knowledge of what Journalism is and the Ethics involved before an article like this passes editorial committee reviews, fact-checking and later its publication. The public journal is a public trust. So I felt the need to reply to the post a professed member of this religion as he pledged his loyalty with 'pride' to his organization and his onward determination to spread their teachings, as lives were at stake, he said. Including a direct statement to the reporter, "as is yours." Referring to his life. It gave me a feeling that there was a threat in that somewhere.
So, as an academic I felt the need to reply and said to him/her:
'This journalistic piece is not commenting on 'scriptural' authority or whether it is inspired of God. Nor does the reporter, seemingly, pretend to expound on theology. It is about an organization where its leadership has instructed by official congregational doctrine that all who dissent or disagree are 'mentally diseased.' And the outcry by many inside and outside of that organization.
However, I think it is worth pointing out that the following paragraph of the article in question, where the 'mentally diseased' label is introduced, paragraph 7, that same leadership states "What is involved in avoiding false teachers? We do not receive them into our homes or greet them. We also refuse to read their literature, watch TV programs that feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs. Why do we take such a firm stand? Because of love. We love “the God of truth,” so we are not interested in twisted teachings that contradict his Word of truth."
It seems that maybe you are not as proud or as obedient to the instructions provided in that same article, of July 15, 2011, of The Watchtower, as you might think.
You obviously are of the group that believe you should be free from being told what to do, or what not to do, based on your ignoring the strong admonishments found on that same page of the journal. As participating through technology as is done on this thread is later classified in paragraph 15 as being guilty of falling to 'Satan's tactic' of being 'Unoccupied, gadding about.'
He soon thereafter deleted his post.'
Again, this is just as an example. I'm sure you all have even better ways of approachin this, I only wanted to share some thoughts with all of you as you have my deep admiration for pursuing this!
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Widely attributed to Margaret Mead
