At the Online Social Media blog, Debbie Turner makes an argument I have also heard from several public relations experts, that "Steve Jobs Should Blog."

No, he shouldn't. In fact, if there's one American chief executive whose PR people should keep him far away from social media, it's Jobs.

Turner herself acknowledges that "Jobs can appear somewhat aloof" and that "the problem with the way Jobs handled the situation is that it looked as though Apple didn't actually care about customers complaints."

Slate's Farhood Manjoo makes the case in more detail in a column about the Apple press conference at which Jobs managed to neither acknowledge nor apologize for the reception problems experienced by some iPhone 4 users: "I just wish Jobs could have handled this mini-crisis in a classier way. He could have admitted a problem, offered a fix.... Instead, he sounded wounded and paranoid, as if we were all being ungrateful for not recognizing Apple's contributions to the world."

Look, you only need to study Apple's advertising ("I'm a Mac...") to understand that the company's dominant personality trait is contempt for others. Contempt for PC users defines the company's branding; contempt for its own customers--as soon as they demonstrate any independent critical thinking about the products the company sells--came through in this week's press conference.

Give Jobs his own blog, and that contempt would permeate every post. Sooner or later, even the company's most ardent fans would get the hint.

Bill O'Reilly has discovered a French ad for McDonald's that feature--among other consumers--a young man talking on the phone with his boyfriend. He is, predictably, outraged, suggesting to Fox news anchor Jane Skinner that the ad will make straight people less likely to buy a Big Mac and fries.

There are a couple of ways to approach "controversial" issues (I throw in the quotation marks because it seems bizarre that signaling inclusivity could be considered controversial).

The first is to make the cynical calculation O'Reilly appears to be suggesting: to weigh the number of people who will buy more burgers from a company that is prepared to include diverse segments of its customer base in its advertising against the number of people so bigoted that they will buy fewer burgers from a company that refuses to discriminate against homosexuals in its marketing.

The second is to look to the core values of the company and develop an advertising/marketing strategy that reflects those values.

Obviously, from a public relations perspective, I would argue that the second approach is superior. Companies that are clear about their values and beliefs, that seem to operate from positions of principle rather than expediency, will generally be able to build stronger, more enduring relationships with their key stakeholders.

It will be interesting to see whether O'Reilly is right, that the ad in question won't come to the U.S., which he presumes--not without justification--to be uniquely bigoted when it comes to issues of sexual preference. If it does, we can assume the company is being driven by a genuine commitment to values of inclusivity and equality; if it doesn't, we can assume some level of cynicism. As an interesting thought exercise, meanwhile, consider that O'Reilly could--30 or 40 years ago--have made the same case against including blacks in a company's advertising ("you know, white people are going to watch that ad too"). That too might have been a tenable position, perhaps even a profitable position, at one time.