By now, every blogger on the planet has opined on the tragic shootings in Colorado last week. Until now, I chose not to do so, as I thought I had nothing to add that wasn’t already being said.

Then a few articles started popping up about the PR perspective. Most compliment the moves taken by Warner Bros. Studios, director Christopher Nolan, actors Christian Bale and Anne Hathaway, and others associated with “The Dark Knight Rises.” Some examples:

• Within hours of the Aurora shooting, Warner Bros. issued a strong statement expressing deep sadness over the event and “our sincere sympathies to the families and loved ones of the victims at this tragic time.” At the same time, Warner Bros. cancelled premieres in Paris, Mexico City and Tokyo, yanked ads of the film for several days, and joined other studios in declining to report box-office numbers during the weekend of the shootings.

• Warner Bros. is making a “substantial” donation to a relief fund for the victims and their families—and chose not to thump its chest by revealing the amount.

• Nolan, Bale and Hathaway issued statements reflecting their shock and sadness. “The movie theater is my home,” said Nolan, “and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me.”

• And in perhaps the most powerful expression of support, Bale came to Aurora on Tuesday, visited with many of the hospitalized victims and paid his respects at a memorial set up near the theater where the shootings occurred.

The PR pundits say these are the right actions to take to secure one’s reputation and brand following a crisis of this magnitude. And if you ask for my professional opinion, I would wholeheartedly agree.

But it bothers me, just a little, when the statements and actions taken by those involved are boiled down to a public relations strategy.

Warner Bros. could have settled for a safe, cookie-cutter media statement. Instead, the studio strove for something that was meaningful and heartfelt—and took actions that showed its sincerity

Nolan could have kept his silence and deferred to the studio. Instead, he expressed not only his support for the victims, but also his own emotions about what happened.

Bale could have stayed home. Instead, he made a personal effort to visit and comfort those who are still suffering—one that he undertook of his own accord, without intent of fanfare.

I’m not so naïve to think that these people and organizations aren’t aware of the reputational issues they face in the wake of this awful event.

But I believe what Christian Bale and the others did this week wasn’t about saving their reputations.

I prefer to think it was about their integrity. And their humanity.

And really, isn’t that what true public relations should be about?

Years ago, we took a family vacation to Gatlinburg. Among our string of activities was a day at Dollywood, the local theme park honoring country singer Dolly Parton. One of the attractions was a replica of Parton’s tiny, one-room childhood home, where Parton’s parents raised her and her 10 siblings.

As we walked through the cabin, my then-four-year-old son, Tyler, remarked on the lack of a TV. My wife pointed to the radio as the primary entertainment of the day, to which Tyler indignantly sniffed, “I saw that before you said that.”

We still amuse ourselves by teasing my now-adult son about this incident. But not so amusing  is how a New York Times story  reminded me of that statement. “Disturbing” is the more accurate term.

It seems that the presidential campaign handlers of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are requiring reporters who want access to the candidates’ key advisors to submit their stories for quote checking before publication. The stories often come back with quotes edited or entirely rewritten.

And even more frightening, many news media have agreed to this—Bloomberg, Reuters, even the Times itself.

This practice is like a paraphrase of Tyler’s statement: “What I meant wasn’t what I said, so I changed it.” It’s a means of revising history. Or more accurately, it’s a way of controlling an ostensibly free press.

Imagine if this policy wasn’t limited to quotes. What if these advisors could change a reporter’s account of an event? It’s not a big leap from revising quotes to revising other content.

As a PR professional, I get why the campaign folks cherish the opportunity to review (and edit) their quotes. Now and then I’ve had reason to wish the same thing. But the responsibility isn’t on the reporter to quote my intent; it’s my responsibility to communicate that intent clearly and accurately in the first place, or to make sure my client is equipped to do so.

Then I can expect clarity and accuracy in the resulting coverage—or hold the reporter accountable if it’s not.

Journalism is more demanding, competitive and cutthroat today than ever before. Under immense pressure by the endless news cycle, declining revenues, shrinking staff and controlling interests outside of the journalistic realm, it’s become easier than ever for the media to compromise.

The problem is, a compromise of this sort makes the media its own worst enemy. As a consumer, how can I trust anything that a news outlet reports if I can’t be certain that the words supposedly spoken were, in fact, spoken?

They decorated all the generals
Who fought the war behind the lines.
They had forgotten all the soldiers;
The brandy puts them way behind the times.
   --“Wildest Dreams,” Asia (1982)

In his famed handbook of military strategy, The Art of War, ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu made a key point that resonates across 2,600 years of history: “All warfare is based on deception.”

No doubt there’s plenty of that going on in the current brouhaha between Viacom Inc. and DirecTV over subscriber fees, a dispute that led the satellite-television provider to yank Viacom’s channels on Tuesday. (For those who manage to get through life without Spongebob Squarepants and are out of the loop, click here for the details.)

As is the norm in this online age, the two have taken to social media to plead their respective cases. But what’s fascinating—and more than a little disturbing—is how each is fighting the war by effectively drawing their troops from the masses.

In effect, battles are waging across the Internet trenches, fought by John and Jane Q. Public, with Viacom and DirecTV awaiting the outcome.

Securing public opinion in a war is hardly a new approach. (Indeed, part of the history of public relations was the work of the Four Minute Men, volunteer speakers who advocated for U.S. efforts in World War I. Their name came from the time limit they had in delivering their speeches—the four minutes needed to swap movie reels in theaters.) But in the no-holds-barred battlefield of cyberspace, anyone with a computer and a wireless connection can take up arms.

And that’s exactly what Viacom and DirecTV are counting on. They are the generals. They assemble their troops with sentimental pleas (“We’re always by your side,” “We are ready to talk at any time.”) and rallying cries that don’t quite reach the level of Churchill’s (“Imagine the impact on your bill if we just simply accepted those demands for one network,” and my personal favorite, “Don’t let Cartman get a satellite lodged up his a**”). And then they let the soldiers fight the war.

Given the Internet’s ability to allow this warfare instantly and openly, and given the fierceness that its anonymity allows, we all have the opportunity to play Rambo without actually shedding blood.

I’m certainly not against using communication tools like the Internet to accurately and truthfully inform and influence perspectives. That’s what public relations does. But I’m uncomfortable with the “really-futile-and-stupid-gesture-on-somebody’s-part” approach that draws out the worst in so many people.

And as in real war, the generals are the ones who gain the glory. As SunTzu also said, “It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.”

As professional communicators look at how to connect with the next wave of young adults, they may be surprised to find that social media is not the whole answer.

A national study by the child advocacy group Common Sense Media found that 49 percent of respondents ages 13-17 preferred face-to-face communication over texting (33 percent) and social media (7 percent). In fact, more than one in three young people said social media cuts into the time they can spend with friends, and nearly half said they were annoyed when others were checking or updating their online status during face-to-face time.

That’s not to say communication platforms such as Facebook are going the way of print newspapers anytime soon. Some 75 percent of the survey’s respondents have profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ or MySpace, and most felt social media helps them stay connected with friends and family.

But as someone who has heaved more than a few deep sighs at people who insist social media is, and will be, the go-to tool to communicate, I’m feeling a bit vindicated.

Don’t get me wrong: Social media will continue to be a very powerful and effective tool for communicating with key audiences. Those who ignore it do so at their peril. But effective communication means being strategic with its use.

I look at the “all social media all the time” mantra the same way I view “let’s put out an email” or “let’s do a brochure.” Communication is all about creating a dialogue that is meaningful and effective with the group you’re trying to reach. If I need to reach out to a group of older retirees, posting something on Twitter isn’t going to be effective. If I need to get employees excited and engaged in a project, they need to see and hear that I’m excited, that management is engaged—and that takes more than a blog post on the intranet.

I remain a firm believer in the value of face-to-face communication. I can write an impassioned email on a topic, but until my audience sees that passion in my eyes and has the opportunity to ask me questions, hear my response and perhaps challenge my perspective, I’m not really engaging in communication, i.e., a two-way, interactive relationship. Regardless of the tool you use, that’s the foundation of true communication.