I blogged the other day about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ legal threats toward Dr. Jay Gordon and LACTNET over a satirical joke that Gordon sent to the members-only email list. The satire was based on a very real PR problem that the AAP faces: public perception of the organization’s longstanding and much criticized, ultra-cozy relationship with infant formula companies.

A commenter to my blog post has now pointed me to this exchange between a self-identified AAP rep and a speaker at a social media conference the other day. The man stands up and asks the speaker how the AAP can use Web 2.0 tools to address the Jay Gordon debacle – both Gordon’s joke press release itself, as well as the negative commentary the AAP has gotten regarding their hamfisted legal threats against Gordon. The speaker – without really understanding any of the big picture context or details of the situation – calls Gordon a “loser” and naively suggests a blog and Twitter use by the AAP to combat the negative social media coverage of the issue.

Unfortunately for the AAP, this makes absolutely no sense. The PR problem for the AAP is not Jay Gordon’s silly, one-off press release on a subscriber-based email list. The problem is the fact that a virtual army of bloggers and online activists already hold a deep suspicion and animus toward the AAP as a result of their questionable ethics regarding the specific issue of infant formula promotion.

If the AAP really wants to use social media effectively, the organization has to start their efforts with a clear-eyed, honest recognition of this context. If the only way bloggers ever hear directly from the AAP on this issue is when they do things like have their lawyers send threatening letters regarding online discussion about their brand, it won’t help the AAP one iota to follow up with some Twitter post about all the great things the organization is doing in other areas.

For an organization to use social media effectively, it has to engage the online conversation where it already is. The organization has to believe in what it is doing, and thus feel no reticence at engaging in dialogue with critics, by thoughtfully, confidently and politely explaining its position. What this means for the AAP is that from a purely strategic point of view, they need to decide that the brand is 100% okay with taking money and swag from the infant formula companies, and then be 100% ready to proactively explain and even promote that position via social media.

But the reality is this: the AAP knows that its relationship with infant formula companies violates all kinds of ethical boundaries, as well as international agreements. So instead of wanting to openly talk about what they are doing, they are ashamed, only speaking of it when “outed” by others, and then only doing so in a defensive, legalistic way. When your message is coming from a negative, uncomfortable place like this, simply having a Twitter feed or a blog talking about other stuff (while ignoring the giant white elephant in the room) won’t do you a lick of good.

The AAP is a wonderful organization, improving and saving the lives of millions of American children. But they are dead wrong on this one issue – their continued cozy relationship with infant formula companies – and they know it. Until they are ready to admit that publicly, they are fighting a losing battle with online critics.