There's a 2006
PR puff piece at
At
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...eBackdrops.htm
describing the MoD's activities under the 'Wider Markets Initiative', and highlighting the work of "Tony Burlton and Caren Armstrong in the MOD's Wider Markets Team" (phone numbers, anyone?)
It talks about "
PR opportunities to be taken advantage of, like co-operating with documentary makers whose programmes have good messages about the MOD" - which raises questions as to whether such opportunities should not be encouraged by NOT CHARGING A FEE.
And while I'm happy to blame Gordon (in his former incarnation as Chancellor) and/or the Treasury for almost anything, I begin to wonder whether the blame for the inflexible application of WMI by MoD Corporate Comms doesn't lie closer to home.
In the NAO report on WMI it says that: "The Treasury manages the policy with a light touch as departments are free to decide, on a discretionary basis, how far to engage with the initiative."
and
"The initiative therefore encourages, but does not oblige, the public sector to adopt a more businesslike approach to making use of public assets."
The NAO report gives a long list of potential areas for WMI, and nowhere does it include charging fees to publishers or journalists.
It's clear that WMI was not intended to be compulsory or universally applied across the board. So who is responsible for this crass, short-sighted decision making?
The NAO offers a clue by saying that this
"fresh approach has to be led from the top. Departments should nominate a ‘champion’ at or close to Management Board level, as the Ministry of Defence does, to give the discretionary initiative a higher profile."
This would infer that there is some senior MoD bloke who is instituting this policy (which would seem to be entirely discretionary), and that blaming the Treasury is, in this case, misplaced.
The emphasis seems to be on the exploitation of land and buildings, and there are references to emulating commercial organisations like the Post Office and British Waterways (none of whom charge journos for access).
Perhaps the MoD and its partners haven't sold enough naff T-shirts, and perhaps they haven't cheapened the RAF's image sufficiently with RAF Squadron metal tags and cheap shoddy partworks, and now need to get a double whammy - generating funds and provoking widespread contempt by charging journos for access.