Paying for Publicity and The RAF

[Ewan Whosearmy]

This is essentially a request for assistance from PPRuNe pilots and navs who have the time and inclination to be interviewed by an aviation journalist: I am writing a series of four articles about RAF pilot/nav training.

I have approached RAF corporate communications and been told that I will have to pay what will amount to in excess of several hundred pounds if I want to conduct interviews with the relevant squadrons. Without getting into the ins and outs of this policy here, it is suffice to say that everyone (including the RAF) thinks this is absurd, apart from The Treasury, which is behind the policy.

Unfortunately, neither I nor the publisher has the cash (or is prepared to find the cash, frankly) to pay the going rate. I would, however, be more than willing to make a personal donation to a squadron bar or similar worthy cause if help was forthcoming!

The product in question will be out in the UK next year, and will hopefully be a source of inspiration and encouragement to the next generation of RAF pilots, fast jet or otherwise.

The main topics for the articles are:

The Tucano and RAF Basic Flying Training

The BAe Hawk and RAF Advanced Flying Training

RAF Tactical Weapons Training

RAF Operational Conversion Units

So, if you would be prepared to let me interview you about your experiences as students or QFIs in any of these four phases of flying training, please do PM me.

I can supply references for myself (so that you know I am bona fide and trustworthy), and while you can be quoted on paper under a pseudonym if you so wish, I would need to know your real name, rank and unit for the purposes of establishing the same about you.

I hope that some of you can help.

Thanks in advance.

[vecvechookattack]

When you have written the articles, will you be selling them ? Or will you be providing them free of charge to whom ever wants to read them?

[VinRouge]

Have you tried contacting Corporate comms on a unit level? You will have to go through corporate comms at some level, I think you will find that Stations will be more than happy to help out. Try the training bases directly, Linton has an excellent CCO and I am sure other bases are the same.

as a "heads up" warning, any direct contact with serving members of the forces without going through corporate comms is seriously frowned at, especially by the Stalinistic regime over at MOD! :}

[Ewan Whosearmy]

vecvechookattack

I am a full-time freelancer, so yes, I would be charging the publisher a word rate to write the spreads.

As I said, I have no problem with making a donation to the squadron, but I don't earn much doing this and I certainly cannot afford the RAF's very commercial rates!

VinRouge

Thanks for the suggestion.

I have tried going direct at unit level, but the only time this has worked is when I've known someone on the squadron and the Boss has given my visit his personal seal of approval. It seems that in this case, the Boss simply informs corporate comms that the visit is going to take place and they have no say in the matter (it may not be as simple as that, but it has always seemed uncomplicated this end!).

On the downside, when I last tried to make a request to the PRO/CRO at unit level, I was told that they would get back to me with a quote once they had spoken to Strike Command corporate comms. So, it seems that this is a centralised policy/process that only the most senior of people can waive.

I guess what I really need is for the Bosses of some of these squadrons to ask me to come and write about them, but I think there's little chance of that.

Still, I will give Linton a call and see what happens...

Cheers

[Albert Driver]

So when you write these articles are you going to state in them that you didn't want to pay a few hundred pounds for access to the current, definitive information at source, so instead you interviewed a handful of people who may have been through some part of the system five, ten years ago?

And is the RAF expected to be grateful for articles written this way?

[A2QFI]

I think the articles are very likely to be a quantum leap better than the dross that is produced by the MOD Meeja dept!

[An Teallach]

My thoughts exactly, A2QFI. Especially since the heid-bummer of the MOD Gyroscopic Physicians doesn't even seem to have an idea where all of his 1,000 Rotatory Registrars are or what they are doing!

Caw canny, Albert Driver. Ewan is on-side and is offering good publicity which will probably be worth 10 times the product of the official spin doctors. Why he should have to pay for the priviledge is beyond me.

[Al R]

So when you write these articles are you going to state in them that you didn't want to pay a few hundred pounds for access to the current, definitive information at source, so instead you interviewed a handful of people who may have been through some part of the system five, ten years ago?

And is the RAF expected to be grateful for articles written this way?


Aww, quit being such a misery! :)

I would imagine that just about every freelancer going tries his hardest NOT to pay for a story. You try flying in civvy street when you're picking up the tab for your juice.

I would imagine too, that such an article would be viewed in a damned sight less prejudicial manner by the readership and about as far removed from the usual hackneyed advertorials they're used to reading as you're likely to get. The fact that real names aren't going to be used (obviously) will lend a conspiratorial air to the piece that will make a refreshing change too. With that in mind, I would imagine that most readers with an interest in military aviation would suss that its 'unauthorised' and treat it accordingly.

Notwithstanding that, when it comes to preserving the editorial proposition, most specialist freelancers know how to present a piece in keeping, and the editorial scalpel will always be looming, so you're possibly worrying unduly.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Albert driver wrote: So when you write these articles are you going to state in them that you didn't want to pay a few hundred pounds for access...

No. The intention is to make the RAF look good, not bad.

Albert driver also wrote: ...access to the current, definitive information at source, so instead you interviewed a handful of people who may have been through some part of the system five, ten years ago?

The point of posting here is to come direct to the source and appeal to current studs and QFIs (or recently retired QFIs) to let me talk to them. I would describe these people as primary source, current and perfectly well qualified to have formed a view worth sharing.

Albert driver ended with: And is the RAF expected to be grateful for articles written this way?

My objective is not to imbue the gratitude of the RAF, although I would hope that RAF aircrew reading the spreads would think I had done a good job representing their skill and expertise in a very challenging environment to the general public.

What I do want to do is show the world that the RAF is bloody good at what it does, and that it produces the best aircrew in the world. With so little being written about the RAF nowadays, that's an honorable goal, IMO.

So, no, I don't think the RAF should be grateful. But equally, I don't think that they should make it financially impossible for me to sing their praises.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

A2QFI, Ali and An, thanks for the vote of confidence; it's certainly not misplaced.

[A2QFI]

"Why he should have to pay for the privilege is beyond me." Because the MOD dullards think they are doing him a favour, rather than the other way round!

[Jackonicko]

I have NEVER heard of the RAF charging for a simple visit/interview facility (that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course), though they are increasingly charging for flying (even in a tanker, I believe).

I don't know who has commissioned you to write this series of articles, but I can't imagine the RAF charging any of the mainstream UK aviation publications, so I wonder if the charges are being threatened as a deterrent because they don't like the title, the editor or ....... you!

Now I've only been working with the RAF as a journo on and off for 23 years, but if you want to chat about it with a newbie, Ewan, PM me your phone number if you don't already have mine.....

[Al R]

Caw canny, Albert Driver. Ewan is on-side and is offering good publicity which will probably be worth 10 times the product of the official spin doctors. Why he should have to pay for the priviledge is beyond me.

You imagine Ford or TVR demanding money to help with a piece? It just wouldn't happen. In the old days, if you wanted to use an airfield to shoot something, you could ring Harry. He'd weigh up the pros and cons and make a decision based on the fact that if he's considered responsible enough to look after a few dozen jets and a couple of thousand troops, this sort of decision shouldn't be too much beyond him. Nowadays, you try that approach and you get referred to a bean counting paper clip shuffling weener who was given a job by the civil service to maintain their clout and who has been given the grandiose title of Crown Agent/ land 'custodian' or some such to$$.

AND he'll start at £800 for an afternoon. I understand that there is a balance between preserving the public's interests, getting value from the land and maintaining some sort of control over who uses what, but publishers pay huge wedges of tax too. As chairman of a couple of stn motorbike clubs I never had any problem in getting grip and grin cheque handovers infront of jets or tanks. As a publisher, its a different story.

Section!!! 300!!! Field/Playing. 12 o' clock of uneven playing field, in open.. goalposts. Goalposts now moving left to right. WATCH AND SHOOT, WATCH AND SHOOT!!

[vecvechookattack]

How mmuch do you expect to be paid for these articles?

Whilst I would agree that we all have to make an honest buck, I think your offer of "a couple of quid behind the bar" is a tadge derogatory (did I spell that correctly?)

Remember, the Cornwall 10 were paid in the £000's .....



Jackonicko is correct. Servicemen are not allowed to receive any monies for their stories.

[Al R]

Tornado Down.. Bravo Two Zero anyone? :oh:

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Hi Jacko

It has happened to me twice now within the last three months, and has also happened at a local PRO/CRO level.

I spoke to DD at Strike on the phone last week and his words were (paraphrased), 'unless the story you are writing is classed as 'hard news', then you will be charged'.

Given that he is the main POC at Strike corporate comms, I think that it's reasonable to assume that he's right - he didn't ask for the name of the publisher or product, and he didn't ask my name, so that rules out the RAF having an issue with one or t'other of us. I have been told that corporate comms are very unhappy with the arrangement.

I am surprised you have not experienced it - I think I know who you are - as it is the talk of the industry at the moment and there are several others I know who have been affected by it (including a former colleague of yours who was told, in writing, to start paying if he wanted to continue to use the words 'Royal Air Force' in his monthly model magazine! Fortunately, that moment of madness was soon overturned and he now has permission to use it for free!)

vecvechookattack

I am not sure exactly what difference it makes how much I get paid. For the record, though, I would expect to receive about £130 per article, and each would take approximately one day to research, write, proof, source images for and then caption. The maths show that I am hardly in it for the money...

My offer of a donation was not intended to be derogatory, but rather a light hearted suggestion that I could buy the boys a round of drinks at the squadron bar. It's certainly not obligatory.

[Jackonicko]

I hope to god that they are to be VERY short articles at that rate!

[Archimedes]

Can you imagine what'd happen if they tried this approach with the Sun? I suppose they'd suddenly discover that this was 'hard news', thus no problem.

How long before a couple of aviation magazines publish blistering editorials about this, giving the RAF large amounts of negative publicity? If it gets really nasty, they may start talking about Spirit of the Air and the carefully selected bank holiday date (that wasn't a bank holiday)....

[Jackonicko]

Knowing who he is, Ewan's articles would have been different in that they'd have been

1) Detailed and informative about course syllabi
2) Searching and rigorous without being critical or hostile
3) and might have reflected some aircrew concerns.....

They'd be just as pro-RAF

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Thanks, Jacko.

AIDU

My article would follow a little more detailed line than that and would not, of course, simply be a gratuitous 'let's interview a female fast jet jockey for the sake of it' type affair.

I doubt very much that the Indy paid anything: after a long chat with Jacko, it seems possible that certain types of magazines and books are being clumped into a category that automatically excludes them from being considered to be purveyors of 'hard news'. The newspapers are obviously not classed as such.

Archimedes

I think that there could be a backlash, but it depends on how many magazines and media outlets are being affected. I sincerely hope that if there is, it is aimed at the Treasury and not the RAF.

[JT Eagle]

This is all getting a bit silly. Like a large US aircraft maker who shall remain nameless but are called Boeing, the PR arm of the RAF are shooting themselves in both feet with this attitude.
Writer/photographer/publisher/filmmaker*: "we would like some help, please"
RAF/US defence giant: "maybe, but first jump through lots of hoops and then if we feel like helping, let us charge a stack of money greater than the budget of or expected profits for your entire book/magazine/film"
Writer (etc)" "No thanks, we will try and do it without your help, leading possibly to an inferior product but certainly one which is out of your control and from which you will make nothing. Or we won't bother, denying you independent cheap publicity."
I have been looking for video footage of various aircraft. The situation is reversed vis a vis the UK/Europe and the US militaries. The Pentagon has either supplied tape for free or let us rummage in their archives for minimal cost. The UK equivalent library, the BDFL, while being extremely accommodating and helpful at the shop floor level (as are Boeing, LM etc), want to charge £1000 PER MINUTE for footage (yes, you read that right) largely because of Crown Copyright. A starter for 10 for the FJ aviators; approximately how many Harriers or Tornados could you fly for an hour with £60,000? Probably a few, but if you wanted to film them, then DPR would want their cut...
*Unless you work for an "immediate news" outfit such as the Telegraph [see recent thread on the Bears probing UK airspace involving Fylingdales radar alerting the pilots who dash across the runway to their Tornado F4s etc] or the BBC [shows QRA pilot dropping maps because they won't stage it again], Sky TV [doesn't show map-dropping aviator, but uses video of Su-30 instead of Typhoon because that's what they were given]
The whole RAF/MoD publicity machine is broken unless you are the day after tomorrow's chip wrapping or an item on 24 hr news tomorrow at 2.30 PM (repeated at 2.30 AM and then on next year's Funniest Military Blunders).
Well, I'm glad to have vented some of that, not that it will help much, but please add any further thoughts on the direction RAF PR is going that you might have...
JT

[Pontius Navigator]

I know the man at "AIR" and the woman too. The line between hard news and soft fluffy was drawn earlier this year. The driver is "wider-markets initiative".

The BBC and Brian Blessed wanted to do a fluffy film at a coastal resort near here :}. They asked if they could include the 'resort' in the film as it would make a make a nice counter point and give a bit of useful publicity. The money people came back, cited WMI and the fee.

This was an odd decision as all the Beeb had to do was move a few yards to the public beach and make the film but without mentioning the 'resort' or even mentioning it in a bad light. I hear a rumour that cooperation might have been forthcoming at a local level.

The problem for Ewan is that any article that 'implicated' the local MCO once the decision to charge had been made would drop the stn cdr and MCO in the poo. Really the only way forward is a covert piece as Ewan started with here or a re-attack at M*** D****** at Air.

One possiblity would be to submit the covert draft and ask for official assistance to complete.

There was an ill-fated RAF magazine that was pulled last year; Melinda was on the point of visiting for an interview and article when they closed it.

Money rules, sad, but the fact that we are RAF plc and owe a dividend to our shareholders - Joe Public seems to have passed the board of directors by.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Pontius

Thanks for the info on WMI. It's nice to know what the damned thing is actually called.

There was an ill-fated RAF magazine that was pulled last year...


I worked as a writer on both of the ill-fated RAF part works, but I did not believe that either of them would ever work and was not surprised when both went u/s.


Money rules, sad, but the fact that we are RAF plc and owe a dividend to our shareholders - Joe Public seems to have passed the board of directors by.

I think that's the moral justification for the decision. Even so, the RAF itself recognises that it's a specious justification at best.

If the story that the initiative has been forced on the services by the Treasury us true, then someone needs to stand up to the blighters!

JT

Agree with you 100 per cent.

[Climebear]

If the story that the initiative has been forced on the services by the Treasury us true

Yes it is. However, Comd PR staff should advise on the PR value of an activity to enable any charges to be abated.

It not only applies to Media; but also to any use of the Goverment Estate - including Sqn/Stn charity events

The fact that a charity (Service or other) is to be a beneficiary of an event is not sufficient justification to introduce a more favourable charging regime or to set charges aside. There are no special arrangements for the treatment of charities and to avoid public funds being channelled into Non-public accounts, a donation to charity can only be made once the MOD has recovered its costs. "Exploiting Oppotunities": A Guide to Allowing the Occasional Use of the Ministry of Defence Estate for Social, Recreational and Commercial Purposes:ugh:

A key element of the Moral Component of Fighting Power is public support for the Armed Forces. Even though the public may not support the political reasons for a specific conflict it is important to the servicemen and women risking their lives that the public supports them. As the RAF engagement strategy highlights, the participation of Service personnel in charitable events helps place the Services in the public eye (for good things). However, the Government seems to want to cripple us by placing such punative measures on our engagement with our public. The manderins' argument that this is not 'core business' is flawed - this is about the maintenance of the moral component and is about as 'core' as you get.

rant over

[Rossian]

Having just read my way through this whole thread so far my questions are: who are the people who put their names to these policies? Would they be prepared to stand up in front of people and justify their rationale? Does the end result turn out to be what they really meant?
Fighting against the bean counters must be like trying to nail blancmange to a wall, as they all seem to be anonymous and hide behind passive languge "......it was decided...." "the committee came to the conclusion...." so nobody can be blamed.
Is there no-one in the higher echelons of the Air Force board with balls to stand up and tell these people "NO"?
Having spent all of my working life serving, and proud to say so, I look in now from the outside in dismay at some of the things I see and hear.
The Ancient Mariner

[Pontius Navigator]

As the RAF engagement strategy highlights, the participation of Service personnel in charitable events helps place the Services in the public eye (for good things).

Slight thread drift but have you seen the prohibition on charity fund raising in conjunction with a publicly financed expedition?

Supposing your exped was a long-distance cycle ride. Say it was like the Geilenkirchen to Waddington earlier this year or last. Say you get publicity and seek sponsorship for charity.

Nein, verboten.

Say I give a talk I cannot make a charge nor can I accept a charitable donation. I could possibly however accept a contribution towards expenses provided these were remitted or set against any subsistence calim arising.

Foot, aim, fire?

[Jackonicko]

Has anyone got a copy of

"Exploiting Oppotunities": A Guide to Allowing the Occasional Use of the Ministry of Defence Estate for Social, Recreational and Commercial Purposes

to post?

And any more details about who made the decision, etc.

[Jackonicko]

There's a 2006 PR puff piece at

At

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/LightsCameraActionModProvidesMovieBackdrops.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.

[Squirrel 41]

I recognise that defending the Treasury around here is a pretty unusual task, but this time, it's simply not their fault.

Indeed, the Government's policy that used to be called "Selling Into Wider Markets" (IIRC) is actually a sensible idea. Have a nice location for a film? Let the film companies pay you for it. Have a team-building location with excess (note the word "excess") capacity - sell the excess time to the private sector for hard cash and use the money to spend on something else.

A great example is the use of the RN disaster management training rig where you have to plug the holes in the dark as the water comes in (my apologies to the Senior Service for mischaracterising this thing). A good mate's bank took a group of managers to the south coast where they (i) got very wet (ii) learned a great deal and (iii) paid HMG handsomely for it - money that was kept by the MOD and not given back to the Treasury.

So SIWM is all about how well you do it, and generating cash from excess capacity. Have a runway next to the home of golf? RAF PLC would be delighted for Sir to choose Leuchars as bizjet airport of choice for the weekend in return for the commercial rate. But charging journalists for positive publicity?

Balance, ladies and gentlemen, balance.

S41

[Wader2]

Not excess capacity but irreducible spare capacity. This also implies that if it was unneeded excess then it should be flogged off.

Government's policy that used to be called "Selling Into Wider Markets" (IIRC) is actually a sensible idea.

True and this is what we are talking about.

and this is the rub

But charging journalists for positive publicity?

as it is entirely subjective whether this is a zero sum game or one where the journalist has a fiscal gain and the service only an incidental benefit.

Now if Ewan could come up with some fantastic business opportunity from this, such as a magazine that sells cheap tin RAF badges at £5 a pop, 75 in the set :}, or some leisure cloting (sic) with 'future pilot' wings or something :8 then he would be in the money.




PS, I realised the typo but on second thoughts got it right first time.

[Lord_Flashheart]

So was the beeb billed for jet juice then when James May had his jolly in the back seat of the Typhoon??

Hard to qualify his proggie as 'hard news' if those are the new guidelines...:confused:



On a related RAF PR disaster - I note that while the (overstretched) Army turned up with the Red Devils + a Blue Eagles Lynx on Sunday's Red Bull Air Race in front of 35,000+ spectators - the RAF was nowhere to be seen... missing a golden publicity + recruiting opportunity:ugh: - or were they out in force the previous day?

[Wader2]

So was the beeb billed for jet juice then when James May had his jolly in the back seat of the Typhoon??

Hard to qualify his proggie as 'hard news' if those are the new guidelines...

Part of CAS's engagement strategy was to invite selected 'agents of influence' over the next 12 months to meet, and engage on a one to one basis, senior officers including CAS and to fly the Tiffy.

It is the same process as giving accredited jounralists special access to Afg or Iraq.

[Squirrel 41]

Wader2

You are of course correct - not "excess" per se but irreducible spare capacity.

The point here is that the nature of both the military and the NHS is that it is essentially designed to carry excess capacity in peacetime to allow it to function properly in a crisis. The issue will always be what is the irreducible spare capacity that is required to ensure that what is needed to be delivered in a crisis, can be.

Treasury will always push for the irreducible spare capacity to be smaller (ie, cheaper) and MOD/NHS will always push for more capacity / capability (at higher cost): the political decision making is in where to strike that balance. Properly implemented SIWM helps bridge the gap, to provide more capability.

S41

[Wader2]

A Supply Officer I know was audited. It was noted that the store was only half full. Clearly, if half full was enough then a smaller building would be more efficient.

True but who would pay for the new building?
Who would buy the old large building?

OK, maybe if a new large building was required then a swap could be arranged.

This overlooked some obvious points. The present building was in the right place but this may have been unsuitable to any other purpose. Crucially however it was the TOP half of the building that was empty. All the racks wer filled to their safe working height given the weight and bulk of the stores.:ugh:

[Jackonicko]

It may be "entirely subjective" as to whether Press/PR activities are a zero sum game for the RAF, but that's only one side of the equation.

The PR and recruiting value of coverage can be set aside.

The MoD is a publicly funded organisation, paid for by tax-payers, and is an arm of our democratically elected government.

It is therefore accountable and answerable to the taxpayer, and proper, appropriate and controlled access for the media should be part of the unspoken 'contract' between those who serve and those who pay. It's also faintly grubby for the MoD to be making money from giving proper recognition to and providing simple coverage of the activities of our servicemen and women.

Whether or not journalists/publishers make money from it is irrelevant.

I would say that the present unstated policy of treating news differently from history is fundamentally flawed, too.

[Wader2]

the fact that we are RAF plc and owe a dividend to our shareholders - Joe Public seems to have passed the board of directors by.

Agree Jacko

[Squirrel 41]

Jacko,

Firstly this isn't an anti-journo rant: indeed, I often read and usually enjoy your stuff.

MOD is (or certainly should be) publicly accountable; indeed, it is through Parliament on the 4 days a week the SofS isn't doing his part-time job. In this, it's basically the same as any other department.

However, I can't agree with your comment that

"Whether or not journalists/publishers make money from it is irrelevant."

It makes some difference - what would your view be if the MOD flogged off Chelsea Barracks to a developer for a song who then proceeded to make a fast buck? You'd be rightly outraged: and the same principle applies here.

In my view, if someone is going to make a packet out of repackaging and selling the stories of the RAF/MOD, AND there isn't a payoff in publicity / recruiting, then the journalists / programme makers should make a commensurate contribution. The question is one of balancing these requirements, and in this case it looks like the RAF has some work to do on this. (And yes, I know military history books make very little money!)

Just my tuppenth worth,

S41

[airborne_artist]

The argument about media publishers paying would be fine, but only if applied at 100% across the board. Whilst it's true that I don't buy the Daily Gleaner just for its coverage of the RAF/MoD, if it never covered them I might not buy it all.

The publishers of the Gleaner know that they have to cover all news worthy areas, including defence. The publisher makes a profit, so in part they are profiting from my desire for defence coverage. What's the difference between that and a specialist journal's profit motive?

BA doesn't charge if a journo from Flight does a feature on BA's new fleet of the 7XX, surely?

[Jackonicko]

No-one's making a fortune from military/defence publishing, whether historic or current.

And especially not young freelance journos like Ewan.

"Part of CAS's engagement strategy was to invite selected 'agents of influence' over the next 12 months to meet, and engage on a one to one basis, senior officers including CAS and to fly the Tiffy."

That would be great, if one didn't suspect that those selected were either entirely 'tame' or too ignorant to be able to ask difficult questions when they are justified.

I see this very much as further reinforcement of the culture of spin that has infected the RAF from the Civil Service.

[airborne_artist]

if one didn't suspect that those selected were either entirely 'tame'

or had been to the "right" school/had the "right" accent/or the "right" readership

[buoy15]

Ewan
Quote
"I am a full-time freelancer, so yes, I would be charging the publisher a word rate to write the spreads"
Is this akin to a Traffic Warden writing out a ticket, having stood alongside the offending car for a full 30 minutes?
How fraught, desperate, lonely and unhappy it must be as a journalist to try and get a scoop - even worse if you are a paparazzi type!
You could have chosen a more noble profession - the RAF
It certainly beats working for a living - AND - you get paid for your pleasure:p
However, it's not all doom and gloom, I'm sure your Mom still loves you:D

[Jackonicko]

Grow up, Buoy.
He wants to write a series of four positive pieces on RAF Flying Training, because he's interested in air power, defence, aviation and is keen to learn and then convey what he's learned to others.

There's nothing ignoble about that, whatever. He may well have once aspired to join the RAF and may have not reached the required standard - he may have been a wheezy, a sneezy, or a speccy or he may have failed aptitude. He may even have "got some in" - some defence journos have done. He's certainly done nothing to earn your contempt.

He knows that the publisher will pay him £Y for every 1,000 words that he writes, and that they want 5,200 words.

He will thus be paid 5.2 x Y.

The RAF want him to pay 10 x Y for the privilege of doing his research.

It so happens that he will be writing for a publication aimed primarily at air-minded youngsters - for perhaps the most relevant possible category of publication for the recruiters.

Is he wrong to be hacked off about his treatment?

I don't think so.

I do think that he'd be right in being offended at being lumped in with tabloid scum and paparazzi just because he's a journo.

That would be as silly as lumping you in with traffic wardens just because you could share the same 'public servant' label.

(His mum loves me, now.....) :p

[Ewan Whosearmy]

buoy wrote:


You could have chosen a more noble profession - the RAF


Could I? Who are you to tell me so? Do you mean to tell me that my asthma does *not* medically DQ me from serving?

Thanks for the input.

[buoy15]

Touched another Journos nerve
Oh Dear, Very sad, Never mind!:)

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Sure you did. I'm here crying onto my keyboard.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Ewan and Jacko,

I can think of one young lady who would advocate whole heartedly against any one ever talking to a journalist as to make their filthy lucre they will spin anything to sell a story..........also very surprised that none of the usual Prune tribe have jumped in with their condemnation of Jules Thurston and her very obvious career path as she heads towards sprogs and a VR post :rolleyes:

[Jackonicko]

How's life as a traffic warden, Seldom?

(What? You're not a traffic warden? - Well none of the regular journo posters on PPRuNe is that sort of Journo, either. These stereotypes are of no value, whatever, except in driving a wedge between the service, and the small section of the press that is sympathetic to the service.)

[buoy15]

Ewan
Best advice now is to close down your computer and clean your keyboard with methylated spirit and allow it to dry off, by which time you will have stopped crying:D

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Seldom

I don't want this thread to creep any further. This thread isn't about whether all journalists are bad (they're not), but about how the RAF handles jounalists' requests.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Sorry Jacko not a traffic warden but definitely a realist:rolleyes:

I don't know you or Ewan, in the same way that a very capable colleague of mine didn't know her interviewer and she, like many before her and no doubt many more to come was stitched up like a kipper, hence my previous post :ugh:

For you and Ewan being a journo must compare to being a Tour de France competitior............you all protest your innocence but most of us know the truth.............:sad:

[brickhistory]

Outsider's question:

If the RAF cooperates/provides access to personnel and/or equipment, do they then get to review and comment on the resulting draft piece?

Question is geared toward magazine and book stories, not 'daily' news.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Ewan,

Unless I am mistaken you were asking for individuals to offer you gratis info accompanied with their own personal details so YOU could write a piece for monetary gain.

The guys and gals who you target have no idea how your eventually submission will appear and are therefore at your mercy when it comes to print.

My only advice on here was that having seen one colleague butt fuc@ed in the most awful fashion in the press and on here is that avoidance as opposed to caution should be the way ahead...........which also may be why the RAF have taken the stance they have :=

[Jackonicko]

Seldom,

An intelligent person ought to be able to tell the difference between the specialist journos - who aren't in the game of stitching up the people they regard as being their primary focus, their colleagues, and even their friends - and the tabloid hacks who are often a pretty unscrupulous bunch.

I hear your protestations of innocence - but know that you're a traffic warden or a toilet cleaner.....



Brick,

That's often the way it works - with clearance (often a prohibitively time consuming and frustrating process) being the price demanded for help.

And if clearance is used, an article might be stripped of anything (whether it's already in the public domain or not) without any right of appeal.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"I hear your protestations of innocence - but know that you're a traffic warden or a toilet cleaner....."

Nope fella but as professional military aircrew I actually DO what you can only dream of :E

[buoy15]

Ok Journos
Here's one for the ditch
A recitation
There was a young lady from Uppingham,
who went for a dip in the lake
A man in a punt
stook his pole in the water,
and said - you can't swim here, it's private
Without spin, how would that appear in the local press ?
good night!

[Archimedes]

Fair enough point about the stitch ups, Seldom (don't get me onto the two journos who've tried to do that with me), but...

The stance taken is about maximising income. As far as I can tell, the MoD couldn't care less whether, having got the cash from the author or magazine, the journalist goes on to do a hatchet job on the poor s*d who's been interviewed or not. It tends to be the case that the specialist journos don't do hatchet jobs - otherwise who would talk to them? Tabloid journos can easily stitch up an RAF officer or airman and then move on safe in the knowledge that it'll have no effect on their income, because they can move on to talking about the breasts belonging to the ditzy blonde in the Big Brother House (a prime candidate for kinetic effect, but I digress).

There seems every chance, though, that the new policy will lead to fewer properly researched pieces in aviation magazines, and will in turn lessen the free positive publicity that could factor into recruiting, etc.

Worse still, what happens if magazine editors conclude that to fill the gap in their coverage on the RAF they should get the odd piece from Lewis Page and Tim Collins, who can be guaranteed to put forward some provocative thoughts on the state of British air power? Or, more likely, the specialist press decide not to bother and leave the RAF (and FAA and AAC) minus the current fairly heavy coverage (almost all totally positive) they receive. The result of that is even less for the news journos to even bother to flick through when writing their stories for the next day's chip wrapper, ending in the production of even more inaccurate bolleaux from the likes of Newton Dunn (he who believes aircraft are controlled with a 'navigation stick'), most likely of the 'RAF pilots on jolly to Spain Scandal' variety.

Charging the specialist press would seem likely to backfire - fewer positive/accurate pieces about the RAF with concomitant if incalcuable recruiting value because it isn't worth the while of the journalist or journal to stump up the fee, leaving most of the coverage of the air force in the hands of Newton Dunn and his ilk, who don't have to pay and who don't bother even getting the basic facts right.

Journalists are like atomic weapons - in that they're potentially extremely dangerous if allowed to go off uncontrolled and they're impossible to uninvent. We have to live with them, even if we don't (rightly) tell them everything. As a result, increasing the coverage of the RAF in the Sun and the Telegraph and reducing the properly thought out material that appears from people who can actually be ar$ed to do some research by pricing them out of the equation seems a very silly policy indeed, bound to end in far more work for corporate comms as they try to correct unhelpful coverage ('Sorry, mate. We'll stick a correction on page 32')

[Pontius Navigator]

SFFP, ah, see where you are coming from.

Yes Archimedes, nicely put, the essential difference between the dilettante-type sensationalist and the professional specialist. I remember about 3 years ago getting a cold call from Louise Yeoman whose boyfriend 'saw' an article in the Vulcan thread. That compares differently from the writers such as BrickHistory who establish a presence and credibility before engaging with people willing to help.

Brick, on some articles I have been consulted and had an editorial input. On others they have been straight plagarism of earlier articles and I have had some of my work lifted and used as a quote as if it has been an interview. As for the work being vetted by the Ministry ROTFLOL. They might vet but they are looking after their butts not ours (unless you are very lucky). Really it is only the subject who can say "I didn't say that".

I remember a very provocative, fly-on-the-wall TV Documentary back in 1963. It was called the Deliverers about the British nuclear deterrent forces. In the TV Room the guys were laughing at how corny it was. It was critically acclaimed by the public, so are we our best critics? Anyway a particular scene captured one of the wives making a point in a way that she was not portrayed in a good light. Her husband later joined our crew and we flew together for some years. I met them again two years ago. She was always delightful and charming but that shot cut to the quick. For the public it was probably of no consequence.

The other venture, similar to Ewan's but on a bigger scale was Fighter Pilot. Critically acclaimed by junior officers and still with the power to make senior ones cringe "It's only an 8-5 job"

Ewan,

to your credit you came here under your own colours and made it clear what you were looking for. If you do get people to help then I hope you ensure you strike a balance between student and instructor and not someone with a chip on both shoulders.

[JT Eagle]

Archimedes - hooray, well put.

Seldom and Buoy - you seem obsessed with the idea that every "journo" (writer/author/film-maker) is a tabloid shock horror merchant in disguise, who wants nothing more than to stitch up their subject. Have you never read an aviation magazine? It's not in their interest to "dish dirt" on their subjects or delve into controversial areas. In the case of the MoD, they risk access being withdrawn for their staff writers and freelancers. The dailies seem to be able to write any inaccurate crap they like and be asked back the next week to fly in Typhoon. Anyone noticed how the aviation monthlies are increasingly filled with stories and especially cover photos of everyone's aircraft except the RAF's? It's becoming too much hassle, and others, particularly the US are very willing to help without vetting the material first.

Brick - if you can, tell us how access to the USAF/USN/Marines/Army differs to the UK situation that Jacko described.

The days of specialist, usually ex-service "air" correspondents with a deep background knowledge working for newspapers are long gone. Two aviation industry reporters I know double as the oil correspondent (UK paper) and sports business (ecch) reporter (US). I expect at least one of those beats was not chosen for a love of the subject. People like Ewan, Jacko and several other contributors stick to aviation and know it inside out. They get paid a pittance for their efforts (compared to staff journalists in Fleet Street anyway), pay their own expenses for the most part and work hard to get their facts straight. Neither they nor their publishers pay subjects for interviews, in fact neither do most reputable newspapers. If Seldom and Buoy think that anyone is getting rich from half an hour of their time spent describing the ins and outs of the UK flight training system, then they need to turn the oxygen regulator up a little.

JT - en route to Edwards AFB, where the video is not £1000/minute

[brickhistory]

Brick - if you can, tell us how access to the USAF/USN/Marines/Army differs to the UK situation that Jacko described.

It's fairly similiar. One has to go through the official Public Affairs for whatever base the writer's interest resides. I am unaware if PA then gets to 'vet' the resulting story. They don't mine, but see why in the next para.

In my own case, since I'm 'inside,' I contact the subject first, ask if they want to 'play.' If they do, then I go through PA to set up the interview. If they don't, then I don't put them in the position of having to either say 'no' (if that's an option for a more senior person) or of being an unwilling subject. I also give the subject the opportunity to review my draft before trying to place any article in a publication. I want to tell a good flying story not humiliate anyone.

It is in the best interest of the ever diminishing number of aviation writers to write positive pieces and be accurate. A reputation as a jerk will soon stop access to the subjects. Again, this is for an aviation writer. The newspaper/TV reporter who is given a story today at Base X and covers the dog kidnaping tomorrow is an entirely different matter.

It also helps that I write as a hobby (on my own time, at my own expense) and not for a living. Writing for a living is a damn tough way to make a buck!

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Very well put, Archimedes.

There is indeed relatively very little written about the RAF, and you can trace that back to the fact that it is too difficult to work with. The new WMI is simply exacerbating that.

Brick

No, USAF PA does not get to vet the work of 'outsiders', and in the 7 years I have been working with them they have never asked. The same is true of the US Navy. I think that the RAF is one of the very few organisations that believes it is a good idea to leverage editorial control with access.

[Jackonicko]

Does the RAF's UTTER ineptitude when it comes to comms and media relations contribute to the problems alluded to in the 'Big Willy' thread?

That's to say, is the mainstream media dominated by narrow-minded, second-rate Army/Navy centric half wits like Hastings and Page because Dark Blue and Green senior officers set the agenda, and favour those journos over the more air-minded?

Or are the Army and Navy just 'braver' when dealing with the press?

Are the Army and Navy charging Wider Market fees to those who want to write about them?

Just asking.....

[Phil_R]

I think the treatment of journalists in this thread, and the actions of the (presumably mainly RAF) people perpetrating it, are absolutely beyond the pale.

Presumably those anti-journalistic complainers will have nothing to say the next time an inaccurate article is written?

Phil