Parasites
Regie,
I was interested by your disagreement with my assertion:
"And also realise that the RAF is becoming a less media savvy, and less media friendly organisation institutionally, as are many of its members."
Interested enough to think exactly what I mean, and to reconsider. You are absolutely right that a media training regime is in place and that this regime does provide excellent tuition in presentation to many personnel.
There is also the fact that many senior officers today are more accessible than they have ever been, and that they are more willing to talk, and seem much more at ease (and frankly more impressive) than their predecessors. CAS and AOC 1 Group, in particular, are highly regarded by many specialist Defence writers. It's a shame this has come so late, when so many papers (with a few honourable exceptions) have lost their really high calibre defence correspondents.
But the actual PR machine is increasingly risible, obstructive and inefficient, often seeming to use a strategy of delaying in the hope that deadlines will pass. There is also the real problem that the RAF's own PR machinery increasingly serves a Civil Service, Main Building boss, and which is increasingly used as a political (and even party political) tool - becoming uncomfortably close to being part of the spin machine. However professionally and smoothly people present spin, what working journos need are facts, insight, and help in understanding often complex issues.
In the case of the Hercules accident, the line:
"The cause of the loss will not be known until the BOI has reported, but possible explanations could include a technical problem, human factors, the weather, or enemy action. The experts will need time to assess the evidence and reach their conclusions."
would be better than a blank "no comment".
Moreover, as long as the "wrong to speculate" line is stressed, it would be entirely fair to underline the Hercules safety record, and the excellence of RAF aircrew and aircrew training.
I'd also point out that the MoD was ridiculously slow in confirming whether it was a J or a K, the fact that it came from 47 (even after the Aussie Nav's identity was revealed in Australia) and that it's slowness in releasing the names of the crew exacerbated the problems which you chaps have been suffering.
I was interested by your disagreement with my assertion:
"And also realise that the RAF is becoming a less media savvy, and less media friendly organisation institutionally, as are many of its members."
Interested enough to think exactly what I mean, and to reconsider. You are absolutely right that a media training regime is in place and that this regime does provide excellent tuition in presentation to many personnel.
There is also the fact that many senior officers today are more accessible than they have ever been, and that they are more willing to talk, and seem much more at ease (and frankly more impressive) than their predecessors. CAS and AOC 1 Group, in particular, are highly regarded by many specialist Defence writers. It's a shame this has come so late, when so many papers (with a few honourable exceptions) have lost their really high calibre defence correspondents.
But the actual PR machine is increasingly risible, obstructive and inefficient, often seeming to use a strategy of delaying in the hope that deadlines will pass. There is also the real problem that the RAF's own PR machinery increasingly serves a Civil Service, Main Building boss, and which is increasingly used as a political (and even party political) tool - becoming uncomfortably close to being part of the spin machine. However professionally and smoothly people present spin, what working journos need are facts, insight, and help in understanding often complex issues.
In the case of the Hercules accident, the line:
"The cause of the loss will not be known until the BOI has reported, but possible explanations could include a technical problem, human factors, the weather, or enemy action. The experts will need time to assess the evidence and reach their conclusions."
would be better than a blank "no comment".
Moreover, as long as the "wrong to speculate" line is stressed, it would be entirely fair to underline the Hercules safety record, and the excellence of RAF aircrew and aircrew training.
I'd also point out that the MoD was ridiculously slow in confirming whether it was a J or a K, the fact that it came from 47 (even after the Aussie Nav's identity was revealed in Australia) and that it's slowness in releasing the names of the crew exacerbated the problems which you chaps have been suffering.
Champagne anyone...?
Jacko, confirming whether it was J or K may have immediately identified the sqn and crew concerned, to those in the know. They could say nothing until the kinforming was complete. It being a J or K was of no relevance to the general public in the first 24 - 48 hours after the incident occured.
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is, or at least, was, a media problem in the RAF. Sorry to hear that it seems to have got worse. Here in Oz corporals and airmen seem perfectly at home with media interviews and, presumably, this is encouraged by the 'wheels' and they also seem to be trained/prepared for it.
Having done the RAF PR course I can endorse what Jacko is saying. Give the reptiles something, anything, which will put you or your organisation in as good a light as possible. If they have got material then they will print it/put it to air - if they haven't then they will be searching for interviews from inappropriate sources or making it up. They might do that anyway but at least you have had your say.
Second problem is kinforming in an age of speed of light communications. The system needs looking at and speeded up. Everyone who has been through IOT will be familiar with the Office Simulator scenario of "Flt Lt Smith (deceased)". Yes, there is a problem with telling the wrong Mrs Smith but the system has to be improved.
During GW1 I had a problem with kinforming when the father of the lad that had dived into a half empty pool at Muharraq with a possible broken neck, rang me to complain why it was taking so long to let him know officially, especially as he had talked to his son minutes after arriving in hospital courtesy of his mate's mobile. Officially, we had to get confirmation from the medical staff (who were waiting for results from a CAT scan) which had to be routed through the detachment commander, through HQ STC and PMC and finally to us. It's got to be changed!
Having done the RAF PR course I can endorse what Jacko is saying. Give the reptiles something, anything, which will put you or your organisation in as good a light as possible. If they have got material then they will print it/put it to air - if they haven't then they will be searching for interviews from inappropriate sources or making it up. They might do that anyway but at least you have had your say.
Second problem is kinforming in an age of speed of light communications. The system needs looking at and speeded up. Everyone who has been through IOT will be familiar with the Office Simulator scenario of "Flt Lt Smith (deceased)". Yes, there is a problem with telling the wrong Mrs Smith but the system has to be improved.
During GW1 I had a problem with kinforming when the father of the lad that had dived into a half empty pool at Muharraq with a possible broken neck, rang me to complain why it was taking so long to let him know officially, especially as he had talked to his son minutes after arriving in hospital courtesy of his mate's mobile. Officially, we had to get confirmation from the medical staff (who were waiting for results from a CAT scan) which had to be routed through the detachment commander, through HQ STC and PMC and finally to us. It's got to be changed!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I suspect that ...
"The cause of the loss will not be known until the BOI has reported, but possible explanations could include a technical problem, human factors, the weather, or enemy action. The experts will need time to assess the evidence and reach their conclusions."
... would result in the headline ...
'MOD confirm enemy action may be to blame'
or
'Were the pilots to blame? MOD refuse to rule out etc etc'
I agree, though, that 'no comment' is probably the worst of all worlds.
How about a law that specifically prohibits any more than the MOD statement in cases where people are killed in war zones?
Ll
I suspect that ...
"The cause of the loss will not be known until the BOI has reported, but possible explanations could include a technical problem, human factors, the weather, or enemy action. The experts will need time to assess the evidence and reach their conclusions."
... would result in the headline ...
'MOD confirm enemy action may be to blame'
or
'Were the pilots to blame? MOD refuse to rule out etc etc'
I agree, though, that 'no comment' is probably the worst of all worlds.
How about a law that specifically prohibits any more than the MOD statement in cases where people are killed in war zones?
Ll
Jacko,
As ever, an articulate and insightful post - I hope that your observations are noted.
However, with few exceptions I must confess to finding journalists pretty repulsive as a breed - most especially given the blatant application of double standards; we hear the cry 'it is in the public interest' all too often. Why then, did the media pool adopt a self-imposed ban upon reporting the kidnap of one of their own in Baghdad?
[Daily Telegrapg - 15 Aug 04: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html]
Who decided that the public were not interested in that instance? Of course, that individual was released - because the terrorists did not get the publicity they craved. Kenneth Bigley was unfortunate enough to be outside of a self-serving, hypocritical club for the morally bankrupt: journalists were a party to his murder.
As ever, an articulate and insightful post - I hope that your observations are noted.
However, with few exceptions I must confess to finding journalists pretty repulsive as a breed - most especially given the blatant application of double standards; we hear the cry 'it is in the public interest' all too often. Why then, did the media pool adopt a self-imposed ban upon reporting the kidnap of one of their own in Baghdad?
[Daily Telegrapg - 15 Aug 04: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html]
Who decided that the public were not interested in that instance? Of course, that individual was released - because the terrorists did not get the publicity they craved. Kenneth Bigley was unfortunate enough to be outside of a self-serving, hypocritical club for the morally bankrupt: journalists were a party to his murder.
PPatRoN
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: England
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Kirk, your post reminded me of something from Prof Onora O'Neill's excellent Reith Lectures 2002 . Essentially (and speaking of the Press's common culture, not honourable exceptions), she said in her final lecture (excerpt below) that the Press delights in holding everyone to account, and presenting everyone's errors and shortfalls to public scrutiny -- everyone except the press.
adr
adr
Meanwhile, some powerful institutions and professions have managed to avoid not only the excessive but the sensible aspects of the revolutions in accountability and transparency. Most evidently, the media, in particular the print media-while deeply preoccupied with others' untrustworthiness-have escaped demands for accountability (that is, apart from the financial disciplines set by company law and accounting practices). This is less true of the terrestrial broadcasting media, which are subject to legislation and regulation. The BBC (I thought I had better mention that, given where I am!) also has its Charter, Agreement and Producers' Guidelines 2, and those include commitments to impartiality, accuracy, fairness, giving a full view, editorial independence, respect for privacy, standards of taste and decency - I am not claiming that compliance is perfect.
Newspaper editors and journalists are not held accountable in these ways. Outstanding reporting and accurate writing mingle with editing and reporting that smears, sneers and jeers, names, shames and blames. Some reporting 'covers' (or should I say 'uncovers'?) dementing amounts of trivia, some misrepresents, some denigrates, some teeters on the brink of defamation. In this curious world, commitments to trustworthy reporting are erratic: there is no shame in writing on matters beyond a reporter's competence, in coining misleading headlines, in omitting matters of public interest or importance, or in recirculating others' speculations as supposed 'news'. Above all there is no requirement to make evidence accessible to readers.
Newspaper editors and journalists are not held accountable in these ways. Outstanding reporting and accurate writing mingle with editing and reporting that smears, sneers and jeers, names, shames and blames. Some reporting 'covers' (or should I say 'uncovers'?) dementing amounts of trivia, some misrepresents, some denigrates, some teeters on the brink of defamation. In this curious world, commitments to trustworthy reporting are erratic: there is no shame in writing on matters beyond a reporter's competence, in coining misleading headlines, in omitting matters of public interest or importance, or in recirculating others' speculations as supposed 'news'. Above all there is no requirement to make evidence accessible to readers.
I was in Middle East country three years ago. The hotel group security was supplied by the Gurkha's and led by an ex British special forces person. Journo's were not encouraged on the property, and two who tried to take photo's from a boat of the beach found themselves arrested by the police, (They did not check six at any time), slung in jail and the paperwork was LOST for two weeks. This provided an object lesson to the press scum in area, that the local police take privacy very seriously.
Maybe the press should have a reality check in the UK. If only people would call the police and claim harrasment and trespass.
Maybe the press should have a reality check in the UK. If only people would call the police and claim harrasment and trespass.
L'enfant Terrible
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The bar of Mumbles rugby club
Age: 43
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I agree with the concensus that journalists are scum, I also question the moral mindset in this country that seeks to profit from others' misfortune. just look at the amount of pathetic 'reality TV.'
Why anyone feels a 'need' to see a grieving widow is beyond me.
Why anyone feels a 'need' to see a grieving widow is beyond me.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Journalists at the Widows Front Door
Having had some personal involvement with recent events, and with the knowledge that both local and national media did knock on grieving widows' front doors less than 24 hours after the Herc crash, I cannot see any defence for the practice. Even if you accept the "public interest" argument and if you believe the "No comment" line from MOD is a contributory factor, there can be no justification for cold calling for an interview with anybody less than 12 hours after they have been told their loved one is dead. Similarly, waiting outside the Junior and Infants School to interview children can hardly be viewed as morally sound.
Yes journalists have a job to do, but they are supposedly, and in my belief, still human beings. Presumably they are capable of considering the emotional state of others as well as doing their job. Does anybody really think they would be in a clear and lucid frame of mind less than 12 hours after losing their spouse and would be ready to talk to the press? I somehow don't think I could cope with an interview with a hack.
If the PCC is the answer, I'll recommend it to some of the folk involved in these recent tragic events. Thanks for taking this issue out from the Herc Down thread; a morally sound decision!
Yes journalists have a job to do, but they are supposedly, and in my belief, still human beings. Presumably they are capable of considering the emotional state of others as well as doing their job. Does anybody really think they would be in a clear and lucid frame of mind less than 12 hours after losing their spouse and would be ready to talk to the press? I somehow don't think I could cope with an interview with a hack.
If the PCC is the answer, I'll recommend it to some of the folk involved in these recent tragic events. Thanks for taking this issue out from the Herc Down thread; a morally sound decision!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of 2p worth (That'll be 4p then)
I am always amazed whenever I hear the subject I know most about (Mil aviation - although some may disagree with me!) is reported in the press, they always seem to get about 90% of the facts absolutely wrong. It makes you wonder - if thats the case in the one subject I do know about - how much of what the rest of the stuff reported is absolute baloney??? Makes you wonder..
Secondly - I think most humans do have a voyouristic (??) streak in them - as catered for by endless 'reality' shows. After a while they become imune to just seeing people live normal lives so the media have to provide more and more 'intimate' moments to share with the public - one of these must be the tears of a grieving widow. How long before 'celebrity bereavement' hits channel 5?? I'm not backing them, just trying to find a justification as to how these reptiles sleep at night.
That's 4p please (Plus Tax, National Insurance, earnings-gain tax and loss of child benefit/tax credits - total bill: £136.50)
LC
I am always amazed whenever I hear the subject I know most about (Mil aviation - although some may disagree with me!) is reported in the press, they always seem to get about 90% of the facts absolutely wrong. It makes you wonder - if thats the case in the one subject I do know about - how much of what the rest of the stuff reported is absolute baloney??? Makes you wonder..
Secondly - I think most humans do have a voyouristic (??) streak in them - as catered for by endless 'reality' shows. After a while they become imune to just seeing people live normal lives so the media have to provide more and more 'intimate' moments to share with the public - one of these must be the tears of a grieving widow. How long before 'celebrity bereavement' hits channel 5?? I'm not backing them, just trying to find a justification as to how these reptiles sleep at night.
That's 4p please (Plus Tax, National Insurance, earnings-gain tax and loss of child benefit/tax credits - total bill: £136.50)
LC
"There is no shame in writing on matters beyond a reporter's competence."
Nor does there seem to be any recognition that there is any need for any specialist knowledge when reporting on defence or aviation - they're not important or complex subjects like motoring, gardening or cricket, after all. Why have someone who knows what they're talking about when you can have some vaguely decorative work experience bint to whom an A380 or a Hercules are both just 'big planes'. It's worse on TV and radio, but it's shockingly bad in the print media, too.
I do wish people would stop lumping all journalists together as 'scum', it's offensive, it's small minded and it's as silly and as misleading as lumping together all Forces personnel as 'ignorant squaddies'. Some of them may be, but the majority are not, except in certain high profile areas of the press.
It's also discourteous, as there are a number of respectable journos who frequent these boards - starting with John Farley, best known as a TP, but a ferociously good occasional contributor to Flight.
Nor does there seem to be any recognition that there is any need for any specialist knowledge when reporting on defence or aviation - they're not important or complex subjects like motoring, gardening or cricket, after all. Why have someone who knows what they're talking about when you can have some vaguely decorative work experience bint to whom an A380 or a Hercules are both just 'big planes'. It's worse on TV and radio, but it's shockingly bad in the print media, too.
I do wish people would stop lumping all journalists together as 'scum', it's offensive, it's small minded and it's as silly and as misleading as lumping together all Forces personnel as 'ignorant squaddies'. Some of them may be, but the majority are not, except in certain high profile areas of the press.
It's also discourteous, as there are a number of respectable journos who frequent these boards - starting with John Farley, best known as a TP, but a ferociously good occasional contributor to Flight.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wish people would stop lumping all journalists together as 'scum',
Something just occured to me though. There are a great number of journalists who report from dangerous areas where they can be subject to harm. Witness the very long BBC programme that ran a tribute to all the reporters that had died in the second Iraq war. Now, whilst for the sake of their families I hope that all of them in harms way come back safely, it is realistic to assume that like the military personnel, frequent exposure to danger will inevitably lead to some casualties. Maybe the next time that a reporter is lost we should send 20-30 squaddies around instantly to their editor's home asking how he/she feels and trying to get photos for the stn/regt/ship magazine. After all, it's in the public interest catagory and would help we, the military, to better understand the losses that war brings on civilian population etc.
We have more decency than the gutter press and would leave the family alone, but we could hunt out the editors and publishers...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, I agree - we do tend to lump all journos together and it is remiss of us to do so; however, whilst there are those who bring your profession into disrepute, this will be the result.
If there is a solution it lies not with the Services and their media training but in regulation of the activities of the journalist in pursuit of the story. I am sure that your profession is responsive to the outcome of complaints upheld by the Press Complaints Commission but do the public refer complaints of the nature expressed in this forum?
I suspect not and until we have the energy and initiative to do so this problem will remain.
If there is a solution it lies not with the Services and their media training but in regulation of the activities of the journalist in pursuit of the story. I am sure that your profession is responsive to the outcome of complaints upheld by the Press Complaints Commission but do the public refer complaints of the nature expressed in this forum?
I suspect not and until we have the energy and initiative to do so this problem will remain.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny old thing, went to work today and now that the names of all involved have been released the media throng has just vanished from outside the main gates. Got what they wanted and then bogged off, crawling back under whatever rock from whence they came. Needless to say they will want their "public interest" footage/pictures when all are repatriated.
As for harrasing families, children & friends I just wish they would have a moment of humane thought (hard for them I know, if not impossible). LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!!! How would they feel if it were their families?
As for harrasing families, children & friends I just wish they would have a moment of humane thought (hard for them I know, if not impossible). LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!!! How would they feel if it were their families?
Lafyar - spot on. I am amazed at how readily otherwise intelligent people will believe most of what they read/see/hear in the media without questioning its provenance.
Jacko - fair point but the 'vaguely decorative work experience bint' is a bit un-PC for you!
Jacko - fair point but the 'vaguely decorative work experience bint' is a bit un-PC for you!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lafya has the same quandry that I have had for years - in that if the press constantly get what you know wrong, how much more is wrong with- say reporting of the safety of a recently built bridge. Jacko, it is for this reason that the 'main stream' press have little cred in my book. I'm not agreeing that 'all' journos are scum, but most of them are full of crXXp. Those who write specialist articles for specialist mags (like flight et al, ) normally get it right, but even they often get (minor) points of fact wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
I don't believe all Journo's are to be tarred with the same brush (one of my best friends knows someone who cleaned the windows of a girl who's sister babysat for a Journo!!)
And there are some very good ones - however, just like we are all handlebarred-moustached, Right wing, dashing young prats called Ginger and Whizzo, there is a great temptation to lump you all in to the same boat - for this I apologise, as it is unfair and probably predjudiced.
However there are some (maybe a disproportionate few) who really blot your copy-book. To use a different example from the current debate I know of a current ITV anchorman who's name I can't mention (although it might apparently rhyme with Bark Bostin) who, during the Mozambique floods asked Puma crews to put locals into the trees so that he could film them being rescued by a Brit helcopter...
Maybe a few - but significant enough to make us have second thoughts..
I don't believe all Journo's are to be tarred with the same brush (one of my best friends knows someone who cleaned the windows of a girl who's sister babysat for a Journo!!)
And there are some very good ones - however, just like we are all handlebarred-moustached, Right wing, dashing young prats called Ginger and Whizzo, there is a great temptation to lump you all in to the same boat - for this I apologise, as it is unfair and probably predjudiced.
However there are some (maybe a disproportionate few) who really blot your copy-book. To use a different example from the current debate I know of a current ITV anchorman who's name I can't mention (although it might apparently rhyme with Bark Bostin) who, during the Mozambique floods asked Puma crews to put locals into the trees so that he could film them being rescued by a Brit helcopter...
Maybe a few - but significant enough to make us have second thoughts..