Paying for Publicity and The RAF
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Backlash Starts Here
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
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Pontius
Thanks for the info on WMI. It's nice to know what the damned thing is actually called.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the story that the initiative has been forced on the services by the Treasury us true
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.
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
Last edited by Climebear; 31st Jul 2007 at 08:51.
RAF plc
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
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Implementation, Implementation, Implementation!!
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
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
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 31st Jul 2007 at 11:32. Reason: St. Andrews is clearly "the" home of golf, not just "a"!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not excess capacity but irreducible spare capacity. This also implies that if it was unneeded excess then it should be flogged off.
True and this is what we are talking about.
and this is the rub
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 
then he would be in the money.
PS, I realised the typo but on second thoughts got it right first time.
Government's policy that used to be called "Selling Into Wider Markets" (IIRC) is actually a sensible idea.
and this is the rub
But charging journalists for positive publicity?
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 then he would be in the money.PS, I realised the typo but on second thoughts got it right first time.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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 - or were they out in force the previous day?
Hard to qualify his proggie as 'hard news' if those are the new guidelines...
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
- or were they out in force the previous day?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the same process as giving accredited jounralists special access to Afg or Iraq.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by airborne_artist; 31st Jul 2007 at 13:50. Reason: The usual ....
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.
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.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
if one didn't suspect that those selected were either entirely 'tame'