Paying for Publicity and The RAF
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
However, it's not all doom and gloom, I'm sure your Mom still loves you
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
However, it's not all doom and gloom, I'm sure your Mom still loves you
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.....)
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.....)
Thread Starter
buoy wrote:
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.
You could have chosen a more noble profession - the RAF
Thanks for the input.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.)
(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.)
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Jacko not a traffic warden but definitely a realist
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
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.............
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
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.............
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
Nope fella but as professional military aircrew I actually DO what you can only dream of
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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')
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')
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brick - if you can, tell us how access to the USAF/USN/Marines/Army differs to the UK situation that Jacko described.
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!
Thread Starter
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.
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.