The appalling ignorance of Journalists....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vox Populi View Post
PN, This is a serious accusation (the BBC Midlands fake story), care to shed any further light on the subject? I will look into it as I cannot find any note on the BBC file.
PN:
The talk we had was under CHR so perhaps I said too much.
PN, This is a serious accusation (the BBC Midlands fake story), care to shed any further light on the subject? I will look into it as I cannot find any note on the BBC file.
PN:
The talk we had was under CHR so perhaps I said too much.
These stories banded about in Military PR briefs are ten a penny. No doubt you've all heard about the journos in GW1 (and updated for GW2) who look bewildered when the NBC kits went on around them, because they left theirs in the hotel. That story isn't true either.
There is a cliched, inaccurate view of the media that pervades much of the miltary media training. It does great harm to what can be a normal, working relationship in my opinion.
VP:
As for the Vietnam girl, she is Kim Phúc (now living in Canada I believe). She was napalmed by the South Vietnamese on the 8th June 1972 during an attack on North Vietnamese forces in Trang Bang. If you care to tell her she wasn't, be my guest. To my knowledge the only person who has ever doubted the veracity of the picture was Richard Nixon, so you're in good company.
PN:
It is not the veracity of the picture but of the story that I was refering to. The image, as far as I can check, is unvarnished. What varied was the way it was cropped and presented.
As for the Vietnam girl, she is Kim Phúc (now living in Canada I believe). She was napalmed by the South Vietnamese on the 8th June 1972 during an attack on North Vietnamese forces in Trang Bang. If you care to tell her she wasn't, be my guest. To my knowledge the only person who has ever doubted the veracity of the picture was Richard Nixon, so you're in good company.
PN:
It is not the veracity of the picture but of the story that I was refering to. The image, as far as I can check, is unvarnished. What varied was the way it was cropped and presented.
But the picture is of that event, no one seriously doubts that (as I said, apart from Nixon). Were you told that in a military PR briefing? I really dispair at the crap that is passed around. No wonder you have no time for the press.
The culture difference here is massive. In a newsroom if you make some sort of statement about a picture or tell a story about reporters in theatre, people immediatley want to know what your source is and where the story came from - how many of you ask that of your 'Media trainer' when they trot out these great sounding, but apocryphal stories.
VP
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In every experience I have had with the media I have felt let down, whether it be as an observer or as a participant.
I only have to think of the reporting of XV179 for the first 2 days and the same again for the first day of XV230.
The utter lies put forth in the interests of selling a story were disgusting.
Add to that having journos on the flight deck taking photos when instructed not to and printing quotes that were meant to be expressly off the record (for a variety of reasons they had heard things that they should not have). I dont trust them, and if that upsets the honest journos out there too bad, better that than letting more crap come out from the dishonest ones.
I only have to think of the reporting of XV179 for the first 2 days and the same again for the first day of XV230.
The utter lies put forth in the interests of selling a story were disgusting.
Add to that having journos on the flight deck taking photos when instructed not to and printing quotes that were meant to be expressly off the record (for a variety of reasons they had heard things that they should not have). I dont trust them, and if that upsets the honest journos out there too bad, better that than letting more crap come out from the dishonest ones.
That's like saying that all RAF aircrew are narrow-minded, prejudiced and lacking in judgement. You two prove that such stereotypes exist, but the vast majority are broad-minded open and intelligent, just as most journos do their job to the best of their ability, with honesty and integrity.
Juliet, aviate...
Go right ahead, dudes. If and when you reach senior rank and stonewall every question because you dislike journalists as a group, don't be surprised when out-of-context, misleading stories emerge with, somewhere buried in them, the statement "the RAF had not responded to repeated enquiries".
You live in a nation where the government (to which you report) theoretically does what the people decide to do. If you want an informed decision to be made about what you do, you have to inform them. Since you can't send MoD press releases to 60 million people, that's where the media comes in (and indeed that what medium means in that context).
Disengage from the media and you disengage from the people and accept the consequences.
Now, on the other hand, if you're just having a little whine and trying to yank the chains of the journos on this forum, you're being immature and petty, and wasting our time, but on the other hand there is hope. Because if what you really mean is that you don't like some stories, and some journos, that's quite natural (see my post above).
The secret to media relations (from the institutional viewpoint) is to reward and reinforce good journalism (by answering questions promptly and responsively) and to defend against the bad.
You do the latter by addressing bad data - that is, if the journalist has been fed a line by someone else grinding their own axe - quickly, clearly and professionally, and setting clear rules for access. For instance, if a 60 Minutes or Panorama shows up and wants an interview, you insist on pre-written questions and brief the hell out of the interviewee.
Access rules also include all the variations of "off the record" that my learned colleague JN talked about. And we all know that we will never get access again if we break those rules, which leads to another principle of media relations: if the journo has a professional interest in not having that happen, you can trust them more.
Go right ahead, dudes. If and when you reach senior rank and stonewall every question because you dislike journalists as a group, don't be surprised when out-of-context, misleading stories emerge with, somewhere buried in them, the statement "the RAF had not responded to repeated enquiries".
You live in a nation where the government (to which you report) theoretically does what the people decide to do. If you want an informed decision to be made about what you do, you have to inform them. Since you can't send MoD press releases to 60 million people, that's where the media comes in (and indeed that what medium means in that context).
Disengage from the media and you disengage from the people and accept the consequences.
Now, on the other hand, if you're just having a little whine and trying to yank the chains of the journos on this forum, you're being immature and petty, and wasting our time, but on the other hand there is hope. Because if what you really mean is that you don't like some stories, and some journos, that's quite natural (see my post above).
The secret to media relations (from the institutional viewpoint) is to reward and reinforce good journalism (by answering questions promptly and responsively) and to defend against the bad.
You do the latter by addressing bad data - that is, if the journalist has been fed a line by someone else grinding their own axe - quickly, clearly and professionally, and setting clear rules for access. For instance, if a 60 Minutes or Panorama shows up and wants an interview, you insist on pre-written questions and brief the hell out of the interviewee.
Access rules also include all the variations of "off the record" that my learned colleague JN talked about. And we all know that we will never get access again if we break those rules, which leads to another principle of media relations: if the journo has a professional interest in not having that happen, you can trust them more.
Last edited by LowObservable; 24th Nov 2008 at 16:08.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low,
I didnt say I was all for stonewalling journos, nor did I say that the public should be kept in the dark.
I said that I didnt like journos, because in my experience they tend to lie a lot, put their spin on things, and always look for the catch that isnt there so as to make a story more sensational.
If I ever have to deal with the media it is with the advice of the PRO (or whatever they are called now), assuming I cant shift the duty to someone with more stripes and a bigger pay cheque.
Im all for appropriate info going out to the public so as they are kept informed of the challenges that are faced by the military, I just dont want to be the one dealing with the guy making up the story.
I didnt say I was all for stonewalling journos, nor did I say that the public should be kept in the dark.
I said that I didnt like journos, because in my experience they tend to lie a lot, put their spin on things, and always look for the catch that isnt there so as to make a story more sensational.
If I ever have to deal with the media it is with the advice of the PRO (or whatever they are called now), assuming I cant shift the duty to someone with more stripes and a bigger pay cheque.
Im all for appropriate info going out to the public so as they are kept informed of the challenges that are faced by the military, I just dont want to be the one dealing with the guy making up the story.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, The Fourth Estate.
As in all walks of life, there are good guys and bad.
I think we have all, at some stage or other, seen garbage written, words changed and misquotes to make a story a 'story'. 9 times out of 10, the glamour pants in front of the camera is there for 'eye candy', not for reporting the 'truth'.
Then we get the likes of Adey, Hastings, Pincher and their ilk. Professional, accurate and impartial.
There is a thread about RAF Aces and another about Walts, doing the rounds.
We have to accept that there are Journalistic Aces as well as Journalistic Walts.
To have a free society, we have to have Aces and Walts.
And in that society, you cannot please all the people all the time.
As in all walks of life, there are good guys and bad.
I think we have all, at some stage or other, seen garbage written, words changed and misquotes to make a story a 'story'. 9 times out of 10, the glamour pants in front of the camera is there for 'eye candy', not for reporting the 'truth'.
Then we get the likes of Adey, Hastings, Pincher and their ilk. Professional, accurate and impartial.
There is a thread about RAF Aces and another about Walts, doing the rounds.
We have to accept that there are Journalistic Aces as well as Journalistic Walts.
To have a free society, we have to have Aces and Walts.
And in that society, you cannot please all the people all the time.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not all journos will lie to get a story, but with my journo strike rate I would rather not give another one the benefit of the doubt. Surely at some point it is fair to say "enough, Ive been bitten too many times"?
Guest
Posts: n/a
taxy,
Fair statements.
Given that there are 'walts,' then it does seem reasonable for most to do a threat assessment, determine that the possible good is largely not likely to be better than the possible bad, and avoid the situation altogether if given the choice.
Fair statements.
Given that there are 'walts,' then it does seem reasonable for most to do a threat assessment, determine that the possible good is largely not likely to be better than the possible bad, and avoid the situation altogether if given the choice.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick.
The bad have to please their editors. The good have done so already.
All I'm saying is, there is good and bad wherever we go.
It's a no-win situation.
Regards
The bad have to please their editors. The good have done so already.
All I'm saying is, there is good and bad wherever we go.
It's a no-win situation.
Regards
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cujanga
Age: 59
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bad have to please their editors. The good have done so already.
All I'm saying is, there is good and bad wherever we go.
It's a no-win situation.
All I'm saying is, there is good and bad wherever we go.
It's a no-win situation.
Against the grain.
As welcome as a skunk at a lawn party.
I wash my hands of the whole matter.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
There was an incident in GW1 where the TV reporter, I can guess but can't accurately recall the channel, deliberately broke the opsec rules.
You may recall that the British brigade was relocated across the battlefront from the east to the west. There was a massive movement of material with trucks and aircraft.
The reporter was allowed to report the event but not the location. what he did, and it was clear that he knew what he was doing, was have as a backdrop a barber's shop with the name of a small town. His reportage showed a C130 landing on a strip parallel to a road. A check on the map showed a runway, adjacent to a road, in the town with the barber's shop. He smirked.
I have no idea if he was 'caught'.
You may recall that the British brigade was relocated across the battlefront from the east to the west. There was a massive movement of material with trucks and aircraft.
The reporter was allowed to report the event but not the location. what he did, and it was clear that he knew what he was doing, was have as a backdrop a barber's shop with the name of a small town. His reportage showed a C130 landing on a strip parallel to a road. A check on the map showed a runway, adjacent to a road, in the town with the barber's shop. He smirked.
I have no idea if he was 'caught'.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread creep but still relevant I feel.
When these 'journos' get front page banner headlines for something so hyped up/lied about/plainly invented, can the newspaper concerned be made to print the retraction on the same page as the original article and using the same font and size?
And why not? The retraction is usually to be found buried amongst the classifieds and in the smallest size.
It would hopefully make the scribes become more accurate in their reporting to avoid the ensuing embarrassment.
creep off.......
When these 'journos' get front page banner headlines for something so hyped up/lied about/plainly invented, can the newspaper concerned be made to print the retraction on the same page as the original article and using the same font and size?
And why not? The retraction is usually to be found buried amongst the classifieds and in the smallest size.
It would hopefully make the scribes become more accurate in their reporting to avoid the ensuing embarrassment.
creep off.......
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on PN's story in post #57 above I believe it was a Mirror journalist in the Falklands who, unable to contact his office by other means, got into a telephone box and blabbed the entire pre attack briefing on Mt. Longdon and subsequently Port Stanley to London, oblivious, (we hope), to the fact that the Argentinians could have listened in and got the complete lowdown on things to come.
If a journo dredged back 26 years to describe an incident that showed a particular military pilot in a very poor (and unrepresentative) light and then extrapolated Flight Lieutenant X's behaviour to justify some outrageous slur against the entire profession, we'd all be outraged.
Would it be fair to suggest or imply that RAF pilots were unprofessional fools with no judgement, and that most routinely buzzed Open Golf Tournaments, took women passengers for jollies in their SAR helicopters, and that they routinely clip lighting towers during impromptu flypasts?
I'd be first in the queue to label such accusations as being a disgraceful distortion of the truth, based on a simplistic interpretation of exaggerated and unfairly selected, entirely unrepresentative stories.
And yet judging all journos on the basis of isolated and unrepresentative (and often highly embellished or even invented) stories is OK?
Catch yourself on, chaps.
Would it be fair to suggest or imply that RAF pilots were unprofessional fools with no judgement, and that most routinely buzzed Open Golf Tournaments, took women passengers for jollies in their SAR helicopters, and that they routinely clip lighting towers during impromptu flypasts?
I'd be first in the queue to label such accusations as being a disgraceful distortion of the truth, based on a simplistic interpretation of exaggerated and unfairly selected, entirely unrepresentative stories.
And yet judging all journos on the basis of isolated and unrepresentative (and often highly embellished or even invented) stories is OK?
Catch yourself on, chaps.