USN Officers really feel about critical reporting
Thread Starter
USN Officers really feel about critical reporting
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-press/588817/
The Navy Didn’t Take My Reporting Seriously
Emails obtained using a FOIA request reveal how naval officers really feel about critical reporting.
IMO interesting article, not only a Navy issue....
IMO interesting article, not only a Navy issue....
If you challenge and ask questions over something that could be prevented then you are challenging the "POWER" some people believe they have been given. Not by Govt but claimed by themselves and you are daring to challenge that. They then deem you "an enemy" and will use whatever is required to silence you as you have the potential to take away their power and by default the power of others.
Journalists have long since abdicated any pretense of seeking truth, they embedded and therefore just as much a part of Govt propoganda as Govt paid spokespeople.
Journalists have long since abdicated any pretense of seeking truth, they embedded and therefore just as much a part of Govt propoganda as Govt paid spokespeople.
racedo,
"Journalists have long since abdicated any pretense of seeking truth, they embedded and therefore just as much a part of Govt propoganda as Govt paid spokespeople."
How on earth do you think you can speak for every single Journalist?
Talk about opinion masquerading as fact!
"Journalists have long since abdicated any pretense of seeking truth, they embedded and therefore just as much a part of Govt propoganda as Govt paid spokespeople."
How on earth do you think you can speak for every single Journalist?
Talk about opinion masquerading as fact!
racedo, I suggest that you read the linked article. That is not an embedded reporter.
The reporter is trying to publish a hit piece on the CH-53E over its entire service life, under the mistaken belief that it is news that flying helicopters is dangerous. But as I read through is self promotion piece, and the luke warm reception of his "documentary" I can assure you that this reporter isn't an embed. It's a clever tactic to use FOIA requests to assert that Navy PAO's doing their jobs are somehow involved in a cover up. But that's journalism as it's been since William Randolph Hearst. This guy is doing what journalists do: telling a story, and doing his damnedest to sensationalize it so that it gets traction is this very noisy information age.
He expected the documentary to make a splash: it failed to.
Over its life, the CH-53E has run into a variety of issues, some resolved and some not. I am very familiar with two accidents in 1996 and in 2000 that were directly related to an attempted upgrade to the CH-53E, improvements, that ended up killing some people. That the crash which is the center piece of this story happened late in the aircraft's life (a mature airframe) and what led to it is a story.
But that isn't the story he was telling.
(The tidal nature of support, and maintenance, and configuration management, and the whole "everything I fly was purchased under miminum bid" deal when combined with training budgets going up and down ... I hope that he covered all of that in the "documentary." If so, great. If not ... well, that's about par).
Again, in this case, please don't take the piss out of this journalist as some how "bought and paid for."
Far from it.
The reporter is trying to publish a hit piece on the CH-53E over its entire service life, under the mistaken belief that it is news that flying helicopters is dangerous. But as I read through is self promotion piece, and the luke warm reception of his "documentary" I can assure you that this reporter isn't an embed. It's a clever tactic to use FOIA requests to assert that Navy PAO's doing their jobs are somehow involved in a cover up. But that's journalism as it's been since William Randolph Hearst. This guy is doing what journalists do: telling a story, and doing his damnedest to sensationalize it so that it gets traction is this very noisy information age.
He expected the documentary to make a splash: it failed to.
Over its life, the CH-53E has run into a variety of issues, some resolved and some not. I am very familiar with two accidents in 1996 and in 2000 that were directly related to an attempted upgrade to the CH-53E, improvements, that ended up killing some people. That the crash which is the center piece of this story happened late in the aircraft's life (a mature airframe) and what led to it is a story.
But that isn't the story he was telling.
(The tidal nature of support, and maintenance, and configuration management, and the whole "everything I fly was purchased under miminum bid" deal when combined with training budgets going up and down ... I hope that he covered all of that in the "documentary." If so, great. If not ... well, that's about par).
Again, in this case, please don't take the piss out of this journalist as some how "bought and paid for."
Far from it.
Journalists have long since abdicated any pretense of seeking truth, they embedded and therefore just as much a part of Govt propoganda as Govt paid spokespeople.
Sometimes embedding isn’t the answer, and many journalists still operate independently, but I can assure you that those that do are not ‘bought’ or paid propagandists. We are well aware that we are not seeing the whole picture, and we tailor our reports accordingly. And in the all the times I have been embedded (with US forces mainly) I have never once been asked to show my notebook or to give my hosts prior access to my copy ahead of it being published.
I fully accept that it can sometimes be hard to be properly objective when you are reliant on your hosts for your survival, but that’s just human nature. Still, in most cases (certainly in every case I’ve encountered) we do our best in trying circumstances to report the story factually and accurately.
That's all.
The way I read it, the chap is a film maker, and lecturer at a college for journalists in Berkeley (CA).
Such films or documentaries don't make a splash over here either. In fact, it could be said he's done quite well, given the number of film festivals it's been screened at. Far better than anything similar done here.
I listened to one of the podcasts. Mostly Lt Van Dorn's widow. Very little depth, but that is not a criticism. Perhaps the film has more. The main message seems to be the US DoD doesn't know how to manage legacy aircraft, when the future one is delayed. That's nothing new. MoD stopped resourcing this in the early 90s. (Nimrod anyone?) It's not as easy as it sounds, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Such films or documentaries don't make a splash over here either. In fact, it could be said he's done quite well, given the number of film festivals it's been screened at. Far better than anything similar done here.
I listened to one of the podcasts. Mostly Lt Van Dorn's widow. Very little depth, but that is not a criticism. Perhaps the film has more. The main message seems to be the US DoD doesn't know how to manage legacy aircraft, when the future one is delayed. That's nothing new. MoD stopped resourcing this in the early 90s. (Nimrod anyone?) It's not as easy as it sounds, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
As to the Navy not taking his reporting seriously.....gee...now that is a surprise ain't it!
The fact no one in a position of authority....or a position that could make, cause, or effect change gave him any credence is the indication of how valid his observations are.
Fine young Men and Women have been dying in helicopters since they came about....and shall continue to do so as it is a complicated and complex collection of parts to begin with....then one has to properly put them together and learn to safely operate them in very demanding circumstances.
The US Navy and Marine Corps do not have a monopoly on that by any means.
The RAF and Royal Navy are not immune from this either.
The fact no one in a position of authority....or a position that could make, cause, or effect change gave him any credence is the indication of how valid his observations are.
Fine young Men and Women have been dying in helicopters since they came about....and shall continue to do so as it is a complicated and complex collection of parts to begin with....then one has to properly put them together and learn to safely operate them in very demanding circumstances.
The US Navy and Marine Corps do not have a monopoly on that by any means.
The RAF and Royal Navy are not immune from this either.
Second part which you have commented on is How Media are basically shrilling for war because it makes good news.
Second part which you have commented on is How Media are basically shrilling for war because it makes good news.
I suspect that you cued up on Yellow Journalism: it isn't only about war. It's about sensationalism. (at least, that is what I was driving at in the context of this story and this reporter/film makers frustrations. Also, a clue for you: he's a professor from Berkeley. FFS, man, it's still a haven of anti-military vitriol and spite. Maybe you have to be from the US to get that context. The Officers whose emails were FOIA'd sure as hell know that context). That term (sensationalism)used to be perjorative: what appears to me to be the case is that now it is a baseline requirement since the Information age is filled with noise orders of magnitude more than a generation ago.
By the way, Chris Hedges wrote a very insightful book called "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" from the point of view of a career war correspondent. Not sure if you've read it, but I suspect you'll find yourself nodding more than once as you read it. (Strongly recommend that one). He spent a lot of years covering small wars in out of the way places in small countries.
@melmothtw
Thanks for your comments so far.
Not sure if you ever met Joe Galloway, but he's a war correspondent of the old school who taught me a hell of a lot about smart and stupid ways for military folks to interact with the media. Part of that guidance is "only answer the question asked, if you can answer it" and "don't tell falsehoods, someone will check."
