Media Bias [Merged]

[Pusser]

Read the last sentence for what Global News called the Navy.

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Will+Kate+send+Canada+message+soldiers/5035374/story.html

Perhaps a harbinger of something to come?

 

[Pusser]

Yep I had to laugh when he said that. Also not to discredit any PAFO's out there but they should consult a MARS or Bosn when it comes to seamanship.
I would suggest that someone in the PA world have an ready made email with a representative picture of all our ships; pointing out the bow, bridge, flight deck, etc. and a very short lexicon on common naval terms that they would send directly to the CTV, CBC Global anchor desk. This would do 2 things, save the media from looking like idiots (again) and save my wife listening to me rant and rave at the TV.

Not to throw stones at PAFOs, but in my opinion, many of them don't have the requisite background to be credible in the fields upon which they're commenting.  Why do we have naval PAFOs providing media updates about land operations in Afghanistan?  Even if the guy is knowedgeable, the naval uniform automatically sucks away his credibility when discussing infantry operations.  The same is true of the army PAFO talking to reporters about hunting submarines.  I've always felt that the idea of taking officer candidates with journalism degrees and making them instant PAFOs is a mistake.  Every PAFO should have an operational background first and then then transfer to PAFO later.  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.

As an aside, I also believe that uniform colour should determine employment for everyone (i.e. cooks in ships should wear navy uniforms, sup techs in service battalions should wear army uniforms, etc). 

 

[medicineman]

As an aside, I also believe that uniform colour should determine employment for everyone (i.e. cooks in ships should wear navy uniforms, sup techs in service battalions should wear army uniforms, etc). 

 

Derailment warning.

Woohoo - I find I look a tad out of place here  >...back to the Army I go then?  Funny, wasn't it at one point almost all the PA's on submarines were Army or even worse, Air Force?  I can count on one hand how many PA's serving with Naval units on the West Coast are Navy...two fingers in fact.  One of those actually was Army and switched out when he got his Submarine Dolphins.  There's another coming to one of the boats as the Cox'n, so he'll have to change out as well.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

MM

 

[toyotatundra]

I think that connecting with Canadians about the military is much more important than getting everything right.  Ya it might torque a few of us when they get something wrong but it is certainly better than no media coverage at all.  Canadians of all ilks hold us in pretty high regard right now (although there is some debate on if it is only an inch deep type regard) and it serves our best interest to keep em interested.

Television is, at the best of times, a predominantly visual and emotional medium. Detailed, accurate news reporting is valuable. However, I don't know how many minds are changed through rational discourse.  I can't speak for others, but as a recent recruit, I can tell you that it wasn't technical news reporting which led to my decision to sign up. Rather it was seeing images of soldiers and tanks, flags waving, and bag pipes playing. My response and motives were to a substantial degree, visual and emotional. "How courageous they are" "I want to be as tough as that guy" "Man, those tanks are cool."

 

[aesop081]

  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.

Even better, stop putting PAOs in from of the media to answer questions. Put the commanders/those involved in front of the media to answer questions. The PAOs should only be there to prepare and advise them on how to respond to the media.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Even better, stop putting PAOs in from of the media to answer questions. Put the commanders/those involved in front of the media to answer questions. The PAOs should only be there to prepare and advise them on how to respond to the media.

For the WIN!  PAO's are good, but nothing beats the SME.

 

[Strike]

Not to throw stones at PAFOs, but in my opinion, many of them don't have the requisite background to be credible in the fields upon which they're commenting.  Why do we have naval PAFOs providing media updates about land operations in Afghanistan?  Even if the guy is knowedgeable, the naval uniform automatically sucks away his credibility when discussing infantry operations.  The same is true of the army PAFO talking to reporters about hunting submarines.  I've always felt that the idea of taking officer candidates with journalism degrees and making them instant PAFOs is a mistake.  Every PAFO should have an operational background first and then then transfer to PAFO later.  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.

Pusser, what about those PAffOs (note the extra "f", or PAO as they prefer to be referred to as) who may have spent the majority of their careers on an Army base, working to support the Army but are wearing an Air Force uniform?  (This is a trick question...)  The point is, if someone is going to be talking about sub hunting or advance to contact, it should be a SME, not a PAO.  And if it is the PAO then there are really only two reasons that this is happening:
1 -- The PAO likes to be in front of the camera (and this should follow up with said PAO being briefed about what their job really is); or
2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.

As for the journalism types who come in, I used to think the same as you, until I finished a nine month course and saw that those with the military background can learn just as much as the DEOs can learn from us.

(Milnews and Cdn Aviator, I agree with you 100%!)

 

[The Bread Guy]

2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.

Very good point - SME's (or their bosses) can say no in a way that PAO's can't.  And that doesn't just happen in the military, either.

 

[Pusser]

Pusser, what about those PAffOs (note the extra "f", or PAO as they prefer to be referred to as) who may have spent the majority of their careers on an Army base, working to support the Army but are wearing an Air Force uniform?  (This is a trick question...)  The point is, if someone is going to be talking about sub hunting or advance to contact, it should be a SME, not a PAO.  And if it is the PAO then there are really only two reasons that this is happening:
1 -- The PAO likes to be in front of the camera (and this should follow up with said PAO being briefed about what their job really is); or
2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.

As for the journalism types who come in, I used to think the same as you, until I finished a nine month course and saw that those with the military background can learn just as much as the DEOs can learn from us.

(Milnews and Cdn Aviator, I agree with you 100%!)

I completely agree that it is the SME who should be doing the talking, but that unfortunately, is too often not the case.  Perhaps that's the problem that really needs to be fixed?

Further to my point on uniforms, we must remember that TV is a visual medium.  It's not just what you say, but how you look that conveys the message.  A neuro-surgeon can go on TV and will be seen as credible when providing commentary on his area of expertise in either a suit or scrubs, even if he's wrong.  But if you dress him up in a clown suit, he will instantly lose credibility and no one will take his commentary seriously, even if he is absoloutely correct.  McLuhan was right, the medium is the message.  I'm not saying that naval PAOs are not capable of commenting on land operations.  I'm only saying that the uniform they are wearing can possibly detract from their credibility and what the public perceives as a result.

 

[Strike]

I'm only saying that the uniform they are wearing can possibly detract from their credibility and what the public perceives as a result.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately there is no purple uniform for PAOs to wear and it makes no sense having them change the colour of uniform every time they get posted.  It's just something that has to be accepted.

Sure, it would be nice to post Army PAOs at Army units, Navy PAOs at Navy units, etc, but then you don't get a very well-rounded PAO which hurts the CF as a whole, especially during joint (Isn't everything joint these days?) operations.

 

[CountDC]

 

Derailment warning.

There's another coming to one of the boats as the Cox'n, so he'll have to change out as well.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

MM

As Cox'n?  Didn't think that was possible.  Why would he have to change out?

 

[OldSolduer]

I just received a call from a local station wanting me to comment on the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan. As a serving member, I declined.

 

[medicineman]

As Cox'n?  Didn't think that was possible.  Why would he have to change out?

Yup - a previous Cox'n of VIC was a PA too.  Because it's a Navy position, if they take the job and aren't Navy, they have to change out.  They just aren't the boat's PA anymore, that's all.  Don't forget, medical is kind of a secondary duty for a submariner PA - they're a watchkeepr first.

MM

 

[FSTO]

I completely understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately there is no purple uniform for PAOs to wear and it makes no sense having them change the colour of uniform every time they get posted.  It's just something that has to be accepted.

Sure, it would be nice to post Army PAOs at Army units, Navy PAOs at Navy units, etc, but then you don't get a very well-rounded PAO which hurts the CF as a whole, especially during joint (Isn't everything joint these days?) operations.

To many in the Navy, Joint means the Army is running the show. ;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.

IMO, the way to go with PA's if we want to maintain their "professional" appearance is to issue them with a set of uniforms from each element. This way, they can put on whichever one happens to be appropriate to the day's affairs they handle. A bit cumbersome, but potentially worth it for image's sake.  Besides, IMHO, they should only need DEU's - none of that nonsense of wearing "combat" clothing unless they are specifically "at the front". Rant on - Nothing galls me more than seeing people giving public addresses or briefings or press conference on base or at headquarters dressed in "combats". In the field is another matter, but have you ever seen one of the American or French or British senior officer giving such a presentation at an HQ or base office dressed in anything else than service dress? (Or for that matter, when was the last time you saw a Pentagon press conference given by uniformed personnel NOT wearing a tie? I can't recall one)  - Rant off.
 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Rant on - Nothing galls me more than seeing people giving public addresses or briefings or press conference on base or at headquarters dressed in "combats". In the field is another matter, but have you ever seen one of the American or French or British senior officer giving such a presentation at an HQ or base office dressed in anything else than service dress? (Or for that matter, when was the last time you saw a Pentagon press conference given by uniformed personnel NOT wearing a tie? I can't recall one)  - Rant off.

At the Pentagon most of the time, it's ties-on-in-fancy-dress, but never say never, either - note official pix from the Pentagon's briefing room (no, they're not all from the same briefing ) :

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I stand corrected.

To atone, I shall drop and give you an extra 30 tonight when I come back from my jog.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I stand corrected.

To atone, I shall drop and give you an extra 30 tonight when I come back from my jog.

No need - it appears to happen (based on a rough look at the assembled PR pix) only about 5-10% of the time, so you're still mostly right  ;D

 

[Neill McKay]

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

I read PA to mean physician assistant.

 

[Strike]

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.

They were referring to PAs in the sense of Physician's Assistant (Damn!  Beat me to it!), not PA as in Public Affairs. The closest to NCMs being PAOs are the people from Army News (oooh, I just got a flash of a certain geo-tech in my head.  :-\ )