Outside perspective on Journalism

[a_majoor]

In light of some of the threads about particular stories/journalists/publications, I would like to step in for a moment to suggest not everything we read/see/hear on the MSM is a plot by the "Vast Left wing conspiracy" to get us.

Having both been under media scrutiny during a DOMOP and having published one or two things myself ( ), I have a small bit of understanding of the media world.

Unless you write for quarterly military journals, you as the writer are under a lot of time constraint, and the more immediate the media (TV, radio, daily newspapers), the worse it is. If you have not filed by the deadline, then even turning up Jimmy Hoffa alive and well serving coffee at Starbucks with Elvis is not going to get you in that edition or broadcast. Writers who freelance have a bit more flexibility, in that they can choose the subject and media, but their story still has to be timely and relevant or no one will be interested.

Editors are often like your kids in the back of a car: "Is it done yet!"; "Is it done yet!";"Is it done yet!";"Is it done yet!"; (and you don't have the option of turning the word processer around either). Once it is out of your hands, the Editor, now under even greater time factors needs to run it through a fact checker, find some illustrations, maybe add a sidebar, fight to put it in a good spot AND make up the headline. (We are all aware only papers with really deep pockets can afford teams of fact taking interns, photo bureaus, staff writers etc.)

Now that my deathless prose has been mangled by an editor who has 20 other stories (and a mail sack full of unsolicited stuff as well), an intern who is working their way through university or college and is NOT a military history major, the spell checker which does not recognize the proper form is "The Royal Canadian Regiment", not 'the "Royal Canadian Regiment"', it is off to the press!

The next day, 50 people write letters to the editor about that heart rending day care story, and 2 write about the military story, so the editor knows the day care story was a big success, assign more staff resources for a follow up!

We as readers can make a certain amount of differece through letters to the editor pointing out errors, omissions or questionable points, requesting follow-up stories, and also by writing as freelancers on topics we find important (non serving members only, please). Bitching on this forum will not do a lot of good (and given some of the responses I have read, might generate ill will on both sides), so lets do the "Army" thing and get active in the real world to correct things.

 

[big bad john]

Well said and informative.

 

[camochick]

I have to pitch a story for my reporting class that will be published, what would members of the military like to see as a story about the military?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Camochick,
Here, do a follow up on this story, find out if this does actually go against the GC, why the military would release this e-mail and, if he actually sent the e-mail, why?  All things that were never explained....
http://army.ca/forums/threads/26666.0.html

 

[muskrat89]

Just to reiterate what a_majoor said....  I can't speak for crooked journalists, but sincere ones take their work as personally as we do. My first regular column was with The Maritime Sportsman about 20 years ago, and I've been writing ever since. I've done different stuff, and have also been on the editorial side of things - I was a writer and Asst Editor of The Arizona Outdoorsman magazine. I'm a member of the Professional Outdoor Writer's Registry. I currently write a number of feature articles (non-outdoors) for a local monthly publication, as well as an outdoor column. Granted, this is small time stuff, and nothing ever past the regional level - but I'm proud of it.

I was also proud of my service, so I can see the members' side as well. It seems like we (you) are getting it from all sides - not the least of which is NDHQ - and that may be the most frustrating part at all. It's a shame when the perception becomes that anything/anyone above the level of your CO is "just as bad as the rest".

Anyway, agree or not - a journalist did have some nads to wade in here, amongst the alligators 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Here's some interesting commentary as well: http://www.cda-cdai.ca/library/rdigest.htm


* it's very dated, and I'm really more interested in the attempt by the author to shore up the credentials of the [then] leadership. I think it goes without saying that things have changed much for the better in the intervening 8 years, but it gives an idea of just how long this bit of antagonism and friction has gone on. Cheers.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That was very good  article and ,in my opinion right on the mark,
thanks Whiskey

 

[mdh]

a-Majoor offers some insight into how journalism actually works, and I think it's important for the Army to develop a better understanding of the pressures facing reporters.  

Deadlines are tight and relentless leaving little time to conduct detailed research.   As a result, journalists rely on their sources for a quick turn-around of information - and they may or may not be accurate.

When journalists get it wrong - believe me it can ruin your day, and too many mistakes can cast a shadow over your competence.

In fact I like to say that the life of the journalist is nasty, brutish and short.   It's a tough and highly competitive business where only a few manage to reach the top of food chain. (Usually considered to be the major urban dailies or national broadcast outlets.)

Outside major urban centres, the pay can be abysmal and unless a reporter has "made it" by their mid-30s to a decent gig, they are usually looking for alternate employment.

That in turn means fewer reporters with grey hair who have plied the trade long enough to understand the complexities of their beats. But, in almost all cases, journalists are "generalists" and are assigned to certain "beats" or areas of specialization whether it's politics, labor, business or defence (a more rare specialization).

They learn on the job, and unless we take the time to educate reporters and help them understand how the army works, we only succeed in alienating them by launching unwarranted criticism. (albeit "unwarranted" is a rather elastic, but you get what I mean).

Turnover in a newsroom can be high and one's career is predicated on breaking stories and keeping up with your rivals - there's nothing more horrible than waking up one morning and discovering you've missed some giant story on your beat that a competitive paper or broadcast outlet is running on the frontpage or top of the newscast.

So on that score we should keep in mind that a a journalist or a Scott Taylor have paid their dues and through hard work, perserverance, and yes, skill, have managed to carve out a marquee status for themselves.   (But even then - staying at the top of the profession is a constant struggle - you are only as good as your last story.)

If you don't think so - try running a magazine in this country for a while - or if you're convinced that you have a superior handle on military events than our current stable of reporters, there's nothing to stop you from sitting down, drafting a piece, and pitching it to an editor.

The Army must make an effort to tell its story because no one else will do it for us.   We have to accept the reality of today's media environment and do what's necessary to ensure our messages are heard.   Grousing about the media or launching personal attacks on someone's professionalism doesn't get us very far and it can ultimatley have a debilitating effect on army-media relations.

Overall, media coverage of the CF has improved immeasurably from the bad old days of the 1970s.   Yes we get negative coverage (some of it raising very real issues that the chain of command doesn't want to deal with) - but as has been pointed out, we also receive positive coverage and the good news is we actually have reporters dedicated to covering defence issues in a more systematic way.  

In this respect, indeed, we've never had it so good, and we need to keep up the momentum,

cheers, mdh

 

[Brad Sallows]

Generally when I am running short on a deadline I explicitly note which assumptions I haven't had time to replace with facts, which conclusions may be uncertain, and so forth.  What stops reporters from explicitly distinguishing in a story where an item falls on the "hard fact" - "something I pulled out of my ass" spectrum?

 

[a_majoor]

I would guess several factors intrude: The reporter wants to look good, the editor does not want the story to look half baked, the editor cuts a lot out to fit the story into the slot, even if the reporter and editor sincerely want to do a follow-up to fill in the blanks, the 50 responses to the day care story direct them to follow the "more important" story, as readers have indicated. My opinion

 

[mdh]

Generally when I am running short on a deadline I explicitly note which assumptions I haven't had time to replace with facts, which conclusions may be uncertain, and so forth.   What stops reporters from explicitly distinguishing in a story where an item falls on the "hard fact" - "something I pulled out of my ***" spectrum?

Brad,

I think the short answer to your question is good team work ie working with a good editor who reviews your copy and raises pointed questions about the lack of a hard fact here or a shaky assumption there.

The problem with hard facts is that they can be sometimes hard to get quickly.   While the net has helped in this there are other facts that aren't readily available and that's when it's necessary to rely on your friendly neighbourhood paffo (or whatever media relations contact youi're using) to get what you need before deadline.  

If the paffo is good at his or her job, (returning telephone calls in less then 24 hour cycles) and the data isn't complicated or classifed then it's usually not a problem.

Otherwise you're often left looking at previous journalistic work that may contain hard facts - always perilous because they could be wrong and you'd be surprised at the extent to which misinformation is perpetuated by one reporter borrowing from another - and I don't mean plagiarism but relying on other work for research.

Good editors will respect the essence of the writer's work and enhance it with pointed queries - although there are editors who can be heavy handed and can distort what the writer originally intended (this has happened to me on more than one occasion).  

Also beware of headline writers - another journalistic sub-species who can put a very different spin on a story that the writer never intended.

cheers, all, mdh

 

[camochick]

I am taking journalism and everyday I learn more and more how the "system" works. I am not always pleased with the things i am learning and sometimes i doubt that i will ever be good at what I do because I don't like the system so far. I want to write positive stories, that will affect change, but from what I am being taught, people only want to hear the bad stuff. However, it is the public who dictates this because they are the ones who buy the papers and I guess they are the ones who prietty much dictate what they want to read.

 

[GGboy]

I'd second what mdh had to say, with the following addition:
Imagine your CO telling you one morning that you had to race out to a convention of astral physicists, interview them and learn everything you could about cosmic string vs. big bang theories of the formation of the universe, write down everything all of them had to say and then encapsulate it neatly in 500-1,000 words using an arcane and highly structured style without writing anything dead wrong or legally actionable and do it all by 1800. And by the way, it has to be understandable and interesting to your average grunt.
Frankly, given the conditions under which they work the question isn't why do reporters get things wrong so often, it's why don't they get them wrong ALL the time ...

And as for the responses/letters determining which stories or issues are "important" well, it ain't that simple. But it does suggest to me that some folks in uniform, or their civilian supporters ought to start writing more letters to the editor 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Imagine your CO telling you one morning that you had to race out to a convention of astral physicists, interview them and learn everything you could about cosmic string vs. big bang theories of the formation of the universe, write down everything all of them had to say and then encapsulate it neatly in 500-1,000 words using an arcane and highly structured style without writing anything dead wrong or legally actionable and do it all by 1800.

And by the way, it has to be understandable and interesting to your average grunt.

This is not an attack on any one person in particular, but compare the above with the cold calculation of an Access to Information Request by journalists who subsequently recieves at least partial disclosure, use "inside sources" for some of the rest, slightly modify the facts by adding in carefully crafted "weasel words" in order to avoid being hauled in front of the wool sack. If a free press is a consitutional value worthy of protection, [and it really is], then does a free press include the right of a journalist to "spin" without accountability? Cheers.

 

[GGboy]

This is not an attack on any one person in particular, but compare the above with the cold calculation of an Access to Information Request by journalists who subsequently recieves at least partial disclosure, use "inside sources" for some of the rest, slightly modify the facts by adding in carefully crafted "weasel words" in order to avoid being hauled in front of the wool sack. If a free press is a consitutional value worthy of protection, [and it really is], then does a free press include the right of a journalist to "spin" without accountability? Cheers.

What I'm saying whiskey is that you're assuming in the above eg that the journo is some cold, calculating spin meister who's interested only in their profile and career. In fact, my experience has been that most reporters make ATI requests out of an honest desire to understand the inner workings of the largest and arguable most complex department of the federal government. There are the occasional jackasses of course (just like there are in the CF) but most of these gals and guys are just trying to understand things that are as inexplicable to them as particle physics are to us ...

 

[Cloud Cover]

I may, or may not have, been talking about DND ATI requests!!  

I agree with the pith of your post, and it would appear you agree with mine. I suggest there is a huge difference between a journalist who covers everything under the sun, and one who restricts their area of interest to a particular subject matter.

How is journalistic credibility and reputation established? Almost universally by specializing, and the vast majority of specialists have reputations for publishing credible works.   Journalistic specialization in a full spectrum mass media organization is also a classic division of labour that is driven in the interests of business efficacy in addition to attempting to provide a decent, trustworthy fee based service to a client base. [notice I didn't say "public interest or public good"?]  

So what I am saying is that if "Peter Pressman" writes a one off story that was assigned to him and if he has the time to make use of the ATI process to help facilitate writing a more informed article, then good on him. If he writes 10 or 100 in a row all within the sphere of a certain subject matter, and ATI is a tool which assists in the creation of informative works, then all the better.

But, if another journalist uses the ATI system to obtain documents and make selective use of them to convey certain messages under the guise of a story line, then is that sort of activity equally worth the protection afforded a free press? I say yes and actually have no problem with this when the work is restricted to subject based publications ... i.e. magazines and periodicals which are not subject to a captive client base.   That is not the case with a large full spectrum mass media organization. [principally: a newspapers or newspaper chains,  television networks  and even a few national magazines.]  

It is the importation of issue driven specialization into large full spectrum mass media organizations which takes a good thing and turns it on it's head.   In this context, we too often find journalists advancing theories of every conceivable kind such that it's difficult to determine what facts are really germane to the particular subject of the article, and which facts are there because of a particular issue being driven by the journalist. This sort of theory posturing is better suited to the limited protection of academic freedom than freedom of the press. Such journalists fit themselves within the rubric of the media so that they can enjoy the privileges [and defences] afforded a free press, yet frequently engage in spurious activity which might otherwise attract accountability or even liability.

As soon as JQP sees media references and citations to government documents, the media organization and the journalist gain instant credibility. Whether the reputation that accompanies good credibility is certainly open to question. And every citizen has a right to question that credibility, because they paid for the information contained in the documents relied upon by the journalist to drive the issue.

Cheers.  

 

[mdh]

Hi Whiskey 601

I think with regard to ATI there is always the danger that information can be manipulated by unscrupulous reporters, and as GGBoy pointed out it does happen, but rarely.   But I'm not quite sure what you mean by more specialized "subject-based publications" versus a "full spectrum of mass media organizations", and how they approach the use of these documents.  

Any article that is based on selective information that distorts what actually happened or distorts the issue is open to criticism - and often the quickest to criticise is the readership of that publication - whether it's a specialist pub or a mass media organization.  

It seems to me that there is something of a continuum between freedom of the press and academic freedom in that sense.   You are free to publish what you wish, but be prepared to defend it.   Academic journals, for example, are often scrutinized by peers who can subject the author to a pretty rough ride if he or she gets it seriously wrong - damaging their credibility.

In a mass media outlet, I would suggest it's not that different.   If you are using an ATI document that seriously distorts an issue or a story then reporters can - and often are - brought under close scrutiny and criticism.   And sometimes that can result in a libel action if there is an aggrieved party.  

And if a reporter's work ends up in court, then there is one prevailing concern for the outlet - can the article withstand cross-examination in a court of law by an aggressive libel lawyer?   It takes a lot of self-confidence on the part of the journalist to make that assurance, and they better be sure that the facts reflect the context, and the intent of the ATI document.

cheers, mdh

 

[pbi]

The Army must make an effort to tell its story because no one else will do it for us.  We have to accept the reality of today's media environment and do what's necessary to ensure our messages are heard.  Grousing about the media or launching personal attacks on someone's professionalism doesn't get us very far and it can ultimatley have a debilitating effect on army-media relations.

Hear, hear. Very well said. I have had very good and very bad relations with media types over the years: I think it does depend to a great degree on how you treat them. Although we have come a long, long way in improving our approach to the media, I think that we still have too many people in the military who fail to realize that information is a weapon: it can be used to gain objectives, or it can hurt us as surely as bullets and bombs. Strike first with the truth, and if you see untruths or slanted reporting, write in! Don't sit there mumbling about the media: do something.

Cheers.

 

[big bad john]

Don't sit there mumbling about the media: do something.

Cheers.

Thank you sir!  I hear a lot of complaining and see people pointing out problems.  We have to suggest solutions to the problems even more!

 

[GGboy]

What an interesting discussion ... although it's the sort of talk that goes better with beer in the mess.  ;D
Whiskey, I agree with much that you've said (most of it even) and you raise an excellent point about "beat" reporters or "specialists" versus the general assignment journo. There's nothing more dangerous than a reporter who thinks they know what they're talking about . Although I'm not sure I'd concur that the trend is towards more specialization in the mainstream media: given all the budget cuts, it seems to me that editors expect their reporters to do more than just cover one beat. Minor point ...
However, despite the occasional bad experience with the media (and we've all had 'em) I think members of the CF, from the chief on down to the newest recruit, have to step back and look at the big picture. Sure, they may screw up little things (your rank, the name of your regt, etc.) or big things (the nature of the Geneva Conventions and cct prisoner handling protocols, the utility of submarines and the technical difficulties of operating any subsurface vessel) but ultimately, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Even the worst eg of a slanted media story is a sign of growing public interest in our military and you shouldn't assume that just because a reporter thinks for instance that the Vandoos were way too mean to the HiG suspects they grabbed up in Kabul last year that the reading public necessarily agrees. I'd argue that the public often has way more sense than most reporters, certainly more than most politicians ...
So in response to big bad john's call for suggested solutions, I'd say: do everything you can to get the message out to the press about what your reserve or reg force unit is doing. Get to know the reporters in your area who show an interest in the military and encourage them to come out to exercises. If your unit is doing something you think the public should know about, push your local PAffO to get the word out to local or even national media.
Be pro-active: it seems to've worked for Gen. Hillier (so far anyway ...)