Unfortunate Out of Uniform Picture

[CadetProgramGuy]

Having done NCC 3 times, I say bad choice for a photo, however my guess is that they were practicing and not wanting to scuff their shoes prior to the actual performance.  I would hope the Flight Commander wasn't commanding the flight with a stack of papers in his hand during the real performance.

Or, the gym didn't want black military soled shoes on their floor.

didn't think about that one, you're prolly right.......

[Rotorhead]

The venue that the MER Cadet Competiton was not chosen by PAO's or the Teams competing. The venue was Fort Pickett, VA a US Army National Guard facility...... those teams had to play by the ARNG's rules. Reading this tread just made me a little hot under the collar. Those cadets worked very hard to get there and that was the first time that they had been to the MER Cadet comp since 2001. I and the rest of their squadron are very proud of them. I don't think the athletic shoes are going to cause the world to end or the planets to fall out of alignment.

No, but they are not in uniform.

Their accomplishment is not diminished.

The PAO made the mistake we're discussing. Unless you're him, no reason to become riled up.

Why "edit" history?  A simple addition to the caption would maintain the integrity of the photograph.  Something along the lines of...

"Cadet Color Guard Excels at Competition: Cadets from the ANYTOWN CADET SQUADRON placed favorably in the East Carolina Wing Color Guard Competition on 31 Octember 2010.  The Cadets did an outstanding job despite having to compete in athletic shoes due to the rules of the facility."

I often have issue with the practice, of which even I do, where real Orwellian practices are used to present a false image of CAP.  I hold these feelings as a PAO because there is an element of Intergrity being lost in these practices.

Fine, if that bothers you, there are dozens of other ways the photo could have been shot that would have accomplished the same thing and also would have made for a better-composed picture than the one that was published.

Note that every photograph taken by anyone "edits" and/or "interprets" history. 

[rjfoxx]

I was at the MER Competition where this picture was taken.  At the last minute (the Friday night briefing) we were told that the Color Guards and Drill Teams were not allowed to wear regulation shoes on the gym floor.  Several teams went to a local superstore (mine included) to purchase matching sneakers.  This was a local rule and should not distract from the hard work done by ALL of the cadets in this competition.

Congratulations to all of the competitors and especially to to the winning teams...North Carolina for Color Guard and Delaware for Drill Team. :clap:

[Rotorhead]

IThis was a local rule and should not distract from the hard work done by ALL of the cadets in this competition.

Okay, stop that. This thread is not about the cadets' performance.

[Ned]

Several teams went to a local superstore (mine included) to purchase matching sneakers. 

This is a pretty good example of how our Cadet Competition system has gone astray.

Because of a local rule change, the cadets could not compete in their normal uniform shoes.  Obviously the judges were aware of it, and would not have graded cadets down for complying with the rules and wearing whatever athletic shoes they already had.

But this team- like many other teams - felt it was important enought to go out and spend hundreds of dollars to buy identical athletic shoes "to be competitive.".  (And not to mention the time on the eve of the competition when they would otherwise have been doing final prep/review/practice.)

It sounds like over a thousand dollars (over several teams) was poured into the toilet.

A thousand dollars that could have been spent on cadet textbooks, encampment fees, squadron dues, whatever.

Two groups of folks let the cadets down - their immediate senior escorts for not getting together with the other escorts and competition officials and discouraging this kind of expenditure, and those of us at NHQ who have failed to update and change the NCC to discourage this kind of occurance.

Ned Lee

[cnitas]

This is a pretty good example of how our Cadet Competition system has gone astray.

When exactly did it go astray?  As a cadet, I remember our team purchasing matching sneakers for drill comp, so this has been going on for almost 20 years. 

Would you go to a job interview wearing your beater sneakers?  Why not?  If the employer is judging your ability to do your job, then it should not matter what you are wearing.  But you put on your good shoes anyway don't you? And it does actually matter doesn't it?

Drill Comp is the same.  You are not 'required' to have matching shirts, shoes, sweats, etc, but it makes you look better and you feel more confident.   

[Ned]

(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

The problem starts with mission of CC.  It was started as a competition to reinforce local units - back when each squadron was required to have a drill team.

Somehow, over the years, we have lost track of our goal - supporting local units - and the competition has become for it's own sake.  Your typical local unit has no hope of ever being competitive precisely for the reasons you described - things like matching sweats, special purpose uniforms purchased for compeition only and tailored, uniform shoes that never touch pavement unitl the competition, "parent support teams" that iron uniforms and transport them. etc. etc. etc..

Take a look at the NCC winners over the last couple of decades - over 90% are "super-teams" composed of cadets from multiple units within a wing.

And if 95% of the units never even bother to try to put together a team, essentially be definition we are not doing our job of supporting them.  Most region competitions have two or fewer wing drill teams competing!  (Some have none.)

NCC is one of the largest single expenditures of appropriated dollars to support the cadet program.  If you add in the wing and region comps, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars spent.  All for an activity that touches less than 2% of the cadets in the country (including all the wing and region comps.)

Is this money well spent?

Or could we come up with some modifications that would allow and encourage  a typical CAP unit to participate and benefit from the additional training?

[davidsinn]

(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

The problem starts with mission of CC.  It was started as a competition to reinforce local units - back when each squadron was required to have a drill team.

Somehow, over the years, we have lost track of our goal - supporting local units - and the competition has become for it's own sake.  Your typical local unit has no hope of ever being competitive precisely for the reasons you described - things like matching sweats, special purpose uniforms purchased for compeition only and tailored, uniform shoes that never touch pavement unitl the competition, "parent support teams" that iron uniforms and transport them. etc. etc. etc..

Take a look at the NCC winners over the last couple of decades - over 90% are "super-teams" composed of cadets from multiple units within a wing.

And if 95% of the units never even bother to try to put together a team, essentially be definition we are not doing our job of supporting them.  Most region competitions have two or fewer wing drill teams competing!  (Some have none.)

NCC is one of the largest single expenditures of appropriated dollars to support the cadet program.  If you add in the wing and region comps, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars spent.  All for an activity that touches less than 2% of the cadets in the country (including all the wing and region comps.)

Is this money well spent?

Or could we come up with some modifications that would allow and encourage  a typical CAP unit to participate and benefit from the additional training?

Ditch the glass ceiling for starters. I'm got a cadet that always wanted to compete but we never had enough cadets and she's now a cadet officer and will never be able to compete. It also helps fix the chief for life problem too.

[cnitas]

Meh, Chief for life is fixed by leadership. - Hey Chief, you want to take the Mitchell and promote, or do you want to fall in under C/SSgt Newbie?  No advancement=no staff position.

Perhaps we should start a 'how to fix NCC' thread?

[BillB]

Ned you are 100% correct. Most Squadrons don't have enough cadets to field a drill team It takes several squadrons to come up with the required number. It would also help if Color Guards could have cadet officers up to C/Capt.
And while you're at it, bring back the International Drill Comp with Canada. There can't be that much added cost to the Corporation if the national Drill Comp was followed a couple of daya later with the International Comp. However if the United Kingdom also wanted to take part, I can't see big blue supporting the CAP with airlift.

[Ned]

And while you're at it, bring back the International Drill Comp with Canada.

I actually went to their National Board-equivalent meeting recently to extend exactly that invitation.

Although the Air Cadet League folks seemed interested, the cadet branch of the Canadian Forces is not yet ready to resume the competition.

(The International Drill Competition Trophy is sitting in Ottawa, waiting for the competition to resume some day.)

[Major Carrales]

Why "edit" history?  A simple addition to the caption would maintain the integrity of the photograph.  Something along the lines of...

"Cadet Color Guard Excels at Competition: Cadets from the ANYTOWN CADET SQUADRON placed favorably in the East Carolina Wing Color Guard Competition on 31 Octember 2010.  The Cadets did an outstanding job despite having to compete in athletic shoes due to the rules of the facility."

I often have issue with the practice, of which even I do, where real Orwellian practices are used to present a false image of CAP.  I hold these feelings as a PAO because there is an element of Intergrity being lost in these practices.

    Welcome the world of public relations.  Nobody is suggesting violating integrity, so I have no idea why you'd bring it into the discussion.

And I have to completely disagree with your suggested approach.  It serves no purpose in educating the public or promoting Civil Air Patrol by mentioning the shoes.  Therefore, leave it out all together.  We only have a limited amount of time to capture the interest of the reader, and mentioning unimportant internal regulatory minutae does not further the goal of a media release or article on the event.

Instead:  Take a better photograph (because let's be honest, that photo with or without the sneakers wasn't winning any awards) from the start, use an angle that doesn't show the footwear (because their footwear isn't integral to the event) and both the objective of promoting the event and maintaining our professional image is solved.

While I know people in the "ad" industry make their living selling a five pound turnip for the price of a ten pound one, with no qualms about selling them as radishes to people who don't want turnips...I have to disagree, I think there is an integrity issue in presenting things to the public "as they are not."   (preceeding written in jest...sort of)

I am sure that if the photo was cropped, there would be people here complaining that you "could not see their feet."  And a similar maylay would have ensued.  Even speculations that they were out of step and the like. 

I know presenting things "as they are" is an alien concept, however, I think the appoach of honesty is the better route.  This occasion, the sneakers would have actually drawn more attention to the photo...the caveat on the shoes would have proven an element of integrity.  It meant that an issue, which was seemingly unmitigating in its nature, was mitigated and fessed up to to the best of the ability and people excelled despite it.

In anycase, this discussion is academic and merely resides in the realm of the philosphical anyway.  I will likely be forced to take the Orwellian path myself despite my qualms.

As to those pointing out that they are "out of uniform," then may I suggest those of you pointing this out present a checkbook and pay for the better location to host in the future.

Lastly, they did a fine job...it is a shame that is lost in this schlock of a thread!!!

[shorning]

The International Drill Competition Trophy is sitting in Ottawa...

Out of curiosity, do you know where?

[wuzafuzz]

Oh come on!  If someone takes a GOOD photo of an event, no one will whine about shoes being cropped out.  A tighter crop is not dishonest in any way shape or form and would probably make for a better photo.  Further, it's not necessary to publicly document a less than ideal situation by simultaneously photographing and apologizing for it.

[Major Carrales]

Oh come on!  If someone takes a GOOD photo of an event, no one will whine about shoes being cropped out.  A tighter crop is not dishonest in any way shape or form and would probably make for a better photo.  Further, it's not necessary to publicly document a less than ideal situation by simultaneously photographing and apologizing for it.

Have it your way, Mac.  I will be sure to replace your head with that of William Shatner when your photo comes my way.  After all, "it's not necessary to publicly document a less than ideal situation by simultaneously photographing and apologizing for it." 

[wuzafuzz]

Oh come on!  If someone takes a GOOD photo of an event, no one will whine about shoes being cropped out.  A tighter crop is not dishonest in any way shape or form and would probably make for a better photo.  Further, it's not necessary to publicly document a less than ideal situation by simultaneously photographing and apologizing for it.

Have it your way, Mac.  I will be sure to replace your head with that of William Shatner when your photo comes my way.  After all, "it's not necessary to publicly document a less than ideal situation by simultaneously photographing and apologizing for it."

Nice try.  Inventing a new reality is far different than photographs depicting real events and you know it.  Every news story, press release, or photo essay in existence necessarily omits things.  I am a complete honesty freak, but suggesting that highlighting our strengths is somehow dishonest is going too far. 

We aren't talking about covering up improper behavior, we are talking about making the best of opportunities to honor achievement and present CAP's brand in a positive light. 

[Major Carrales]

Oh come on!  If someone takes a GOOD photo of an event, no one will whine about shoes being cropped out.  A tighter crop is not dishonest in any way shape or form and would probably make for a better photo.  Further, it's not necessary to publicly document a less than ideal situation by simultaneously photographing and apologizing for it.

Have it your way, Mac.  I will be sure to replace your head with that of William Shatner when your photo comes my way.  After all, "it's not necessary to publicly document a less than ideal situation by simultaneously photographing and apologizing for it."

Nice try.  Inventing a new reality is far different than photographs depicting real events and you know it.  Every news story, press release, or photo essay in existence necessarily omits things.  I am a complete honesty freak, but suggesting that highlighting our strengths is somehow dishonest is going too far. 

We aren't talking about covering up improper behavior, we are talking about making the best of opportunities to honor achievement and present CAP's brand in a positive light.

This thread is bunk anyway...I'm not gonna lose "capital" with you over nonsense. 

[Pylon]

This thread is bunk anyway...I'm not gonna lose "capital" with you over nonsense.

This thread is the opposite of "bunk".  This thread is an excellent teachable moment for public affairs officers, both current and future.  The art of framing a photograph and selecting the important elements to focus upon in a story or media release is not bunk.  It's one of the core skills of the trade of public relations.   Rather, I'd say, throwing up your hands and calling the whole discussion worthless when the holes in your argument have been pointed out is "bunk".

Framing a photograph is what photographers do.  It's not their job to capture every detail and the totality of every situation.  If that were the job of journalistic photography, every shot of every news event would be some wide-angle aerial overview of the entire event with every last person and detail squeezed into the frame.   That's not the case, because that's not what journalistic or PR photography is about.  Most great news photos are shot "close in".  And a critical rule of editing photography (that's right, photographs should be edited before they go to the press or public -- it's an expected, understood, and fully ethical part of the trade) is to crop, crop some more, and then crop till it hurts... and then you probably have a good shot.  Similar rules include -- when taking a photograph, stop and take a few steps closer.  Then take a few more.  The idea isn't to show the totality of the situation, but often a detail or moment that represents or captures the essence of the event.    This is textbook public relations.   Nobody is suggesting photoshopping in different footwear, changing the nature of the event, or substituting in heads of William Shatner (which you equated with proper framing or cropping). 

Lastly, before bringing ethics into the discussion, take a moment to examine what those ethical standards actually are.  The Public Relations Society of America has published ethical standards that all of its members sign and adhere to, and for which there is actually a Board of Ethics and Professional Standards to review members' misconduct.   I'll link to the PRSA Ethics Code now:  http://www.prsa.org/aboutprsa/ethics/    I am a member of the PRSA, have been for years, and have signed to those ethical standards.  Taking a shot from a good angle to cut out something silly like sneakers isn't unethical, and rather I'd posit that PAOs who fail to crop out such unnecessary details are actually risking failing at their primary goal, which is to positively portray their client (CAP).

Michael Kieloch, MS in public relations

[Major Carrales]

Whatever... The biggest problem with PAOs today is that they photograph CAP as it is not as opposed to how it is.

Some PAOs take these beautiful shots of CAP personel in aircraft at airshows and those opportunistic moments that shows CAP in an unrealistic pose.  Cropping out the reality...and presenting the "false" to some potential members that sees CAP as what it is not, joins and is disappointed.

We are not PAOs to deliver articles to the NEW YORK TIMES, or to some flashly publication...but rather, informing our local areas of what we really do.  Well written articles that potential members will read and be able to make the decision to join CAP based on it. 

"Teachable momement?!?"  In a PIG'S EYE!!!  This is yet another of those threads where a good was accomplished in CAP and people chose to ridicule the event.  Where some cadets were raked over the methphorical coals when they are neither in the wrong or in a situation of their own accord.

An you people would have us spend millions on people researching and wondering why retention rates are low.

We have to start showing the totality of situations in CAP of we are to attract people who want to do what CAP really does.  CAP Cadets and Officers in "fighter planes," "jumping from choppers," and otherwise coming out in public affairs doing things we don't normally do works against us.

I went to college too...so don't swing around your degrees here because a paper on a wall no more makes and expert than a stamp actually delivers the mail.

Jose E Carrales, Bachelor's in History and English in a University.

[Pylon]

Should I get off your dang'nabbed lawn, too?