New NCR/CC??

[NCRblues]

Shocking, absolutely shocking...

I can't believe all of this over an article that appeared in the "St. Louis Post Disgrace."  Some have been able to keep their emotions and fondness for Col Kuddes in check, others...well not so much.  Over the years dealing with the press one thing is for sure.  If you don't spell it out for them a certain amount of literary license will be used; even then there is no guarantee.

I have met both of the officers discussed in this thread.  While each have their own agenda they still have the best interests of CAP in mind, whether I agreed with them or not.

While I know this will open a can of worms.  The picture of the flight jacket (which seems to be a point of contention for NCRBlues).  I can't seem to find any CAP distinctive markings...except for the wings.  Oh wait, John Q. Public won't associate those with anything other than a design of wings with a "triangle thingy" in it.

If this is type of useless "learning" that takes place on this forum I'm not sure I made a good choice by joining.

i do not remember anyone on this board promissing "learning" at all...in fact we argue and fight more than anything on this board.

Yes, it is no secret i have a major problem with corporate officers openly misleading readers that have no idea what CAP is....
This man was given a chance to fix the errors made in the article, and he refused. He has no form 5 on file, can not pilot a single aircraft let alone "all the aircraft CAP has".... i can go on but i wont, if you wish you can PM me and we can discuss this more.

[Briski]

Whatever else this situation might be, I think it's an important opportunity for us to learn about journalism and working with public affairs professionals.

I was interviewed once for an article in CAP News, and when I got the "final draft" version to review before printing, I noticed that the author didn't have the name of the activity quite right. I already had some major revisions that I wanted to request, and I didn't want to seem like I was ripping the whole article to shreds. Besides, I figured that one of the 4-5 other people who had been interviewed would have made the correction. So I let it slide.

When the article was printed with the incorrect activity name, I rolled my eyes. How embarrassing for the journalist, who couldn't even do enough research to get the name of the activity right.

...but then I realized that if anyone were to blame, it had to be me.

I was the volunteer involved in the activity, not the journalist.

I had the chance to make the correction, and I chose not to.

How embarrassing for a CAP officer who tries to teach cadets about professionalism, who had the chance to proofread the article and still signed off on a rather silly error.

Conversely, I also had an experience once where misinformation was spread because of edits made after I'd approved the "final draft" before printing. Some career fields function on really tight deadlines, and journalism is one of them. The misinformation spread, in my case, was nothing too drastic, and I know that the journalist did not intend to deceive anyone. It was simply an oversimplification of information—such an oversimplification, in fact, that the information presented actually became misinformation.

In the end, it seems to me that public affairs stuff is a team effort. If I'm interviewing someone, it's on me to make sure I do everything in my power to represent everything he/she says in a way that the average reader can understand and appreciate. If I'm being interviewed, it's on me to make sure I give the person interviewing me the best possible opportunity for good reporting.

Please note that I have never met Col Fagan, so I choose to refrain from making comments on his character and making speculations regarding the "rightness" of his selection to serve as region commander.

[NIN]

Whatever else this situation might be, I think it's an important opportunity for us to learn about journalism and working with public affairs professionals.[...]

Conversely, I also had an experience once where misinformation was spread because of edits made after I'd approved the "final draft" before printing. Some career fields function on really tight deadlines, and journalism is one of them. The misinformation spread, in my case, was nothing too drastic, and I know that the journalist did not intend to deceive anyone. It was simply an oversimplification of information—such an oversimplification, in fact, that the information presented actually became misinformation. [...]

THIS! ^



Seriously, that last part, about misinformation.  Its *amazing* what a journalist will do with *anything* you say in an "interview" to make an interesting "story."  Once its away from your view, you have almost zero control of the message. Very few journos, due to tight deadlines or their belief that they know they got the story 100% "right" will even bother to send you their draft for accuracy review.

I was once interviewed for a county-wide newspaper when I was the commander of a unit in MI Wing.  The journalist and I met for coffee at a local Big Boy restaurant (mmmm, Big Boy...) and we had a nice hour long chat about CAP.  At one point, he said something like "Help me understand what the local CAP cadet units are all about.. Is it like the Air Force?"

I (stupidly) said "Well, and I wouldn't print this, but to some extent, think of the Cadet Program like Boy Scouts with schnazzy uniforms.." and we laughed and he said "Yeah, I wouldn't exactly say that.." and we moved on.

The article came out a week or two later, and there it is: "In describing the cadet program, Captain Ninness said 'Its like Boy Scouts with schnazzy uniforms.'." 

I was like "Holy crap, he PRINTED that?" 

My email filled with messages from fellow officers in my group, congratulating me on being a complete bonehead.   One even said "Welcome to the club, dude.  You won't say that again, will you?"  (It was embarrassing, but not a show stopper.. still, I'm trying to remember who was my group commander at the time.. I think General Courter had already handed over the group to someone else, but in any event, I got crap at the next commander's call, and I think the Wing PAO even called me to thank me for being the one to say something stupid to the media instead of him. )

Lesson learned: Don't want it in there? Don't say it.  Context or otherwise.  Don't let 'em take "background" pictures of something that isn't quite right, cuz when it hits the paper, even though John Q. Public won't know any different, others will. And it won't be "background."

Several years later, right after 9/11 when that kid slammed a 172 into a multi-story building in Tampa, I got a call from my wing administrator that the local TV news folks wanted to talk to someone from Civil Air Patrol about it.  They'd gone to the local aviation college to talk to the "experts" on aviation, they wanted someone on camera who could talk about young people and aviation (expert or otherwise, right?)  Since I happened to work about 500m across the runway from the college, I got the hot button to talk to the media. (I happened to have a flight suit in my car, my hair was in regs, and had even shaved that day. Win!)

During the interview, the reporter kept trying to lead me to say that allowing 16 year old kids to fly planes was patently unsafe and should be banned by Congress, the FAA, the PTA and your local fire department. I wasn't going to let her go there.  I said things like "For the most part, flying is as safe for anybody as driving a car. And nobody seems to question a 16 year old with a driver's license and mom's Buick."  That night, there was my mug on local TV and they weren't able to edit my comments into something that sounded like kids should never be allowed near aircraft.  (Whew!)

[ColonelJack]

As a broadcast journalist of 35 years' experience, I was ready to be offended at Darin's comment about what we would do to make an interesting story, but as I re-read it I realized ... he's absolutely right.

Not that I am defending incompetence, or anything like that ... but in that business it's all about getting the largest number of viewers or readers to pay attention to what you're saying.  So if a ho-hum story gets "sensationalized" in some way, that's the reason.  My evening newscast in west Georgia competes with stations out of Atlanta and Columbus, and while I will never skew a story just for ratings (or to enhance someone's agenda -- even my own), I do want to present the news in such a way as to convince local viewers to stay tuned to channel 33, not switch to 2, 5, 9, 11, etc.

Correct also is the comment that we don't send drafts to those involved in the story for review -- in television it's because we don't have time and because we have to set our own standards.  (At least it's so at my station.)

Jack

[Briski]

It's interesting that we in the US are so stuck on the appearance of accurate reporting. In many other countries, the left wingers read the left wing newspaper, and the right wingers read the right wing newspaper. They want to read what they want to hear.

The US is weird in that we expect our media to be unbiased. At the very least, the average American becomes impassioned when a given news source is biased against his or her stance or mindset. Even though we all know that there isn't a human on earth who is completely free of bias.

Btw, NIN, I appreciate the effort you put forth in quoting my post, using elipses to indicate that there was more to my post than the excerpts you quoted. Ironically apropos, given the topic at hand. 

[NIN]

As a broadcast journalist of 35 years' experience, I was ready to be offended at Darin's comment about what we would do to make an interesting story, but as I re-read it I realized ... he's absolutely right.

Thanks Jack. Glad I did it right

Seriously, though, there is a difference between a "journalist" and a "newsreader" (I think that term is still in use in the UK).  I watch TV, I want to see something _interesting_, not some talking head droning at the camera.

(mind you: my former major in college was mass communications, specifically radio & TV.  I am "school trained," sort of, in these subjects, even though I was always a "production" not "editorial" guy.)

I read the paper, I want to read a good story, not a bland recitation of the facts.  I certainly don't begrudge a journalist the opportunity to entertain us with his/her wordsmithing and presentation of factual information.  Thats "good journalism."

It was solely my fault for saying something to the writer that I expected was something to give him a clearer understanding of the program so he could write a better, more accurate story, and instead wound up as a part of the story.  Lesson learned, the hard way.

Thankfully, it was a little county paper, not the Detroit News where my gaffe would be visible in someone's archives for the next 100 years.

Jackie: Yeah, I was trying to quote the relevant parts for brevity (me? brevity? Ha!). Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I make it worse.  I'm glad I don't get paid to write, I'd be a lot more broke than I am now.