Public Affairs lacking on all levels.

[Short Field]

he gets yelled at for signing in as 2Lt Bagodonuts since that's what he sees when he reads Volunteer and looks at his membership card.

Multiple standards cause confusion, which can lead to an unprofessional image, which is the point of this entire thread.

Sounds like a fertile training subject for some sharp Aerospace Education Officer to prepare and present...

[NC Hokie]

he gets yelled at for signing in as 2Lt Bagodonuts since that's what he sees when he reads Volunteer and looks at his membership card.

Multiple standards cause confusion, which can lead to an unprofessional image, which is the point of this entire thread.

Sounds like a fertile training subject for some sharp Aerospace Education Officer to prepare and present...

Not a bad idea (I'm always looking for good material), but I don't think my wing DAE will accept that as a valid aerospace presentation.

[Short Field]

Well, what is aerospace education?  We just had that discussion here and decided it really goes far beyond paper airplanes and history.   If the Yeager is AE, then surely how to correctly write Brig Gen Yeager's rank is AE.

[Major Carrales]

And the abbreviation for 2d Lt is incorrect and uses a superscript font.

This bugs me too.  I know that 2d Lt is the "correct" form, but my CAP ID lists me as 2Lt (with a different font type to boot!).  It's a small thing, but it reinforces the perception that NHQ operates under a different set of rules than the rest of us.

As has been explained several times in the past, anything generated from a computer database will probably not comply with CAPR or AP Stylebook standards. This has to do with bits and bytes when they were more precious than they are today.

My friend, and I mean no spite nor vitriol to you in pointing this out, however to that I have to say that excuse rates bupkes because e-services memeber search list a Lt Col as "Lt Col" and C/MSgt as "C/MSgt."  That it lists 2LT and 1LT does not stand up the "they can't list it properly because of bits and bytes that need to be saved."  I just think the original programmer thought it was proper to label it so.

[JohnKachenmeister]

As I recall, CAP public affairs officers are instructed to use the Associated Press guidebook and it has different abbreviations for military rank than what CAP has in our regulations. 

Its called the Associated Press STYLEbook, and both CAP regulations and AFI's require adherence to it in any news released and PA publications.

And I don't care what 2LT Bagadonuts thinks.  That is the reg.  If you are going to write for the news media, you better get in bed with your stylebook.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I agree that if you're going to write for the media, or for ANY external source, you follow the AP stylebook. Period.

The first three words I heard in my first newswriting course in college: Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. Misspelled names in an assignment got an automatic F. So you can bet we knew the difference between ANG and ARNG, not that we used those acronyms in stories.

If public affairs efforts are lacking on all levels, it's because we're not doing our jobs individually as CAP members. Honestly, if I'm an IO for a mission, when I'm taking pictures, I avoid people in golf shirts (do we want the flying-club perception?) and improperly worn uniforms. I wish the people who submit photos to the Volunteer would do the same, but instead, here's a few glaring issues from the last edition:

-- Some bozo in an Air Force flight suit with a goatee. Where's the respect?
-- Additional patches below the zippers on the front of a flight suit. Where's the attention to detail?
-- IDs hanging from flight suit zipper pulls, with pockets hanging open. Where's the pride?

And that's just three examples. Adobe Photoshop can't possibly fix everything. It's up to unit commanders to ensure proper uniform wear. But it starts with us policing ourselves and each other.

There's all this talk about uniforms in CAP, almost as if there are people who just joined to wear one. But for all the talk, there's one unavoidable premise, and it's one everyone should memorize and repeat to others: If you don't have the discipline to wear the uniform correctly, how can you be trusted to have the discipline to follow other regulations?

[Eclipse]

-- Additional patches below the zippers on the front of a flight suit. Where's the attention to detail?

The sardog and old-style ES oval are allowed below the zipper on the MAJCOM side.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you said....

[BuckeyeDEJ]

-- Additional patches below the zippers on the front of a flight suit. Where's the attention to detail?

The sardog and old-style ES oval are allowed below the zipper on the MAJCOM side.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you said....

Not sure about that. Here's from CAPM 39-1, page 34: "Optional Breast Patch: Embroidered Emergency Services patch may be worn on the right breast or corresponding position." Seems that would preclude anything below the zipper, and in fact insinuates the MAJCOM patch may be replaced with the ES patch. The patch could go in the "optional" position on the wearer's right shoulder, could it not?

If the patch is indeed authorized in that position, it's unprofessional and not military, IMHO. But then again, I find the ES patch redundant to other insignia that rely on ES requirements to earn. Just more needless bling.

[Eclipse]

Not sure about that. Here's from CAPM 39-1, page 34: "Optional Breast Patch: Embroidered Emergency Services patch may be worn on the right breast or corresponding position." Seems that would preclude anything below the zipper, and in fact insinuates the MAJCOM patch may be replaced with the ES patch. The patch could go in the "optional" position on the wearer's right shoulder, could it not?

If the patch is indeed authorized in that position, it's unprofessional and not military, IMHO. But then again, I find the ES patch redundant to other insignia that rely on ES requirements to earn. Just more needless bling.

No - this is another typo.

If you read further to page 77 (where the dark blue flight suit is defined):

5. Optional Breast Patch: Embroidered Emergency Services patch may be worn on the right breast pocket or corresponding position. (emphasis mine)

This has been the placement of those two patches since before I joined CAP, going back to the smurf suit and light blue Nomex flight suit.

Since everything else on the flight suit is identical, there is no reason to believe this should be different only for the green one, and other areas of 39-1 are very clear that the only thing authorized in the MAJCOM space is a MAJCOM or region insignia.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Not sure about that. Here's from CAPM 39-1, page 34: "Optional Breast Patch: Embroidered Emergency Services patch may be worn on the right breast or corresponding position." Seems that would preclude anything below the zipper, and in fact insinuates the MAJCOM patch may be replaced with the ES patch. The patch could go in the "optional" position on the wearer's right shoulder, could it not?

If the patch is indeed authorized in that position, it's unprofessional and not military, IMHO. But then again, I find the ES patch redundant to other insignia that rely on ES requirements to earn. Just more needless bling.

No - this is another typo.

If you read further to page 77 (where the dark blue flight suit is defined):

5. Optional Breast Patch: Embroidered Emergency Services patch may be worn on the right breast pocket or corresponding position. (emphasis mine)

This has been the placement of those two patches since before I joined CAP, going back to the smurf suit and light blue Nomex flight suit.

Since everything else on the flight suit is identical, there is no reason to believe this should be different only for the green one, and other areas of 39-1 are very clear that the only thing authorized in the MAJCOM space is a MAJCOM or region insignia.

The CAP-distinctive uniforms do, to a point, mirror the AF uniforms, BUT.

Here's hoping they'll nix that additional patch. The Air Force doesn't authorize patches there. What makes us so special? The CAP flight suit's another thing.

If it's a typo, it's a typo, but it's one that thousands of CAP members are following, or are incorrect on, or something, all because of a typo.

To get back on track, if the unit commander won't police uniforms, and if individual members won't be conscientious enough, it's up to the photographers to police CAP by avoiding a bad image in their viewfinders.

[Eclipse]

If it's a typo, it's a typo, but it's one that thousands of CAP members are following, or are incorrect on, or something, all because of a typo.

Yes, but IMHO the typo is that its supposed to say "pocket" for the green one, too.

To get back on track, if the unit commander won't police uniforms, and if individual members won't be conscientious enough, it's up to the photographers to police CAP by avoiding a bad image in their viewfinders.

Agree 200%, its something that we hammer on our PA people in my units, but is not consistently taught.

CAP PAO's are not disinterested third parties with no agenda other then presentation of the facts, they are a benevolent
agent with a responsibility to always show CAP in the best light possible (both internally and externally), including policing images and story content.

[lordmonar]

To get back on track, if the unit commander won't police uniforms, and if individual members won't be conscientious enough, it's up to the photographers to police CAP by avoiding a bad image in their viewfinders.

I'll grant you that to a point.....the other side of that is National's duty to provide clear guidance.

39-1 is often too confusing, too contradictory and has too many simple errors to really be of much use.

So the commander won't police uniforms because he is just as confused about what is "right" as the rest of us....individuals usually have never read the regulations....someone just showed them how to wear the uniform...or the "remembered" how they wore it on AD.  Bad training, bad memory and too many changes to 39-1 (and sometimes a lot of "I don't care" too) have resulted in "bad" uniforms.

Finally.....while the PAO may have a duty to present CAP in as good a light as possible, they also have other compelling duties as well.  What is more important....publishing the picture showing your unit doing great things and getting a full page in the Volunteer or just a 1/2 collumn on page 95 because someone was not in 100% perfect uniform.....an error that would not hurt our "image" in anyones eyes except for us Uniform Gurus?

[afgeo4]

As of 12:53am, the article has been changed to "National Guard" and all mention of ANG and Air National Guard are gone.

A big THANK YOU to whoever read this and made the change and please reinforce how important it is that we cite the military units that help us properly.

If I was an ArNG aircrew member who flew the CAPpers and saw this article in its previous format I would have probably been a little bit upset.

And guys:

1. It wasn't just the CH-46 that gave it away (soon, USAF will be flying them too). It was also the unit designation as the "Company B 2-211th General Support Aviation Battalion", which is clearly an Army designation since USAF doesn't have "companies" or "battalions".

2. On the comment of why I criticize and not write my own articles... 1. You don't know that I don't and... 2. Even if I don't, perhaps I stick to what I'm good at and not pretend I'm good at things I'm not? Especially when my performance reflects on all of CAP?

[SAR-EMT1]

As far as PAOs recieving quality training, there is a pretty good set of PAO courses availible on the AFIADL website that we can enroll in.  Excuse me, the A4/6 Air Force Education Branch of the Communications and Logistics Center website... I think I'll still call it AFIADL since AFEBCLC seems a bit longwinded.

Sidebar:
AFIADL has gone the way of ECI and been deactivated ... don't worry, the website core, requests page, and enrollment form (online) are all the same.

Seems CADRE was also deactivated and renamed (and that new organization was just deactivated and renamed; now the LeMay Center for Doctrine)

I took a joint warfighters course through CADRE once, they had some other courses I wanted to take but they were deactivated before I could enroll. The new webpage has nothing of value, merely the new /CC's picture. No links, no courses, nothing.

However with all the deactivations and new names... one can only hope CAP is stood down and reactivated as what it really is: the USAF Auxiliary. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree that if you're going to write for the media, or for ANY external source, you follow the AP stylebook. Period.

The first three words I heard in my first newswriting course in college: Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. Misspelled names in an assignment got an automatic F. So you can bet we knew the difference between ANG and ARNG, not that we used those acronyms in stories.

If public affairs efforts are lacking on all levels, it's because we're not doing our jobs individually as CAP members. Honestly, if I'm an IO for a mission, when I'm taking pictures, I avoid people in golf shirts (do we want the flying-club perception?) and improperly worn uniforms. I wish the people who submit photos to the Volunteer would do the same, but instead, here's a few glaring issues from the last edition:

-- Some bozo in an Air Force flight suit with a goatee. Where's the respect?
-- Additional patches below the zippers on the front of a flight suit. Where's the attention to detail?
-- IDs hanging from flight suit zipper pulls, with pockets hanging open. Where's the pride?

And that's just three examples. Adobe Photoshop can't possibly fix everything. It's up to unit commanders to ensure proper uniform wear. But it starts with us policing ourselves and each other.

There's all this talk about uniforms in CAP, almost as if there are people who just joined to wear one. But for all the talk, there's one unavoidable premise, and it's one everyone should memorize and repeat to others: If you don't have the discipline to wear the uniform correctly, how can you be trusted to have the discipline to follow other regulations?

I went off in the "Uniform" forum about Volunteer so bad the topic got locked.  I pointed out the same things.  Is the editor of Volunteer even a member?

I went through active duty training as a PAO at DINFOS, and their standards were just as high or higher than the J-schools.  That's why I go ballistic about CAP PAO's turning in garbage for copy and CAP editors not smelling it.

[BillB]

In probably every Wing you'll find members that are or have been professional journalists. But I'll bet in 9 of 10 instances, the professional journalist is NOT the Wing PAO. The average Squadron or even Wing PAO will send out news releases with little or no news value, just to get the name Civil Air Patrol in print. A good PAO will limit the "non-news" releases submitted to news media to ensure that a news story gets printed rather than placed in file 13. While Wing PAO, I found it amazing what a Squadron PAO thought was news and submitted to the Wing newspaper. So cadet Jones in South Podunk Squadron earned the Curry award. So what? How many cadets in the Wing got the same award the same week that justifies a news release to the media? But then how many Cadet O-rides with a photo is not submitted showing a cadet experiencing flying? That has four times the news value to a newspaper than just a blurb on a minor award. But judging by "The Volunteer" a news release does not have to have news value or even have been spell checked for publication. In one Wing, more often than not, a news release includes the PAO's daughters name. Granted the daughter is very active in the Squadron, but it seems that the release is more or less a platform for the daughter rather than a news release of value to local media. Even to the extent of lessening the "publicity" to other cadets involved in the same story. Every Wing should hold an annual or semi-annual weekend training activity for PAOs to provide the basics in news writing and dicovering what is a news release of value to the media.

[Smithsonia]

I am attempting to pull military PA up a notch. I've worked as a media consultant for 40 years. I've worked in Newspaper, TV, Radio, Magazine, and new media. I've also worked for the military, NASA, and military suppliers too. The problem with military PA versus News media is:

1. (CAP) Military PA is template based. This allows the military to train a large number of people quickly and efficiently. News media (done right) train their people over an entire career. Once you learn the basics you're expected to embellish and extend from the basic format and become an editorially honed writer of excellence. The military prefers the templates. Military press releases haven't changed in eons.

2. Military models are based on the -- "learn one, do one, teach one" principle. Media is based on learn, learn, learn, do do do, teach teach teach. Because a media career can last 40 years and a military PA career seldom goes over 10 -- experience eventually wins out. Military PAs are at a great disadvantage.
Even the Officers at the 5-6-and 7 level miss this point. They were probably trained as war fighters and have taken the PA job as a final 10 year route to retirement. They are capable of managing many people who are on the "learn one, do one, teach one" track... but are less capable in the elements of craft.

3. Media pays better (or at least used to) so you get a higher degree of professional, if motivated by money and prestige.

4. Very few military PAs make it in the media business. So the influence of the military and value of their work is dismissed.

5. Lot's of military PAOs (most, if not all, actually) have never been to the holy of holies... a working press rooms daily news budget meeting. So they have little idea why stories rise to the level of needing coverage and requiring time and effort from the media. They don't know how to pitch a story. They know little about story shaping or promotional value.

There's much more detail and advice to give on this topic... but inside CAP there is much consternation. It seems that change is needed, but fought at every turn because it's easier to complain that we never get coverage than to adapt. I am not the PA for either my squadron or wing and won't be... until I can work at a level that is at the same professional standard that I work at everyday. The same level I teach everyday. Media is a craft. Media craft is tough to define. Media definitions change too fast to write a journalism book that is of much value for more than a few weeks. Journalist's do. Journalism teachers
can't keep up. You gotta be in the media fight every hour of everyday to stay ahead. The military PAs won't be in the fight until they get this right. Otherwise, they're just doing press relations and hoping the media will take pity on them.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN 

[RiverAux]

I think CAP is much much closer to civilian rather than military public affairs in terms how we are set up and how we do things.  Most CAP PAOs are dealing a local newspaper or tv station in their home town and assuming they stay with CAP and stay with PA, might be working with the same media folks for many years.  That sort of non-mission PA work is pretty much identical to what might be done by any other local volunteer group out there though we probably put more of a focus on it. 

Where we start getting closer to military PA is during missions.  Then, our IOs are probably dealing with a fairly large number of outlets, often not from the local area, with whom they have no relationship.  The media folks are not familiar with our organization or the sort of mission we're doing and the strategy and tactics involved in carrying it out.  In these situations there is often information that we'd rather not get made public at a particular time.  The issues involve life and death and the stakes are high and the pressure can be intense for the IO.  But, even then there are plenty of civilian public affairs officers facing similar situations. 

But, when it comes right down to it, I don't think there really is much different about military (or CAP) public affairs in comparison to other public affairs programs other than a need to pay a bit more attention to what the folks in our organization are wearing. 

[Smithsonia]

Riveraux;
You are right that CAP/PA is similar to other agencies. The military PA manuals are where CAP, FEMA, NASA, etc. go for the template and adopt military PA training to their own enterprise. It's not up to date. SO, Change the military PA and you'll change the world. So come sit in my course of 12 - 2 hour lectures on "Public Affairs a Battle Space Component, a Battle Space Competency". Followed by at 6 hour workshop -- almost all of it is writing and craft based.

IO on a mission with hot news is not the same as the everyday PAO duties. One should be able to DO both, if not fully competent in both. IO informs PA and vice-a-versa. I can view this thread and see a prime example of one of the problems:

Nearly every topic in every thread reduces to some argument about uniforms. While it's a valuable topic for us... we get into naval gazing enrapturements that mean nothing to the public. It is "Public" Affairs. Not Air Force Affairs. Not Military Affairs. We train ourselves to argue with ourselves, alone. To put this bluntly -- it's pretty juvenile. We train ourselves to care what our boss thinks first, and the public second.

We should learn to engage with a larger audience for the proper attention due the excellent men and women of the Patrol. In that way we represent the World to CAP and the CAP to the World. Believe me, they don't care much about 39-1. That doesn't mean we shouldn't... but, give me a great story full of daring-do, of volunteered souls in a battle of life and death -- then spike it because of a uniform violation -- and you're not doing much good.

Photo-shop it for 39-1 conformity and you'll be doing a further disservice by tainting the story with a false actuality. Get caught doing that and you won't be trusted by the news media. This ain't rocket science BUT, it's not a uniform inspection either.
With regards; ED OBRIEN

[JohnKachenmeister]

Riveraux;
You are right that CAP/PA is similar to other agencies. The military PA manuals are where CAP, FEMA, NASA, etc. go for the template and adopt military PA training to their own enterprise. It's not up to date. SO, Change the military PA and you'll change the world. So come sit in my course of 12 - 2 hour lectures on "Public Affairs a Battle Space Component, a Battle Space Competency". Followed by at 6 hour workshop -- almost all of it is writing and craft based.

IO on a mission with hot news is not the same as the everyday PAO duties. One should be able to DO both, if not fully competent in both. IO informs PA and vice-a-versa. I can view this thread and see a prime example of one of the problems:

Nearly every topic in every thread reduces to some argument about uniforms. While it's a valuable topic for us... we get into naval gazing enrapturements that mean nothing to the public. It is "Public" Affairs. Not Air Force Affairs. Not Military Affairs. We train ourselves to argue with ourselves, alone. To put this bluntly -- it's pretty juvenile. We train ourselves to care what our boss thinks first, and the public second.

We should learn to engage with a larger audience for the proper attention due the excellent men and women of the Patrol. In that way we represent the World to CAP and the CAP to the World. Believe me, they don't care much about 39-1. That doesn't mean we shouldn't... but, give me a great story full of daring-do, of volunteered souls in a battle of life and death -- then spike it because of a uniform violation -- and you're not doing much good.

Photo-shop it for 39-1 conformity and you'll be doing a further disservice by tainting the story with a false actuality. Get caught doing that and you won't be trusted by the news media. This ain't rocket science BUT, it's not a uniform inspection either.
With regards; ED OBRIEN

Ed:

I understand your point.  I have, and will continue (if I'm ever a PAO again) to release photos with MINOR 39-1 discrepancies.  Major sloppiness, unprofessional appearance, and outright being unable to dress yourself gets the photo killed.  You said it yourself... we want to make the organization look good to the public.  A story about great flying is ruined when the public sees an officer who looks like a clown, or worse, like the guy at the freeway off-ramp who tries to wash your windshield.  Then his good flying story is either not believed or written off to dumb luck.