My doctor has told me to quit reading "Volunteer."

[Major Carrales]

Kach,

You know I try. 

[Mustang]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I think that any publication should strive for accuracy not only in its articles, but also in the pictures representing the organization.

Of course we should strive for accuracy, but holding out for perfection is futile; we'd never get anything done.  When it comes to images for Public Affairs use, the "wish list" is:

• High quality
• Professional appearance
• Low (or no) cost

The reality, however, is that we can't have it all; constraints in equipment/training/budget mean we may choose only two.

They should not allow anything that is not professional and correct.  To let things slide not only makes us look stupid to those who know better (in and out of CAP), it allows those people to continue to do whatever they want regardless of what the rules are.

Though I agree everyone should encourage their fellow members to always wear their uniform properly and proudly, permit me to point out something here: uniform wear is not the mission of Civil Air Patrol.  When the CAP Vision statement speaks of "performing missions for America",  uniform wear is not among them.   

What I suspect may be at issue here is an effect of difference in perspective.   As a 1st Lt and former C/FO, your "world view" of CAP might be quite different from that of, say, a Lt Col and former C/Col (like moi) and we likely view what constitutes "professionalism" very differently. 

I can already tell that were you to spot a mission pilot readying for a sortie, you'd be giving his uniform a visual once-over and if that didn't pass muster, you probably stopped right there in your assessment.   Me, I'm more interested in signs that the pilot is knows and is doing his job.  Is he using checklists or relying on his memory?  Did he do a weight and balance or did he blow it off, having done W&Bs with similar loads many times before?  Did he bother to get a briefing from Flight Service?  Did he bother to check NOTAMs? Did he bother to ensure all the aircraft's required inspections and AD compliance are current?  Did he adequately brief his crew, or just assume they know how to open the doors, use the seatbelts or find the fire extinguisher? 

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

Looking good in uniform never saved a life.

[RiverAux]

I think most people will agree that doing the job right is more important than how you look, but we're talking about public affairs in this thread and in that context, looking good counts for an awful lot.  From a public affairs point of view, as long as that pilot doesn't crash the plane or cause operational embarrassment, it is almost even more important that he look good if he is pictured in a photo or on news video.   

We might find the plane and rescue the crew, but if one of our folks gets caught on camera wearing an unearned SEAL pin (pick your favorite uniform violation) that might be what gets played on the news and damages our reputation with our partners. 

However, this is a very fine line.  Some CAP folks will throw a major hissy fit if a ribbon is out of order in a photo used in public affairs and while this is obviously not a good thing, its relatively minor in my book.  However, the bigger and more obvious the uniform problem is, the bigger a public affairs problem it is. 

[lordmonar]

I would buy your argument if I know that the public at large knew anything about our (including the AD Force) uniforms.

I am constantly asked if I am in the Army....to me it is completely obvious I am not...but to "them" all they see is a uniform.

That is why there can even be a "market" for stolen honors.  People just don't know.  They see some by with a seal pin....and they ask him what is for...and then the stories start running.

Same with CAP.  Only we know that his BDU CAP pin was centered instead of only 1/2" from the bill like 39-1 says.  So we jump up and down wringing our hands.

Back a few years ago...I submitted and article to CAP New with some photos...but it was rejected because some of the cadets did not have wing patches (they were in the mail) and one cadet was wearing Gortex (there was 2 feet of snow on the ground).

So we loose the positive value of showing cadets out doing good things....and getting some pride for my cadet to see their pictures in the paper....because of a technicality that only those in the know would care about.

Not even the USAF is that bad....I have seen many...many....many gross uniform vioaltions in USAF offical publications.....but the value of "showing" our customers what we do and the value of getting our members their 15 seconds of fame is more important than reinforcing the regulations.

[wuzafuzz]

It's true there are plenty of people who will never realize if one of our members is wearing their uniform improperly.  However, some of the people we need to impress the most will recognize sloppy uniform wear and will judge us accordingly.  That may cost us missions, opportunities, and some good will.  All it takes is one emergency planner in a given community to see an adult in BDU's with "too long" hair and wonder "what's the deal with those guys?"

Uniforms aren't the only way to create a good impression but they are often the first and only impression.  If we aren't making a good impression, we may be creating doubt.

[alamrcn]

.....but the value of "showing" our customers what we do and the value of getting our members their 15 seconds of fame is more important than reinforcing the regulations.

:clap: Exactly.

We are obviously our own worst critics. If we put the submitted photos in front of a panel like the peanut gallery here, you'd get a recruiting pamphlet and not a membership magazine.

I'm not saying it should be "anything goes" for a photo opportunity, but lets just enjoy the moment of the photo and the story behind it for once. We're not going to ditch the picture of a member helping a flood victim because his BDU breast pocket was unbuttoned and a pen was hanging out.

-Ace


"I once had a bigger and deeper stick than yours. When someone I deeply respected finally helped me remove it, life in CAP suddenly became much more enjoyable."

[Smithsonia]

On the uniform gigs taking away from publicity photos. To paraphrase Billy Chrystal on Saturday night live:
"It is better to look good, than to do good." I disagree with the uni-gurus. Any deployed Army/Marine Combat forces wear various uni's in the field. They wear what works. They all look "All-American" but in the field, practicality trumps minor uniform regs. It's been the same for all troops since the beginning of time.
If you're working in the field and saving lives -- you may sweat, you may look tired, you may have your uniform a little akimbo. So what? If you're in the Patrol to be a uniform model, then join the Color Guard.
Honoring the uniform is not a bad thing -- but it's not the only thing. Public Affairs that doesn't take this into consideration isn't worth a spit-shine.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[BigMojo]

The Southeast News story I wrote was from January  When I was still a SMWOG and the Capt in the Pic is now a Major... Florida Groups 6 and 11 have now been merged into just Group 6....

Still a good "feel good" story though. I gave them better pics, but of course they choose the worst one....

[Pylon]

Swing and a miss, Mikey.

There are 3 public affairs missions, all interdependent.  The "Command Information" message to your own people is just as important as the public information and community relations missions.  You cannot send one message to your people and another to outsiders.  This will doom your program.

While I agree all of the messages you mention are important and are inter-related, they don't necessarily have to be communicated with the same vehicle.  Here at work I publish one quarterly magazine for donors, supporters, politicians, etc. and a different internal monthly rag for employee communications and news.

The donors and politicians don't care about the same things that the internal people do.  I can list service milestones, employee of the month, benefits related announcements, reminders about parking changes or anything like that in the employee newsletter.  Unless it makes for a good human interest story, it doesn't go into the external publication.

The message should always be consistent, but you can use different vehicles for different purposes while still tending to all audiences.

[jb512]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I think that any publication should strive for accuracy not only in its articles, but also in the pictures representing the organization.

Of course we should strive for accuracy, but holding out for perfection is futile; we'd never get anything done.  When it comes to images for Public Affairs use, the "wish list" is:

• High quality
• Professional appearance
• Low (or no) cost

No one is expecting perfection because that is not attainable.  All we expect is for everyone to play by the same rules and represent the rest of us well.  That, and a certain level of respect...  We all know from experience and plain common sense that part of how you judge a person is based on their appearance.  If you look like crap, you're making me look like crap.

The reality, however, is that we can't have it all; constraints in equipment/training/budget mean we may choose only two.

Two?  I must've missed that memo because all we have is one.  Training is done at the member's expense, and budget all depends on how many bake sales you can do.

They should not allow anything that is not professional and correct.  To let things slide not only makes us look stupid to those who know better (in and out of CAP), it allows those people to continue to do whatever they want regardless of what the rules are.

Though I agree everyone should encourage their fellow members to always wear their uniform properly and proudly, permit me to point out something here: uniform wear is not the mission of Civil Air Patrol.  When the CAP Vision statement speaks of "performing missions for America",  uniform wear is not among them.

You are correct that proper uniform wear is not a mission.  It is, however, a requirement.  If you can't wear a uniform shirt without your pocket protector and 13 pens and pencils hanging out, then put on a golf shirt.  If you missed your haircut this week, then wear a golf shirt... and so on.

What I suspect may be at issue here is an effect of difference in perspective.   As a 1st Lt and former C/FO, your "world view" of CAP might be quite different from that of, say, a Lt Col and former C/Col (like moi) and we likely view what constitutes "professionalism" very differently. 

Well...  despite my mere Lieutenantness and Flight Officerness, I also live in the real world.  I'm sorry that my cadet and senior rank doesn't quite measure up yet, but someday I'll be as smart as a Colonel...  Maybe.

I can already tell that were you to spot a mission pilot readying for a sortie, you'd be giving his uniform a visual once-over and if that didn't pass muster, you probably stopped right there in your assessment.   Me, I'm more interested in signs that the pilot is knows and is doing his job.  Is he using checklists or relying on his memory?  Did he do a weight and balance or did he blow it off, having done W&Bs with similar loads many times before?  Did he bother to get a briefing from Flight Service?  Did he bother to check NOTAMs? Did he bother to ensure all the aircraft's required inspections and AD compliance are current?  Did he adequately brief his crew, or just assume they know how to open the doors, use the seatbelts or find the fire extinguisher?

Edit:  If he can spend that much time being such a good pilot, he should have no problems with 39-1.  It even has pictures...  If you want to fly on the Air Force's dime, it's the least you can do.

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

Looking good in uniform never saved a life.

But it sure can show pride in yourself and what you do.

Attitudes like yours are what keep us just a bit behind, no matter how good our crews are.  I've often learned that when you raise the standards then not only do you get a better group of people, you portray a better image to those on the outside.  I'm not talking about crap like a slightly long haircut, few extra pounds, or the wrong patch on a uniform.  Those are minute compared to blatant violations that make people who know better point and laugh.  It doesn't matter how good of a pilot someone is if you show up on a military base in a military uniform and people are offended that you're showing outright disrespect.

Again, I do not like your standards, but rather than whine and complain, I'm doing something about it.  When I complete my reserve training I plan to remain in CAP and/or be a reserve adviser for a unit and do what I can however small my contribution will be.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I think that any publication should strive for accuracy not only in its articles, but also in the pictures representing the organization.

Of course we should strive for accuracy, but holding out for perfection is futile; we'd never get anything done.  When it comes to images for Public Affairs use, the "wish list" is:

• High quality
• Professional appearance
• Low (or no) cost

The reality, however, is that we can't have it all; constraints in equipment/training/budget mean we may choose only two.

They should not allow anything that is not professional and correct.  To let things slide not only makes us look stupid to those who know better (in and out of CAP), it allows those people to continue to do whatever they want regardless of what the rules are.

Though I agree everyone should encourage their fellow members to always wear their uniform properly and proudly, permit me to point out something here: uniform wear is not the mission of Civil Air Patrol.  When the CAP Vision statement speaks of "performing missions for America",  uniform wear is not among them.   

What I suspect may be at issue here is an effect of difference in perspective.   As a 1st Lt and former C/FO, your "world view" of CAP might be quite different from that of, say, a Lt Col and former C/Col (like moi) and we likely view what constitutes "professionalism" very differently. 

I can already tell that were you to spot a mission pilot readying for a sortie, you'd be giving his uniform a visual once-over and if that didn't pass muster, you probably stopped right there in your assessment.   Me, I'm more interested in signs that the pilot is knows and is doing his job.  Is he using checklists or relying on his memory?  Did he do a weight and balance or did he blow it off, having done W&Bs with similar loads many times before?  Did he bother to get a briefing from Flight Service?  Did he bother to check NOTAMs? Did he bother to ensure all the aircraft's required inspections and AD compliance are current?  Did he adequately brief his crew, or just assume they know how to open the doors, use the seatbelts or find the fire extinguisher? 

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

Looking good in uniform never saved a life.

A photo in a magazine is not a life-or-death issue, either.

But as a PAO, it is YOUR JOB to make your organization look good. 

You are the lawyer in the Court of Public Opinion.

Yes, when I was a company commander in the Army I had guys erecting GP mediums in 90-degree weather wearing gaudy do-rags to keep sweat out of their eyes, and wearing sweat-soaked T-shirts.  That did NOT mean that I put those pictures in a magazine or a newspaper.  I had them stop, put on the BDU shirts and hats, put the do-rags away, and look like soldiers. 

I don't care how good the pilot is.  If he looks lame in your showcase magazine, your whole organization looks lame.  Wearing a goatee with an Air Force uniform doesn't get much lamer!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

One of my early criticisms of the magazine was the number of photos that were digitally edited -- backgrounds removed, patches adjusted, etc. As a journalist in real life, I find that unethical.

But I can understand why.

Beards worn in the Air Force uniform.

Patches erroneously placed under the front zippers on the flight suit, and other myriad screwups.

The cover itself had a photo that the photographer should've stepped in and barked at the colonel first. Take the [darn] outdated ID off your flight suit. It shouldn't be there, anyway. It doesn't make you look any more important. It makes you look like a dork, a drugstore cowboy, a poser.

Unit commanders are responsible for the appearance of their members. But unit commanders aren't consistent across the board about enforcement, and some amazingly, stunningly bad things get through. Of course, you can lead a CAP member to water, but you can't make him/her abide by regulation.

I agree that it's an image problem. But the image problem isn't enforceable by NHQ/PA. It's enforced in the field.

"If you can't wear your uniform properly, how do I know you'll take care of my airplane?" That's the question that should be asked more often.

So ask it. Each and every one of you.

[RiverAux]

The cover itself had a photo that the photographer should've stepped in and barked at the colonel first. Take the [darn] outdated ID off your flight suit. It shouldn't be there, anyway. It doesn't make you look any more important. It makes you look like a dork, a drugstore cowboy, a poser.

That ID is still current and has not been rescinded as of a few minutes ago, so it isn't "outdated" and for all you know the airport he flies out of requires you to have some sort of photo id visible when you're on a ramp....

[aveighter]

There are a number of threads that showcase the stark lines between the "unpaid professionals" and everyone else.

This one is right at the top.

[JayT]

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

So, imagine if you're on a road trip, and theres two greasy spoons next to each other.

You walk into one, and the short order cook has a spotless work station and clean hands, but his whites are filthy. You walk into the next one, and not only is the workstation spotless, hands cleaned, but the whites have been cleaned in the last week. Which place you gonna eat at? Are you gonna take the time to exaim the first place and discover its perfectly fine, or are you gonna turn as soon as you see yesterdays special on the guys jacket?

Many of the people we work with don't share your values. If we're working with military guys, they'll expect it. If we're working with cops, they'll expect it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

One of my early criticisms of the magazine was the number of photos that were digitally edited -- backgrounds removed, patches adjusted, etc. As a journalist in real life, I find that unethical.

But I can understand why.

Beards worn in the Air Force uniform.

Patches erroneously placed under the front zippers on the flight suit, and other myriad screwups.

The cover itself had a photo that the photographer should've stepped in and barked at the colonel first. Take the [darn] outdated ID off your flight suit. It shouldn't be there, anyway. It doesn't make you look any more important. It makes you look like a dork, a drugstore cowboy, a poser.

Unit commanders are responsible for the appearance of their members. But unit commanders aren't consistent across the board about enforcement, and some amazingly, stunningly bad things get through. Of course, you can lead a CAP member to water, but you can't make him/her abide by regulation.

I agree that it's an image problem. But the image problem isn't enforceable by NHQ/PA. It's enforced in the field.

"If you can't wear your uniform properly, how do I know you'll take care of my airplane?" That's the question that should be asked more often.

So ask it. Each and every one of you.

You are correct, enforcement of uniform standards in a command issue, not a NHQ PA issue.

But the appearance of the magazine IS the responsibility of NHQ PA. 

This isn't about the absence of violations, or the enforcement of standards in the field.  It is about the editing decisions that are made at Maxwell.

Just because somebody sends you a picture does not mean you mindlessly publish it.  If the photo is unacceptable (as were the examples I cited), you scrap the photos, OR call the submitter for better photos (if you have time before your deadline).

But beyond the 39-1 issue, the pictures are BAD!!!  People standing next to an airplane.  Grip and grins.  People standing holding certificates.  People sitting in chairs.  Every issue, the same garbage!

Show people DOING things.  Show the pilot pre-flighting the airplane.  Show the scanner and observer reviewing their gridded charts.  Show the cadet colonel conducting a class for the younger cadets.  Show someone commanding a formation, or (if anybody does this anymore) show a cadet officer correcting a uniform violation during an inspection.

Why run a "People Magazine" for folks in blue suits?  Why not run some informational articles on regulation changes from NHQ?  Why not a regular column from the SJA on legal issues facing commanders?  Why not a feature or two now and then about the schools, beyond the obligatory picture of 50 people standing in a crowd posing for a class picture?

The only heritage stories we get are "Former cadet done good." 

If I were a non-member, I would NEVER join an outfit where old men fly less-than-attractive college girls around to count birds.  I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Kach,

You know I try. 

I know you do, Sparky, and it isn't about you or any other local squadron PAO or commander.  This is on the shoulders of whoever is doing the editing.

[RiverAux]

Why not run some informational articles on regulation changes from NHQ?

Why not?  Because the majority of our members have the ability to monitor regulation changes and see the new changes as they happen through eservices.  Back when we had CAP News you needed such articles because you might not see the new regs until 6-12 months after they had been approved, and only then if you personally spent your money to get updates or spent time going through the squadron's copy.

I wouldn't be opposed to articles that would be considered more as professional development (SAR techniques, etc.) every once in a while, especially since most of the newsletters from the various programs that used to be published by national have died off. 

Yes, action photos are always better, but sometimes you just don't have the capability of getting them and you have to use what you got.  No amount of berating from NHQ is going to make it possible for me to go back in time and take a photo of a CAP guy pulling a injured person out of the wreck (though they have a photo of just that on p.55). 

Why not a feature or two now and then about the schools, beyond the obligatory picture of 50 people standing in a crowd posing for a class picture?

Like the article on p.18-19 about a father-daughter team at the Civic Leadership Academy

The only heritage stories we get are "Former cadet done good." 

You mean like the story about the founder of a CAP squadron on p. 38-39

Show the pilot pre-flighting the airplane.

p. 11 is basically a pre-flighting photo. 

[Tubacap]

I hold no such anxiety of photos of people in slightly incorrect uniforms, i.e. wrong version of the command patch.  However, I think that River brings up a great point that there could be some PD stuff every once in awhile.  Not the entire magazine, but every now and then. 

I find the Volunteer actually pretty interesting to read, especially the history type things and the current missions.

[MIKE]

25,217 posts in Uniforms & Awards and we still have fracked up uniforms.