Akin's tender professional feelings
As regular readers will know, I'm in agreement with the basic thrust of both Pugliese and Akin when it comes to the government's clamp-down on DND public communications: it's short-term stupidity, and it's exceptionally frustrating.
In this particular case, it's not the military's fault, mind you, but the PMO's and PCO's. So when Akin asks what military officials are doing about problems with the way defence stories are reported, he's off base: the real question is what they can do about it, given the restrictions placed upon them. I know for a fact that Public Affairs officers were told around Christmas of last year to stop asking for the muzzling directive in writing, because it wouldn't come. I know for a fact that they were told to "bury their weapons" and stop pushing back against the directive, since it could hurt the operational side of the house, which is what they exist to support.
PA wants to do the job. They may not all be competent at it, and they may have a litany of faults a mile long, but they want to tell the Canadian public about what the CF does. It's not their fault they've been ordered not to in so many cases.
But with that said, I'm in general agreement with Akin and Pugliese's point that it's hard to talk about the CF when you're getting stonewalled at every turn by the bureaucracy.
I noted with interest, though, that Akin seemed to have a problem with something Dr. John Cowan, President, Conference of Defence Associations Institute and Principal, Royal Military College of Canada had to say about military reporting. Specifically, Akin called it "one of the most ignorant and vitriolic attacks on my profession." That got me interested enough to read the piece in question, which David helpfully linked to (pdf file, start at p.11 of 40). I think this is the passage that got Akin's hackles up:
I'm afraid I don't find much to object to in the entire thing. In fact, I've complained about much the same thing in the past:
Dr. Cowan isn't saying all journalists miss the boat on military reporting. He's speaking in general terms. I have problems with David Pugliese's reporting from time to time because I see him bury the lede, or focus on superficial controversy where there really is none, or quote a twit like Steven Staples in counterpoint to an actual expert on military matters like Lew MacKenzie - but there's no doubt he's forgotten more about Canadian defence issues than most reporters will ever bother to learn. You can't fault him for a lack of research effort. Likewise, Akin himself has contacted us at The Torch in the past to help him "sniff test" rumours he's heard. That's just smart, humble reporting in my mind: admitting what you know and don't know is good policy, and asking questions of those who do know is the best way to deal with a lack of proficiency in a specific area. I certainly wouldn't write about...biodiversity in Costa Rican rainforests without consulting an expert on the subject. Stephen Thorne at CP is another fellow who seems to ply his trade with his ego in check, and look for technical subject-matter advice where he needs to.
No, Cowan isn't criticizing every journalist, just a broken system and those who perpetuate it from within. In fact, he barely goes further than award-winning defence journalist Sharon Hobson did in a piece I analyzed here at The Torch just over a year ago:
What David, as a professional journalist in a business with its own naturally tribal tendencies, fails to acknowledge is that while Cowan's words sting, they're largely correct: few reporters have any significant expertise in their subject matter, and when it comes to defence reporting, many get it wrong more often than they get it right. That's part of the reason we started this blog in the first place: to counter the steady flow of disinformation in the MSM.
Unlike many of my fellow bloggers, I'm not aching for the MSM to implode, as it seems to be doing right now. I'm hoping it decides to reinvest in intelligent content rather than superficial formatting. I'm hoping it starts to draw on real expertise in its reporting.
Cowan's piece, my ongoing criticism, Hobson's analysis - these are all roadsigns pointing the way forward. If only Akin could stop being defensive for a moment, he'd see that.
In this particular case, it's not the military's fault, mind you, but the PMO's and PCO's. So when Akin asks what military officials are doing about problems with the way defence stories are reported, he's off base: the real question is what they can do about it, given the restrictions placed upon them. I know for a fact that Public Affairs officers were told around Christmas of last year to stop asking for the muzzling directive in writing, because it wouldn't come. I know for a fact that they were told to "bury their weapons" and stop pushing back against the directive, since it could hurt the operational side of the house, which is what they exist to support.
PA wants to do the job. They may not all be competent at it, and they may have a litany of faults a mile long, but they want to tell the Canadian public about what the CF does. It's not their fault they've been ordered not to in so many cases.
But with that said, I'm in general agreement with Akin and Pugliese's point that it's hard to talk about the CF when you're getting stonewalled at every turn by the bureaucracy.
I noted with interest, though, that Akin seemed to have a problem with something Dr. John Cowan, President, Conference of Defence Associations Institute and Principal, Royal Military College of Canada had to say about military reporting. Specifically, Akin called it "one of the most ignorant and vitriolic attacks on my profession." That got me interested enough to read the piece in question, which David helpfully linked to (pdf file, start at p.11 of 40). I think this is the passage that got Akin's hackles up:
There are multiple causes for the remarkable dumbing-down of the media in Canada over the past 40 years. Some of the obvious reasons are the need to compress complex issues into 10-30 second sound bites and the narcissism of portions of the media who report incessantly on themselves. Increasingly, the print media imitate the electronic media, in a desperate defence of market share. Furthermore, unlike 40 years ago when journalists were amongst the best-educated and best-informed citizens, today many of them are neither literate nor numerate, and do us the huge discourtesy of assuming we aren’t either.
Interestingly, one crucial flaw also relates to market size. As critical as we are of US media, one can find some thoroughly brainy specialized commentary in the US. This is because it is a huge market, so that through syndication a journalist actually can make a living understanding issues in military affairs, geopolitics, economics, or science. But not here: in Canada, you are the science reporter the week after you were the society reporter, and the week before you are the constitutional issues reporter. Generalist journalists know that they haven’t the time to learn enough to deal with the full complexity of the issues, so they fall back on the double-barrelled stock in trade of any articulate journeyman: human interest and scandal. Hence all Canadian news is covered as human interest or scandal.
The situation is exacerbated by a fad taught in our journalism schools, which I call the “interior decorator” style of journalism. Have you noticed of late that the key facts are not at the beginning of the article? You need to read at least two thirds through it to find out what hashappened or who was charged with what. The first part of the article is all about the feelings of the reporter or the relatives or bystanders, or about the general setting of the story. This forces you to read the continuation, on page 11, so that you will appreciate the true effort of the writer, or at least see the advertisements on that page.
I'm afraid I don't find much to object to in the entire thing. In fact, I've complained about much the same thing in the past:
For me, taking in the current coverage of the war in the Levant is like watching a hockey game on TV where the cameramen don't know how to follow the action; where the play-by-play and colour commentators don't know the players, the objective of the game, or how to keep score; and where accordingly, the entire focus of the broadcast is on how cold the people in the bleachers are growing as the game wears on and on, suffering without purpose as pucks fly randomly into the stands, and the crash of bodychecks shatter the fragile tranquility of the stands.
Dr. Cowan isn't saying all journalists miss the boat on military reporting. He's speaking in general terms. I have problems with David Pugliese's reporting from time to time because I see him bury the lede, or focus on superficial controversy where there really is none, or quote a twit like Steven Staples in counterpoint to an actual expert on military matters like Lew MacKenzie - but there's no doubt he's forgotten more about Canadian defence issues than most reporters will ever bother to learn. You can't fault him for a lack of research effort. Likewise, Akin himself has contacted us at The Torch in the past to help him "sniff test" rumours he's heard. That's just smart, humble reporting in my mind: admitting what you know and don't know is good policy, and asking questions of those who do know is the best way to deal with a lack of proficiency in a specific area. I certainly wouldn't write about...biodiversity in Costa Rican rainforests without consulting an expert on the subject. Stephen Thorne at CP is another fellow who seems to ply his trade with his ego in check, and look for technical subject-matter advice where he needs to.
No, Cowan isn't criticizing every journalist, just a broken system and those who perpetuate it from within. In fact, he barely goes further than award-winning defence journalist Sharon Hobson did in a piece I analyzed here at The Torch just over a year ago:
The Canadian public certainly has a thirst for military information, as Major-General (ret.) Lewis MacKenzie discovered during the Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999. "I wrote an article a day for the Citizen from my reporting location for CTV in Belgrade. Of all the articles written, one received more favourable comment than all the others put together. It was titled 'Army 101' and explained in easily understood terms for you civilians how an army is organized and what rank commands what sized organization." MacKenzie's observation suggests the media could be doing a much better job of covering the basics of military operations and setting the context for stories. Reporters and editors who focus on little but funerals and roadside bombs transform the mission into a caricature and do the public a real disservice. By the same token, if the military wants to see its mission and its future receive serious, nuanced treatment in the media, then it must be willing to impart more information. Exactly how much more will always be a balancing act.
...
Both professions need to re-assess. The Afghanistan mission is a huge undertaking with long-term repercussions. It reaches beyond the immediate deaths or the inadequate equipment into the future structure of the Canadian Forces. It has sucked up resources and refocused planning beyond what anyone expected five years ago. The military needs the media, and through them, the public, to understand the choices that are being made and still need to be made. The media needs to continue to question those choices in order to make sure the public gets the whole story.
...
What is needed is more imagination, both in the way potential stories are developed and in how the military responds to demands for information. Inevitably there will be mistakes, both in interpreting information and knowing whom to trust. The greater good, however, is a well-informed public.
What David, as a professional journalist in a business with its own naturally tribal tendencies, fails to acknowledge is that while Cowan's words sting, they're largely correct: few reporters have any significant expertise in their subject matter, and when it comes to defence reporting, many get it wrong more often than they get it right. That's part of the reason we started this blog in the first place: to counter the steady flow of disinformation in the MSM.
Unlike many of my fellow bloggers, I'm not aching for the MSM to implode, as it seems to be doing right now. I'm hoping it decides to reinvest in intelligent content rather than superficial formatting. I'm hoping it starts to draw on real expertise in its reporting.
Cowan's piece, my ongoing criticism, Hobson's analysis - these are all roadsigns pointing the way forward. If only Akin could stop being defensive for a moment, he'd see that.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:23 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home