wanderingmind
New Member
Sorry, guys! Been off work sick for a few days and away from the forum.
I agree with most of what everyone's been saying. Being a former government mouthpiece/prostitute/paid liar, I don't want the news media to accept the official handout crap! I think the government needs to have their feet held to the fire where appropriate. Our primary rule when I worked in media relations was "Tell the truth first!" In other words, if you find a problem, admit it and tell the media what's being done to correct it.
On the other hand, the media needs to work hand-in-hand with government to protect information which could cause actual harm to people going about their lawful duties. It's the same bit as "the police/military are holding the name pending notification of next-of-kin." It's a commonsense approach. Once the government has had the opportunity to take necessary action (notifying the dead person's family; moving an attack helicopter to cover the convoy attacked; or arresting the government members involved in whatever untoward incident occurred), then the government has the responsibility to be honest with the media about what occurred, what corrective actions are being taken and - within bounds of necessary security - what is being done to prevent this incident from happening again.
Burying things, stonewalling, etc., is simply not acceptable in "old-style" media relations. You made your "deal with the devil" as necessary -- if you made it clear that you would not answer questions dealing with "C" because it might endanger persons or harm the United States, you also made the compact to talk honestly about "A", "B" and "D." That's what allowed me while overseas to stand at the nosewheel of a highly-classified aircraft and tell a network correspondent with a semi-straight face that "The United States Air Force does not operate that aircraft outside of the United States."
I've had to deal with colonels and even generals who didn't want their escutcheons blotted -- and even though I was an enlisted person, I was able to enforce the parameters I've described, even if I had to go over their heads to do so. (Which is, in part, why I retired as a Tech Sergeant instead of a higher grade. I didn't do what was popular, but I did my duty.)
I do not like the "new" news media and their slanted stories and "investigations" (which wouldn't be necessary if both media and government got on the same page!). I also do not like government officials who lie, cover up and obfuscate when caught out-of-bounds. In short, I want both sides to knock off the adversary bullcrap and accept the role of the media in letting sunshine in.
And most of all, I want somebody to change the channel before I hear anything more about Tom and Katie again! ;-)
I agree with most of what everyone's been saying. Being a former government mouthpiece/prostitute/paid liar, I don't want the news media to accept the official handout crap! I think the government needs to have their feet held to the fire where appropriate. Our primary rule when I worked in media relations was "Tell the truth first!" In other words, if you find a problem, admit it and tell the media what's being done to correct it.
On the other hand, the media needs to work hand-in-hand with government to protect information which could cause actual harm to people going about their lawful duties. It's the same bit as "the police/military are holding the name pending notification of next-of-kin." It's a commonsense approach. Once the government has had the opportunity to take necessary action (notifying the dead person's family; moving an attack helicopter to cover the convoy attacked; or arresting the government members involved in whatever untoward incident occurred), then the government has the responsibility to be honest with the media about what occurred, what corrective actions are being taken and - within bounds of necessary security - what is being done to prevent this incident from happening again.
Burying things, stonewalling, etc., is simply not acceptable in "old-style" media relations. You made your "deal with the devil" as necessary -- if you made it clear that you would not answer questions dealing with "C" because it might endanger persons or harm the United States, you also made the compact to talk honestly about "A", "B" and "D." That's what allowed me while overseas to stand at the nosewheel of a highly-classified aircraft and tell a network correspondent with a semi-straight face that "The United States Air Force does not operate that aircraft outside of the United States."
I've had to deal with colonels and even generals who didn't want their escutcheons blotted -- and even though I was an enlisted person, I was able to enforce the parameters I've described, even if I had to go over their heads to do so. (Which is, in part, why I retired as a Tech Sergeant instead of a higher grade. I didn't do what was popular, but I did my duty.)
I do not like the "new" news media and their slanted stories and "investigations" (which wouldn't be necessary if both media and government got on the same page!). I also do not like government officials who lie, cover up and obfuscate when caught out-of-bounds. In short, I want both sides to knock off the adversary bullcrap and accept the role of the media in letting sunshine in.
And most of all, I want somebody to change the channel before I hear anything more about Tom and Katie again! ;-)
