Skip to main content

Smoke doesn't always mean fire Part I

The Frivol-atility of Media Mismanagement






The following is an op-ed from Majora K. Vocink a dedicated reader of the blog and someone that I have served with over my 20 year career.

In an age when the necessity for field work in public outreach grows less and less with each technological advancement, the need for responsible and focused messaging via social media and other public platforms is paramount to the message’s success.  While the vast majority of content generated by public affairs divisions across the Air Force is typically and benignly oriented towards serving the community, occasionally the typical morphs into the atypical.  In such cases, the presentation of the message overpowers the message itself, and one misrepresentation undermines the strength of the message entirely.  At best, it can come off as frivolous, and at worst, volatile.




Just such a miscalculated media effort recently came at the expense of the professionals at Hill AFB.  Entitled The Big Picture - PSA #1  (seen above) the video intends to pan the lens further out to capture the efforts of agencies peripheral to the mission and emphasize the services they provide, hence “the big picture.”  However, with visions of self-aggrandizement, apathetic leadership, a general lack of discipline and direction, etc., embodied in the portrayal of the enlisted corps, in stark contrast to the Steve Rogers-esque portrayal of the officer corps, this video, regrettably, only succeeds in feeding into age-old stereotypes, thus reducing “the big picture” to the mere caricatures portrayed in the PSA.  A very small picture indeed.

I’m going to skip a long-winded discussion about class-ism and hierarchical social structures that underpin the message observed in this PSA.  Let’s just focus on the delivery of the message itself.  To help us understand this messaging error, we can draw parallels between other now-infamous glaring instances of poor messaging.  Consider the case of a globally recognized African-American athlete portrayed as an angry King Kong figure on the cover of a globally-viewed magazine.  Then consider the long history of an African-American community that has been dismissed as subservient, or worse yet, sub-human in value, and you begin to see the significance of how poorly designed and delivered that message was.  Certainly, it must’ve been unintentional, but clearly out-of-sync to any rational human with an objective view of racist imagery.


Take for another example an advertisement where an apparently oblivious celebrity waltzed into a protest scene to a hand a police officer a soft drink, then joined the protesters in revelry. From every possible perspective, whether you view it from the
marginalization of a protest movement steeped in deep social rifts, or from the contrast presented in the riot police who had apparently just lacked a soft drink to be humanized, or the oblivious public that apparently thought the goings-on were just a big party, so have a soft drink and smile, why so serious?... The advertisement quickly lost its grip of the dire reality at the core of what was happening across America. The message was hopelessly lost in this poorly delivered, high brow effort.


Similarly, PSA #1 strikes these discordant tones.  Well, you may be thinking, “but enlisted Airmen are not an oppressed member of a historically oppressed segment of society.”  Of course not.  I also don’t tend to subscribe to such finite, literal interpretations of thought.  However, the concept of reducing any group of people to a caricature of itself is comparable across any demographic where caricatures are employed to represent the group.  In the case of PSA #1, these caricatures certainly weren’t intended to be incendiary.  Maybe they were strictly intended to take a lighthearted, comedic approach.  Maybe they were intended to accentuate the hardships an Airmen might navigate.  Maybe, just maybe, they were designed to chide a workforce that the creative team behind this PSA views as selfish, apathetic, and generally undisciplined and misguided.  In any case whatsoever, these depictions provide a very narrow perspective of a very dynamic enlisted and officer corps.  Indeed, it provides a very narrow perspective of the talents of the team itself that created the PSA.

Unfortunately, the hard truth is that PSA #1 wildly misses the mark, with the unintentional cost of losing the message of a strong community with services designed to support its growth and development.  This video goes down as yet another tone-deaf endeavor in a never-ending stream that accosts our collective digital consciousness.  We are all, each and every one of us, bigger than the caricatures thrust upon us.  We can do better than PSA #1, and I, for one, look forward to better products in the future.

If you are interested in writing an op-ed please message our Facebook page.

Be sure to follow 20 Years Done on Facebook to Like, Comment and Share!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Air Force "Deep Dive" on Suicides Lands in the Shallow End

A year ago this week I wrote an article about what I believed was an impending and escalating suicide problem afflicting the Air Force. I was using my own military service, as well as information from my colleagues still serving, to piece together bits of information on suicides. In so doing I noticed a trend. But, before I get started a reminder: I am not an expert on mental health and nothing I say should be interpreted as medical advice.

As I wrote the article, more suicides were happening. I initially believed the issue was local to Holloman Air Force Base. However, as 2019 progressed it was clear this epidemic wasn't the exclusive domain of the 54th Fighter Group.

Prior to the Air Force announcing they had a suicide problem, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act[FOIA] request to the SecAF requesting all suicide metadata, to include Air Force Specialty Codes[AFSCs], or "job" data from 2009 to 2019. Three days after my request, the Air Force announced there was a …

We failed to quantify quality Airmen

A couple weeks ago I wrote about a FOIA request I submitted in July 2019. The intent of the request was to bring clarity to the career fields impacted by the ongoing suicide epidemic in the Air Force. If you remember, the response was flaccid.

I went on to show how the current AF/A1 Lt. Gen. Brian Kelly was dishonest when he gave an interview in 2015 suggesting that critical career fields were somehow shielded from the Force Reduction measures, colloquially called "The Air Force Hunger Games."

But to simply say certain career fields were cut is insufficient to explain how the cuts were determined and, moreover, which discriminators were used. And for that, we need to go back a ways...

In early 2011 the Air Force had transferred many SSgts and TSgts from fighter maintenance to heavy aircraft in an effort to shore up their issues in the heavy world. In effect, robbing Peter to pay Paul. This left us with a slightly lopsided organization: thick in the SNCO ranks, thin in the mi…

The crisis in aircraft maintenance

Recently the Secretary of Defense James Mattis sent a memorandum to the service secretaries
directing certain fighter airframes meet a readiness standard of 80%. It's a good goal to set and I think it's achievable. However Mattis went on to direct this goal to be achieved by the end of FY19 [Oct 2019]. To reach this goal in a year will have catastrophic effects on the aircraft maintenance community.

First, fighter MC rates have been declining for more than a decade. There is a natural, inevitable decline as a fleet gets older.  On top of fleet age,
avionics upgrades increase system complexity in 4th generation airframes. Those upgrades, while useful for combat capability, also increase time spent in maintenance. Additionally, sequestration and the 'across the board' cuts to all budgets created a ripple effect manifested as a shortage of parts, experience, personnel and sorties.

It seems fairly evident that as operational funds dried up, money for parts went with it.…