Skip to main content

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

  1. Interesting blog with many questions left to be answered. PSA#1 was so exhilarating to me I thought is was really SNL. I had no idea the Air Force served within the U.S. proper. I have seen National Guard in my community sent to quell the riots of 1968 after Dr. King was assasinated, but never Air Force units serving where I think our military should be placed.
    PSA #2 is hidden racism. I remember vividly when Black female models were not allowed on the cover of Vogue. Now we have a stunning photo of Lebron with a top model in a ferocious pose with a top elegant Caucasian model. The 'gorilla/sambo stance could be derived', but as a person who sewed off Vogue patterns I saw a slick marketing move to sell more magazines. I just wondered why Lebron could not be eloquently dressed like her.
    That last PSA makes me think of some politicians and people in power who are totally oblivious to problems facing real people in this country! All in all it is typical of the type marketing that is allowed to be shown in this country-always a message to support and encourage THEIR belief UNLESS you know better.
    different approach pointed out here to the same tools used to confuse people in this country about what is fair and correct. The Air Force piece certainly takes it to a new level of understanding.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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.…

What we are doing about the crisis in aircraft maintenance

A few months ago I took a slight detour from my normal blog posts to address a mandate from the Secretary of Defense[SECDEF], James Mattis.

In that mandate, SECDEF directed F-16, F-35, F-22 and F-18s to achieve a ready state of 80%. Translated for aviators and maintainers, that's an 80% MC rate. No easy feat, however an attainable and pragmatic goal given proper resources and time. SECDEF directed compliance with the readiness standard by the end of FY19 [October 2019]. Like many, I believed that timeline would translate to an unbearable work environment for the average aircraft maintainer.

I was wrong... and right.

What I learned from countless conversations and interviews from front line supervisors in the field was surprising.

I discovered that in a small amount of units, leadership was largely ignoring the mandate. Weekend duty and long shifts were still driven by the same schedule demand as before the mandate. However, there didn't appear to be any stat chasing. I believ…

So what's with the 7 levels?

I recently asked in a Facebook post what are some subjects you the readers wanted me to write about. I received quite a few great suggestions, but one stood out as a topic that I haven't quite addressed and I believe its time is due: inexperienced 7 levels. [I will apologize in advance, this one has quite a bit of acronyms.]

Before I dive into the topic I think it's important to explain my own journey to a 7 level, and it goes all the way back to MEPS. You see, like many aspiring Airmen I didn't know what job I would get when I joined the Air Force; I came in open mechanical. Which to me seemed strange, because mechanical was my lowest ASVAB score. My recruiter assured me that my score would allow me many mechanical jobs to pick from. I tried to explain that the ASVAB was an aptitude test, and I should be selected for a job that matched my highest category. He seemed apathetic, obviously meeting his quota was his motivator, not me aligning my career to my aptitude.

To say…