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

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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, Graphic courtesy of the Air Force Times 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 operat

Suicide is the symptom.

I want to preface this article by saying 'I am just an F-16 crew chief.' I do not have any medical training and all of these opinions are just that, opinions. I believe we have a suicide problem in the Air Force, and in aircraft maintenance in particular. Part of the problem is data is very hard to come by.  There is some  data , and it even goes so far as to break down the determined method. However, the data is meta-data at best and doesn't explain all the nuances of each situation. Reprint courtesy of Air Force Magazine But the data to the right here is quite alarming. Almost half of all deaths [69 of 151] in the Air Force from August 2016 to August 2017 was caused by a self-inflicted injury. [Raise your hand if you just learned that half of the people that die in the Air Force committed suicide] What prompted me to write about this subject now is that there have been two suicides in the same Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Holloman Air Force Base in th