Military Public Relations and Public Affairs

           The Department of Defense maintains one of the most active public relations and public affairs programs of any organization. On a constant basis, a military public affairs/relations professional can be working a communications plan that will reach many different types of audiences. They may work promoting branding, reporting to its publics, or handling contingencies on extremely short notice. The Military and the Department of Defense (DOD) messages are on constantly on public display. Its opinions are shaped, discussed and subject to mass approval routinely.  How they react to these topics is always scrutinized by pundits and the average citizen alike. Its messages and brands can reach to hometown America or influence public opinion around the world. The information they present can have a huge impact on how the U.S. publics and the military are viewed as a whole. How the DOD handles its campaigns and programs to inform the public is crucial to its public and its own successes.

       While each Military branch has its own particular marketing and public affairs program, the overall goal is the same within the Department of Defense. A military public relations program relies on its long standing relationship with the news media. This relationship is crucial in achieving its messaging and goals. In the book Reporters on the Battlefield, the military public affairs mission is described, “The military seeks to use news coverage to support its military mission in three main ways: by supporting positive public relations and building public support; by building credibility; and by supporting successful information operations against the enemy.” (Paul, Kim, 2004) As a primary mission, the role of the military public relations or public affairs professional is to engage the media and work with them to successfully get the message to the publics in a transparent and timely fashion.

        In Military public affairs the messaging is not only used in a wartime access, but an ongoing exchange of information to promote itself as good stewards of professionalism and service. This is critical in maintaining credibility and recruitment goals. In recent communications campaigns the military has worked great strides in achieving a credible stance in the media. This is mostly achieved from past lessons learned.

 “Many military leaders have become aware that news media coverage of their operations can be a force multiplier.” As with the recent “shock and awe” campaign accompanying the opening of the war in Iraq, coverage that demonstrates the performance and professionalism of the U.S. military to citizens at home also demonstrates those intimidating qualities to the enemy. (Paul, Kim, 2004)

         In the military’s marketing campaigns, in relation to creating brand recognition, recruiting is the primary goal. The military had always had been optimistic in its branding, but lacked a long term goal in promoting its values to the public. By 1998 and 1999 the military had hit severe recruitment shortages. The results of a DOD study found that if the military was to stay competitive in recruiting quality recruits it had to compete for them. The military had to change its advertising strategy. In the Rand report on what the military advertising dollar can achieve “The four military Services spent over $600 million on recruiting advertising in 2007. This represents a 150 percent increase since the 1999 fiscal year (FY)” (Dertouzos, 2009).  The result was that the military had to expand its traditional forms of advertising (print, radio and TV) into new media concepts. The study pointed out that when the Department of Defense looked into its targeted audience markets while increasing its advertising budget, it would see an increase in enlistments from that advertising. The Army learned that promoting its message and recruitment into minority demographics and new media there is a positive effect to reach an expanded audience. 

“According to these estimates, the Army attracted nearly 13,000 additional contracts per year at the budget levels prevailing during 2002–2003. But, by increasing the budgets (particularly for magazine and minority cable advertising), the Army could have attracted 12,000 more enlistments.” (Dertouzos, 2009)

       As recruiting stays a focus in the military’s public relations plan, its messaging is also important when competing for money to fund programs or increase services. This affects not only the public that the military needs to inform, but to its military members within the DOD. Similar to a nonprofit, the military operates off of no income or profit as a bottom line. In the book, Public Relations Today: Managing competition and conflict, the authors point out, “Government agencies also struggle for budget allocations but then must cooperate with respect to serving the public and sometimes with respect to the political climate.” (Cameron, Wilcox, Reber, Shin, 2008) If the military can show its value to its publics and promote itself as a brand that is respected and needed, it can lobby support. That support is crucial in gaining support from congressional decision makers. Those decision makers in power will allocate funds via the setting of the defense budgets.

        The emergence of social media has also transformed how the military engages its publics. Social media has taken the message or conversation to being picked up by many more audiences. Through many social media sites a discussion can engage more opinion makers than traditional media could. These opinion makers can be formal or informal.  Social Media is changing how organizations view themselves. It is rapidly becoming the gage on how a message will support the credibility of the organization. Bonin Bough of the Brand Perspective states this as, “So social media isn’t just changing how we communicate with other people, it’s changing how we see ourselves in relation to other people.”(Agresta, Bough, Miletsky. 2010) This is given organizations a bigger picture on how their public’s view them as a whole. The military is embracing this by learning to see if its message is having an effect, and if it is actually reaching the targeted audiences they want to reach via the feedback that social media provides.

       At one point the Department of Defense was slow to adapt to engaging in social media. The military soon realized that the blogosphere is very dynamic. Neil Richardson describes it as “means that commentary about a company or brand might be picked up and tapped into by a range of people who could be operating in a public and/or personal capacity. (Richardson, Gosnay, Carroll, 2010) This is rapidly changing the news and information industry.  In the Army social media guide it was recognized that communicators need to adapt in the shrinking 24 hour news cycle if they want to be successful.

        The U.S. Army social media program soon allowed for a greater view of transparency on the message whether it was good or bad. In breaking news the military is usually the first to respond. In that response, the first comments or information on a disaster or event can come from a military spokesperson.  New media avenues have the public increasingly turning to social media during an emergent event to get news. The Army’s current Chief of Public Affairs Steven R. Lanza stated “Social Media can be a valuable tool for Army organizations. It helps Army organizations and Army commands establish credibility accessibility and authenticity.” (U.S. Army 2011) The Army as well as the other branches has started to maintain a robust social media initiative. Each service is using major social sites such as, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, Flickr and blogs. Fox example on social media’s massive growth the U.S. Marine Facebook site has over 1,670, 221 followers.

       The Military public affairs practitioner can face many challenging PR crises or events that they must be able to respond to. The overall goal is to be forth coming in a timely manner while providing factual information. The message informs, but the same message will also represent the organization.  Historically the press and the military are on two separate missions. The press’s mission is on gaining access to report information. The military focus is on mission accomplishment.  Both share a common goal to serve their publics.

“Both aspire to a high level of professionalism, and both focus on serving the public, albeit in very different ways. The military exists to defend and protect the United States and its territories, while the press exists to keep the public informed; both roles are considered critical to a healthy democracy. But while both institutions serve the public interest, there is a tension between reporters’ need for access to information and the military’s need to maintain operational security.” (Paul, Kim, 2004)

        In 2003 the military launched a new initiative of embedding journalist within military operations. This new and unprecedented access grew out of the first Gulf War. During the first Gulf War the press felt restricted.  Tensions between the Military and the Media became strained. From that dissatisfaction, the DOD embedded over 600 journalists at the start of the invasion of Iraq. Prior to embedding being established, the media received its information’s through orchestrated press conferences and selected subject matter experts. These selected “Experts” were made available for interviews. There was little to no first hand observations from journalists that were allowed to accompany the troops. This coverage created miss-trust or a lack of understanding.  In turn represent a partial view or miss-interpretation of the military’s message. While this was not a crisis in the sense of being detrimental to reporting to the public as a obligation, the military needed to also take care of its legal right to have the public informed factually of the mission. 

        The start of the embedded journalists during the invasion of Iraq allowed for a greater access to troop on the ground. This level of coverage would create new objectives that would influence the message.  This became an important lesson learned. By giving the media access to leaders and soldiers through embedding it would provide first-hand accounts on operations. One benefit learned by the military was that it helped balance negative press from media that was not embedded.

       By creating a relationship between the media and the military, the media was able to grasp a basic understanding of future operations.  This information learned by the media resulted in more objective coverage and a better understanding of the mission the military. The military would evaluate the overall program as a success and report it in after action reports as,

“Media that became part of the team told first-hand accounts of the 3ID (M) fairly and accurately. Neither mission accomplishment nor the integrity of the media was compromised. The media we surveyed spoke highly of their experience and stated the embed far exceeded their expectations. Soldiers, media, and the American public were the true beneficiaries. (Military and Reporters Association)

The embedding program provided new answers to some of the age old questions that surrounded military media relationships.   Before embedding, relationships were suspect and created a lack of access. This was seen as cover up or a denial in media coverage. Military public affairs and public relations would learn that the media is an integral part of any campaign or operation.

        The military, though a government organization, needs to be competitive in the market place. To stay competitive in the changing media environment, they have to embrace new media the same way for-profit corporations and non-profits target their audiences. The stakeholders in a corporation are the private company’s financial backers. In the role of the military public relations the stakeholders are the publics it serves. Historically it is noted that the military learns from its past public affairs and public relations campaigns.

        By looking back and studying, as in the Rand report, the DOD changed how it handled recruitment and branding. That change helped the military learn to target directly to selected audiences.  In comparing its media relationship in past conflicts, the DOD moved in the right direction by embedding journalists. This effort has shown to reduce the amount of crisis communications that would have been engaged in without an embedding program in effect. Social Media has set a precedent in media relations. Social Media changed the way it reaches the public’s an organization it serves. The conversation that it affords with the stakeholders and citizens alike has promoted the service missions.  

       In the end the Military public affairs or public relations will handle a wide arrangement of programs and campaigns. Since the Department of Defense derives its budgets from taxpayer money there will be great political and public scrutiny. The opinions of the influencers are important to a long term success. Whether it’s a branding of a service with a slogan, showing the public they are the first to assist in a humanitarian crisis, or being transparent in time of war, how the information is delivered and viewed is crucial to the end user of the military, the public.

                                                                  References

Agresta, Stephanie; Bough, B. Bonin; Miletsky, Jason I. (2010). Perspectives on Social Media

       Marketing. [ebrary Reader version ] Retrieved from

       http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10412049&ppg=90

Cameron, G. T., Wilcox, D. L., Reber, B. H., & Shin, J. (2008). Public relations today:

        Managing competition and conflict. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Dertouzos, James N. (2009) The Cost-Effectiveness of Military Advertising Evidence from 2002

          2004.  Retrieved from National Defense Research Institute online

         http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/2009/RAND_DB565.pdf

Military Reporters and Editors (2003) Lessons Learned; Third Infantry Division (Mechanized)

        After Action Report. Retrieved from The Association of Military Journalist online

        http://www.militaryreporters.org/lessons_11-19-03.html

Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (2011) U.S. Army Social Media Handbook,Army Social

          Media.  Retrieved from U.S. Army Slide Share online

          http://www.slideshare.net/USArmySocialMedia/army-social-media-handbook-2011

Paul, Christopher; Kim, James J. (2004) Reporters on the Battlefield : The Embedded Press
        System in Historical Context. [ebrary Reader version ] Retrieved from
         http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10152582&ppg=50

Paul, Christopher; Kim, James J. (2004) Reporters on the Battlefield: The Embedded Press

        System in Historical Context. [ebrary Reader version ] Retrieved from

         http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10152582&ppg=40

Richardson, Neil; Gosnay, Ruth; Carroll, Angela.(2010) Social Media Marketing : High Impact

         Low-Cost Marketing That Works. [ebrary Reader version ] Retrieved from

          http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10438068&ppg=86

The Media and Its Responsibilities

   Media and new world ethics in the shrinking news cycle                                         

          Mass Media, as a form of communicating a message to an audience, plays an important role in today’s society. Journalism today is rapidly changing. The lines between objective reporting and propaganda, or messaging, are becoming more and more blurred every day. The media of today competes now in a very fast news cycle to get content to the reader. In that changing news cycle the media is losing some of it credibility in relation to its ethical responsibilities. There are many ways a consumer of information can get information. As a society, the reader is confronted with information from all directions. The journalist and the media of today have a responsibility to its audience. As an ethical organization, the media must hold to some basic responsibilities. Ethically, we expect to get unbiased, factual and timely information. The journalist in mass media serves the public. There is a trust that needs to be maintained. The media must have a responsibility to its audience.

        There are many ethical views that can be described of how the media as a whole interacts with its responsibilities. Its most important responsibility is to report factual information. The media can be an influencer in today’s society. This can be seen recently during the news events in Florida.  In the Trayvon Martin wrongful death case the messages the media reports to the public can have a profound impact on how they will react. The public will look to the reporting as truthful, ethical and accurate. Unfortunately when it is not, the public can have a hard time deciding if the message is truthful or false.  The Media is looked up to, to tell the story; it can influence an outcome negatively if it does not follow any ethical guidelines. This can lead to the issues we see playing out as a culture behaves or accepts another cultures society from those views.  Ethicists see this as a glaring problem that is causing new concerns on ethical reporting. On the web site, Ethics Newsline from the Institute for global Ethics, it opinion gives an insight of how media is not following sound ethical decisions and it is causing distrust and credibility issues to the public it is intended to.

“Media ethicists are growing uncomfortable with the way journalists are assuming a police-like role in the case, using advanced forensic techniques to analyze evidence — an act that could mislead the public — according to a report from the Associated Press. Both the Orlando Sentinel and ABC News, for example, have attempted to enhance video and audio to shed light on the case, but legal and forensic experts tell the AP that nothing so far has been conclusive and that the public is being confused by the back-and-forth in the complex case”(Ethics Newsline, 2012)

Historically, the public has an inherent trust in the media. Most readers will want to view the media as an ethical institution. If the media in itself can not adhere to ethical guidelines, the public will be conflicted by the messages the media puts out. Once there is a view of poor ethics the public trust in the media’s responsibilities will be lost.

       Good Journalism is an important tool; if it is viewed unethically it will lose all and any credibility. The public is better served when the Media presents truth ethically and stays away from presenting views as false or propaganda. There should be no room for speculation in media reporting. The Journalist has a responsibility to their readers that are looking to the journalist to give them the facts of the story. This responsibility is described in the book, Media and Journalism Ethics by S.N. Phadke

“Social responsibility of the media can be interpreted in terms of both 'responsibility,' referring to the media's responsibility with regards to society, and 'responsiveness,' relating to the manner in which the media listen to and take the public into consideration.”  (Phadke 2008)

The ethical problem for the Media lies in its delivery of the message. While the media has the responsibility to let us know when governments or corporate interest manipulate the media, it is a bigger ethical issue when the Media manipulates the message for its own gain.  At the journalist level, we as a society rely on the individual reporter to be objective and tell us the truth of the matter.  Journalists have basic tenants and a code of ethics they look to uphold. Author Dave Berry, in the book, Journalism, Ethics and Society, describes this ethical value a journalist carries as it relates to individual reporting the news should be, “Objective reporting is thought to be a full account of an event written in a dispassionate and detached manner so as to avoid subjectivity or the over-use of one’s own value-judgements.”(Berry, 2009) When the journalist decides what the public needs to know, and what they do not need to know, is the moral and ethical question?  The utilitarianism view of the media would look at what is fair to the overall audience.

       The greatest good would have to be achieved by the message. The journalist could decide that some facts should not be shown for it would affect negatively more of the readership than it would pose as a benefit. On another hand does it restrict the freedom of the press and free speech? In example what is judged obscene or distasteful. While the press enjoys freedom of speech, in a utilitarianism view, is not releasing certain facts morally right if it was for a greater good.  In the recent story of soldiers posing with dead enemy Taliban the Los Angeles Times grappled with should the release the photo’s to its readers and to the public. While the pentagon argued not to release the newspaper eventually released the images. Here a utilitarianism view on ethics and morals can be applied in both decisions.

        The editors at the Los Angeles Times felt they were morally right and had a responsibility to give the public the images. This decision perspective allowed them to be neutral and meet journalisms ethical goal of objective reporting. This could show that the decision was in their perspective as utilitarianism. In that utilitarianism decision they in turn felt their readers concern for objective information outweighed the safety concerns of the soldiers involved. This was reached after the concerns were weighed in from the Military viewpoint. The Department of Defense objection was that it would harm troops still in the area by publishing the images.

         If the editors did take the route of the military concerns, a utilitarianism view can also be applied on not publishing them. In that scenario of a decision it could be seen that the goal not to publish would protect the nation as a whole along with the military involved. That basically tends to support a utilitarianism view also. In that decision by not publishing the imagery the greater good is served.  Ethically the entire population over their Los Angeles Times readership would protect more people, thus it serves the greater good.  Doug Spero, an associate professor of mass communication at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C was quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article by reporter Daniel Wood on the ethical decisions to print or not as,

“If I received a call and [military officials] made any practical or logical sense on why this would endanger troops – and the story value wasn’t that high – I’d cooperate. Not only for future relationships, but if there is going to be an error made, I’d would rather it be on the side of national security and pro-defense," he says. "Sometimes there is a higher calling. This is a very sticky issue, and journalists need to evaluate each situation individually without any prejudice.” (Wood 2012)

        Does the medium operate ethically by not publishing something for it may offend a segment of the public? Even if they feel they are doing this under a moral belief. The deontologist view feels it is a duty to never lie and it would be morally correct to present the truth of the matter. The counter to that is that then the media is what if the media is withholding that information.  Ethically, do they have a stand in a form of censorship? In the book, Media in 21st Century: Freedom and Censorship it shows that, “Such censorship is opposed by civil liberties groups, cinema owners and members of the artistic community. Regimes of censorship have been challenged in court.” (Panday, 2007) No matter the decision one group will always feel they are not receiving all the information possible.

        Morally a deontologist would say that since the information strikes against good morals it would be best to report it. If the utilitarianism view is to not tell a side of the story because its serves more, would that result in being considered a propagandist view? We can see this in most propaganda news and media information outlets. The example of a propaganda media can be seen in what is similar to government or state run media. Author Chappell Lawson, in the book, Building the Fourth Estate: Democratization and the Rise of a Free Press describes the reason media in this area can be controlled as, “Media owners wanted, above all, a hospitable business environment in which they could prosper economically and protect their status as members of the country’s elite. In order to prosper economically, they needed the state to provide” (Lawson, 2002)   While the public may receive news that is good to their benefit as a society, the down side is that news that is negative will also be left out. In the end the public suffers for the benefit of a few that controls the message.

         A journalist that uses virtue ethics will not look at the consequential act of his reporting but the character of his act in representing the information. If ethically the journalist feels they possess virtue ethics, as the text states “emphasizes that the moral, or virtuous, person exemplifies moral behavior.”(Mosser, 2010) they will look at how they present the information. If they in themselves are feeling morally obliged to present it knowing they are letting the reader decide, then by doing the right thing, the public will gain a more balanced flow of information.  There are many ways we as a society get our information today. How the media presents information to the public will always be looked at and examined. Ethically and morally the journalist should be objective, and not try to control or shape the message. The classical theories utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics give us a way to judge how the message is being presented. Each may have a perceived ethical presentation, or dilemma on what is right or wrong in the approach. Ethically we expect to get factual information from the media. Trust needs to be maintained and ethics upheld. In the end if the media fails in a responsibility to its audience, the trust will be lost. Then we are left with a media with no sense of responsibilities                                             

       References

Lawson, J. Chappell H.(2002)  Building the Fourth Estate : Democratization and the Rise  of a Free Press. Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press,. p 28.

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10053540&ppg=43

Mosser, K. (2010) Ethics and Social Responsibility.  San Diego, CA.   Bridgepoint Education Inc. Retrieved from Retrieved from: https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCOM200.11.1

Panday, S.N. (2007) Media in 21st Century : Freedom and Censorship. Jaipur, IND: Global Media, 2007. p 254. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10416102&ppg=254

Phadke, S.P.(2008)  Media and Journalism Ethics . Jaipur, IND: Global Media, 2008. p 94. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10416235&ppg=94