Document created: 15 October 2003
Air University Review, November-December
1974
Few would challenge the notion that in the United States the viability of the military services rests squarely upon broad-based public support and understanding. Such grass-roots support means that the nation’s young people will continue to come into the service, that military installations can effectively and harmoniously coexist with their civilian neighbors, and that congressmen elected by this citizenry can more easily vote the appropriations necessary to build and maintain a first-rate, modern military force.
Given this, it seems important to examine the process by which such public support is generated and sustained. In large measure, the public’s attitudes toward the military are directly dependent upon the amount of information about the military that they receive and believe. And because most of this information reaches the public via the mass media, the interaction process between the military and the media must be understood if ways to enhance this flow of information are to be found. To this end, an extensive quantitative and qualitative study of the military and the media was undertaken. This research report focuses on two principal actors in the news process: the media reporter and the military information officer.
A questionnaire designed to measure and correlate variables that impact on the government/media interaction was sent to the base information officer at each of the 100 Air Force bases in the continental United States and then to 150 reporters who cover these bases on a regular basis. The names of 75 of the reporters were provided by information officer respondents, and the remaining 75 were selected by editors of newspapers located near the bases.
Several factors influenced the decision to use these groups in the study. First of all, base information officers are government information officials who are primary contacts at their respective installations for news media representatives. Newsmen selected for the survey were those who were assigned military affairs reporting responsibility for their respective news organizations.
An excellent response rate was achieved from both newsmen (58 percent) and information officers (75 percent). The data were then keypunched on computer cards and analyzed by use of an existing computer program that generated frequency distribution statistics and contingency tables print-outs.
To gauge role performance in the interaction process, a number of questions were included in the questionnaire to obtain expressions of attitudes and performance ratings by each respondent about his protagonist counterpart and, in some instances, about himself. The findings yield insights upon which improvements in the interaction process could be based.
validity of information officer role
As a matter of custom, and in some instances regulation, the information officer is the primary contact for news media representatives who seek information about the activity of the given federal agency. Newsmen occasionally balk, however, at going through the information office, saying they prefer to eliminate the “middleman”—the information officer—and go directly to primary news sources such as, for instance, a base finance officer for a story on military pay increases. Information officers typically prefer that all news media contacts with their installation be initiated with their offices. Occasionally, the media representatives assume that the information officer is not privy to important matters of possible news interest, and thus they are virtually forced to bypass him.
Question: Are you generally willing to use the base information office as a primary contact point or do you prefer to go directly to other news sources within the organization?
Only one journalist in four, 26.4 percent, indicated a preference for using the information office as a primary contact point. Other data generated by this question indicate that the government’s practice of requiring that contact be initiated through the information office may well be a significant impediment to productive media/government interaction.
Conversely, information officer respondents by a wide margin feel that the media are “satisfied” to come to the information office first with their questions.
Question: Do you think the press is satisfied to use your office as a primary contact point or do you think they would prefer to go directly to other potential news sources on base?
The high percentage of information officers who feel that the press is satisfied to come to them first—some 87 percent—contrasts sharply with the actual preferences of journalists as reflected in their responses to the question.
Still, almost 80 percent of journalists are at least willing to use the information office, although many respondents added that they would not hesitate to “go over the IO’s head” if necessary.
utility of interaction process
The regulations and directives of most government agencies specify that a primary task of the information officer is to assure a maximum possible flow of information to the public. Nonetheless, some newsmen have complained that information officers often constitute buffer zones between newsmen and news sources and thus render the task of news gathering more difficult. The following two questions were designed to determine if there are significant differences in the way the information officer function is perceived by the two groups.
Question: Do you think that generally the IO helps you to get information and thus increases the flow of news to the public or that he stands between you and news sources and thus decreases the flow?
Question: Do you believe that newsmen generally think you help them to get information and thus increase the flow of news to the public or that they think you stand between them and news sources and thus decrease the flow?
A number of the journalist respondents checked the “no opinion” response on this question and indicated by means of marginal notes that they were unwilling to generalize because the individual performance of the information officers with whom they dealt varied so widely. The percentage of journalists who think the information officers impede news flow, 16.1 percent, is very close to the percentage of information officers who feel that journalists believe information officers impede, 17.3 percent. Several journalists noted that they felt that information officers increased the flow on certain types of news and impeded the flow on others.
credibility and trustworthiness
Preliminary investigations undertaken prior to the development of the questionnaire indicated that persistent blockages in the information channel could be attributed to deficiencies in trustworthiness and credibility. Some newsmen would complain that information officers sometimes did not provide complete and factual answers to inquiries and might even release untruths or half-truths. In short, sometimes, among some newsmen, the credibility of the information officer was suspect.
On the other hand, some information officers said that they experienced difficulties in working with newsmen because they could not be trusted to quote them accurately, to respect news embargoes, or to refrain from using information provided to them “for background only.” Some information officers declared that they could not be more open with reporters because they could not trust them to observe the “ground rules” that certain types of information required.
Questions were designed to determine how general were these perceived deficiencies in information officer “credibility” and in journalist “trustworthiness.” The close correlation of responses from both groups is shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Question: As a reporter covering a military activity, you rely on the base information officer (IO) to accord you fair and professional treatment. Much of this reliance is based on your concept of the credibility of the IO. Can you rely on the IO with whom you deal most to give you accurate and complete responses to your inquiries?
Responses to the question on accuracy clearly indicate that reporters generally believe that information officers provide them with accurate and complete answers to queries. Over 85 percent of the journalists said that they could rely on the information officer for accurate responses “frequently or most of the time.” (Table 1)
Table 1. Information Officer
Credibility
|
Rating |
N |
% |
|
Rarely |
2 |
2.3 |
|
Occasionally |
7 |
8.1 |
|
No opinion |
3 |
3.5 |
|
Frequently |
11 |
12.7 |
|
Most of the Time |
64 |
73.4 |
|
Totals |
87 |
100.0 |
These data strongly support the conclusion that most journalists do believe the information officers and that lack of credibility is simply not a general deterrent to the flow of news.
Information officer respondents were asked to evaluate the trustworthiness of the reporters who covered their respective organizations.
Question: As base information officer you rely on the press to accord your activity fair and professional treatment. Much of this reliance is based on your concept of the reporter’s trustworthiness. Can you rely on the reporter with whom you deal most to report news of your activity accurately?
Responses reflected in Table 2 suggest that trustworthiness of newsmen, like credibility of information officers, cannot be termed a serious problem in the news process. Although a few of the information officer respondents scored journalists in the lower two blocks, over 90 percent gave journalists high trustworthiness scores.
Table 2. Journalist
Trustworthiness
|
Rating |
N |
% |
|
Rarely |
2 |
2.7 |
|
Occasionally |
3 |
4.0 |
|
No opinion |
1 |
1.3 |
|
Frequently |
12 |
16.0 |
|
Most of the Time |
57 |
76.0 |
|
Totals |
75 |
100.0 |
negative and controversial news
Government officials have frequently charged that the press coverage of government activity tends to stress “bad” news—the controversial, the sensational, shortcomings, and failures—while “good” news—positive accomplishments and successes—is given short shrift. Just as often newsmen have retorted that they cover all news, good or bad, with equal vigor. The following question relates to these points of contention:
Question: Given the difficulty of neatly categorizing a news story, how would you characterize most of your stories about the nearby military base?
Obviously—at least from the journalists’ point of view—allegations that “trouble” stories are stressed are exaggerated. Only one respondent was willing to characterize his stories as “mostly about problems.” The majority, over 62 percent, said they wrote more “success” stories. Several respondents indicated in marginal notes that they wrote success stories and failure stories as they happened, if they were newsworthy.
On the other hand, some 45 percent of the information officers thought that newsmen gave undue play to negative stories about the military. Since proportionately so many more information officers than journalists thought adverse stories were stressed, it is likely that stories which appear to information officers to have negative connotations are not so regarded by newsmen.
obstacles to news flow
Respondents were asked to describe, in their own words, what they felt to be the principal obstacles to news flow.
Question: In your opinion, what are the principal obstacles to the free flow of information about government to the press and the public?
Most respondents appeared to give very careful attention to this response. Although some offered a one-word answer, many among both groups wrote 500- to 1000-word essays to express their views on obstacles. The thrust of the opinions and recommendations advanced by both groups was that the public has a right to know what their government and the military are doing, that the press has an obligation to report the news candidly and fairly, and that the information officer has the responsibility of removing obstacles to the flow of news and assisting the press in getting information to the public.
Even a cursory examination of Table 3 leads one to the conclusion that certain of the perceived news obstacles can be reduced or removed. News media performance can be improved by assigning more knowledgeable and/or more experienced reporters to cover government. Commanders (or other government officials) can be made aware of the parameters within which public affairs reporters must operate, what types of information must be provided to them, and what types may be withheld. Such educative processes should work to dispel actual or perceived “fear of the media” regarding access to government information.
Table 3. Reported Obstacles to News Flow
Obstacles Identified
Information
Journalist
Officers
N
%
N
%
|
Commander’s fear of media |
17 |
19.5 |
14 |
18.7 |
|
Poor media performance |
10 |
11.5 |
8 |
10.7 |
|
Good news only policy |
10 |
11.5 |
5 |
6.7 |
|
“Make no waves” policy |
9 |
10.3 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Bureaucracy |
7 |
8.1 |
15 |
20.0 |
|
Mutual distrust |
6 |
6.9 |
4 |
5.3 |
|
Security considerations |
5 |
5.8 |
6 |
8.0 |
|
Poor IO performance |
4 |
4.5 |
4 |
5.3 |
|
Media/IO friendships |
2 |
2.3 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Personal PR for commander |
1 |
1.2 |
8 |
10.7 |
|
News cover-ups |
1 |
1.2 |
6 |
8.0 |
|
Lack of communication |
1 |
1.2 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
No responses |
14 |
16.0 |
5 |
6.6 |
|
Totals |
87 |
100.0 |
75 |
100.0 |
A prevailing sentiment of both groups was expressed by one reporter:
The government and the media are all out to do the same job and I feel it’s high time we began treating each other openly and as equals to achieve our common goal of information dissemination.
Given the responsibility of a free press to provide the public with complete and unbiased reportage of all elements of governmental activity—including the military—and given the military’s apparent interest in assuring maximum public understanding of its function, it seems obvious that the reduction or removal of real or imagined obstacles to the flow of military news is both desirable and necessary.
Randolph AFR, Texas
Major John Duncan Williams (Ph.D., University of Texas) is Chief, Analysis and Evaluation Division, Directorate of Advertising, DCS/Recruiting Service, Hq Air Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas. He has served as personnel services officer, base information officer, director of information, and as action officer, Southeast Asia desk, Secretary of the Air Force Office of Information. Major Williams has published articles in professional journals and won three Freedom’s Foundation honor medals.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official
position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air
Force or the Air University.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor