Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment

[IgD]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/usaf-blog-respo/

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[notdeadyet]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/usaf-blog-respo/

I thought this was parody until I read the article linked. This flowchart was actually produced BY the Air Force and is not meant to be humorous.

 

[former military]

Sorry, this a no spin zone.

the internet is good at enlightening people to the real workings...
the military needs an approach to deal

in many ways, like the revolution of instant media into the Vietnam war..
disarm public sentiment.

 

[IgD]

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry reading that flowchart. It seems like something from Dilbert or the Simpsons.

 

[EMDoc0411]

I thought this was a joke and then I realized that it was produced by the military. Then I just shook my head. Then I felt sad. Then I was happy that I only have three years left. Then I was sad again because I have three years left.

 

[a1qwerty55]

I thought this was a joke and then I realized that it was produced by the military. Then I just shook my head. Then I felt sad. Then I was happy that I only have three years left. Then I was sad again because I have three years left.

I actually view this as a positive development. I mean it is a drastic change from the "let's control all information releases centrally" ethos which has permeated the military and government. The reality is that there is a lot of misinformation which ends up on the web, this site having plenty. I feel like maybe this offers some of us some cover when while on active duty we post responses to issues be they positive or negative. I doubt anyone will actually reference the chart but it does seem to validate AD personnel responding which is a good thing.

 

[notdeadyet]

I actually view this as a positive development.

It's just spin control, a1qwerty. Nothing more.

 

[sojourner75]

It's just spin control, a1qwerty. Nothing more.

Instead of Air Force, what if the the flowchart were produced by the PR department of IBM or Microsoft? Then it would look reasonable, would it not? I imagine the military's Public Affairs offices could use a flowchart like this every day, as they comb through the Early Bird news headlines and respond appropriately to any misinformation or negative information (on the web or otherwise).

We all do not carry such a flowchart in our pockets, but we effectively use the same mental flowchart in our professional dealings. Example: a colleague passes rumor about YOU at work, do you:
a. settle the matter with him behind the building,
b. whine to the boss, or
c. take a deep breath and evaluate via the flowchart above?

 

[notdeadyet]

Instead of Air Force, what if the the flowchart were produced by the PR department of IBM or Microsoft? Then it would look reasonable, would it not?

Nah, it would look silly coming from them too.

This is just spin fluff. Ignore the subject or content of the message and treat it solely based on whether or not it's flattering. It doesn't address, "Is the information correct or incorrect" it takes the approach of "Is the information flattering or not?" That's why it's spin.

We all do not carry such a flowchart in our pockets, but we effectively use the same mental flowchart in our professional dealings.

Oh, god, I think most of us are smarter than that. Miring yourself in trying to control watercooler talk is for chumps. You do good work and get that good work noticed and the rumors take care of themselves. Playing the spin game takes time and just validates the rumors. Avoid.

 

[a1qwerty55]

Nah, it would look silly coming from them too.

This is just spin fluff. Ignore the subject or content of the message and treat it solely based on whether or not it's flattering. It doesn't address, "Is the information correct or incorrect" it takes the approach of "Is the information flattering or not?" That's why it's spin.

I would go back and read it again. I'm not some fan or proponent of this flow-chart but it clearly has several decision points addressing is the information factually accurate, and nowhere do I see a is it flattering or not decision point.

 

[sojourner75]

I've seen some convoluted and superfluous flowcharts; this one is actually concise and useful. Does it appears like nonsense possibly because PR/PA is a department that deals with media nonsense all the time? Each profession has it own flowcharts that appears like nonsense to an outsider. But I bet the auto and consumer electronics industry did not find it funny when the Japanese took Dr. Deming's quality control "flowcharts" to heart and kicked everyone fairly and squarely, in the balls.

 

[notdeadyet]

nowhere do I see a is it flattering or not decision point.

Read it again. The very first decision point asks "Is it positive or balanced?" If the material is considered positive (i.e.: flattering), it takes you down one branch. If the material is considered not positive (i.e.: unflattering), it takes you down another.

So if you come across something that is not true, but paints the AF in a good light, you are directed along the same path as when you discover something balanced and accurate. If you come across something that is true but makes the AF look bad, you're directed along the same path as something that is biased or a lie.

If the first decision point asked about accuracy, it would be a different animal. It asks about "positive" portrayal. It's spin.

 

[IgD]

I came up with a response but decided just to let the flowchart stand for itself. I do like the very bottom of the flowchart that encourages personnel to engage in discussion. That's what I'm all about. I think openness and transparency will improve any organization.

 

[sojourner75]

Read it again. The very first decision point asks "Is it positive or balanced?" If the material is considered positive (i.e.: flattering), it takes you down one branch. If the material is considered not positive (i.e.: unflattering), it takes you down another.

So if you come across something that is not true, but paints the AF in a good light, you are directed along the same path as when you discover something balanced and accurate. If you come across something that is true but makes the AF look bad, you're directed along the same path as something that is biased or a lie.

If the first decision point asked about accuracy, it would be a different animal. It asks about "positive" portrayal. It's spin.

Accuracy is but one element of "positive/balanced portrayal", and often is associated with factual information that can be easily corrected. "Positive/balanced portrayal" deals mainly with perception, is more complex/subjective, and understandably is chosen as the first dimension of "evaluation" (not decision yet).

"Something that is not true, but paints the AF in a good light" is still unbalanced, and may warrant a response. "something that is true but makes the AF look bad" deserves a response too. Just like an individual has a right to make his own case and speak for himself, so it is true for an organization. Spin or not, the dedicated professionals (95%) deserve some good or positive news, not just "true but de-motivating" bad press generated by 5% of bad apples.

In any case, the goal is to prevent the organization from being characterized by 5% of bad press, hence the "positive/balanced" criteria. Why, we are in a world of popularity contests; it's spin or die.