![Thanks](https://www.renovateforums.com.au/dbtech/thanks/images/thanks.png)
![Likes](https://www.renovateforums.com.au/dbtech/thanks/images/likes.png)
![Needs Pictures](https://www.woodworkforums.com/images/smilies/happy/photo4.gif)
![Picture(s) thanks](https://www.ubeaut.biz/wave.gif)
Results 16 to 19 of 19
-
8th April 2007, 11:05 AM #16
Clinton,
I am in an occupation where my colleagues and I often find ourselves in the public glare. Matter of fact, you may well know some of my colleagues who are over there right now............
Best advice I can give you is to say politely to the journalist, I am not prepared to be interviewed, if you want an interview with me, get clearance from my CO, his/her name is.......... Should do the trick.
Nothing that can be taken out of context, shows that you aren't straight out being unco-operative, you may be in a position to talk later if the proper channels are followed. Shows that you are aware of the preferred process for media to follow and that you are in a position to make waves for them if they persist. The journalist will think that if you get annoyed, you are going to go up the chain of command which can end badly for them in regards to future access.
If the journo persists in this manner of obtaining footage, then their reputation will soon become well known to all your colleagues, (mainly cos you tell them) and they will find themselves unable to get material for their network and will come round in due course or be brought home by their network because they are not producing the goods.
My constraints in dealing with the media are as follows, I cannot comment on matters that are not my direct area of responsibility, I cannot comment on governmental policy, I cannot pre-empt a decision a Court may make and I cannot make comment that may prejudice a Court hearing nor can I comment on operational practices or policies.
Usually, on the small number of times I have been interviewed, I have talked with the journalist first and been given an idea of the sort of questions I can expect and in return, given the journalist an idea of what they can expect from me. Makes for a less "deer in the headlights" experience for you and gives the journalist material that is more useful to them. It also starts building up some degree of trust on both sides, something of much more value to the media than you.
The fact that you are a member of the armed forces does not automatically mean that your thoughts, comments, opinions etc become public property that can be recorded at the whim of any journalist. The fact that your living is provided for by the taxpayer is immaterial in regard to having dealings with the media.
It may put you at risk of greater scrutiny but does not mean that you no longer have the same rights as every other member of society, ie the right to not be interviewed, recorded on audio or video etc....
-
8th April 2007, 11:32 AM #17
I guess you are all in agreement that it was just rude.
Common courtesy.... not so common.
There have been some good tips for dealing with them, although we have our own ways of messing with their heads.... deploying the cone of silence is just one way, wild goose chases are another.
The trouble was, while they were focusing on annoying the Aussie blokes, they were missing the real story unfolding on the other side of the road.
We have our own media affairs officers (MAO), a little common courtesy would have seen me get their card and pass it on to the MAO with a recommendation 'to look after them'.
Not likely now!
Hey, just realised that was post 2000. Way too serious!Last edited by Clinton1; 8th April 2007 at 11:33 AM. Reason: 2000 post
-
8th April 2007, 03:10 PM #18
Pop 'em one in the foot with your Steyr, mate. Cretin journos...
'What the mind of man can conceive, the hand of a toolmaker can achieve.'
Owning a GPX250 and wanting a ZX10 is the single worst experience possible. -Aside from riding a BMW, I guess.
-
8th April 2007, 04:44 PM #19
jounalists?
It seems to me that more and more often, those who write "jounalist" on their resume are anything but, remember when they were called "reporters". The process of reporting is no longer the objective, the objective, it seems is not to report, but to one-up others of the same persuasion in the same area. Far too often do you see, read or hear quite different recollections of basically the same event (and I am not even referring to sensationalism). The various factions within the media feel that they need to express a different angle to make their version of events more valid.
I am greatly offended that by the interference most of these people create, these people had respect based on the quality and integrtity of their stories, now ad dollars and revenue drive the ever elusive "point of difference"
In closing I would like to say this: Journalists if you wish to call them that are by and large unaccountable for what they do, say and write. A politician can be pressured to resign by them, a police officer can be forced into investigated by them, a business can be crippled by them and persons very reputation, career and sometimes life can be ruined by them. No trial, no jury, no right of reply.
When was the last time one was dismissed for disorderly conduct or dodgy investments, drinking whilst on the job, reporting errors, - all those things they expect from the world outside there sphere.
Stand up proud to these spineless pr*cks and tell them in no uncertain terms that you are there to carry out your work as a legal, appointed representative of Australia and it armed forces to which you belong and any comment should be requested from the appointed media representative of such body/s
(rant over)People make mistakes...
That's why they put erasers on the end of pencils
Similar Threads
-
Foreign food with rude names
By simon c in forum JOKESReplies: 17Last Post: 24th February 2005, 08:44 PM -
Female Guinness Book of Records
By oges in forum JOKESReplies: 1Last Post: 6th July 2001, 11:32 PM