Working in the role of a public affairs specialist has its benefits. I get to see a lot of strange new lands, see how other servicemembers work and live (at home and abroad) and serve my country by utilizing my talents for communication.

It also comes with challenges.

For one, I read a lot. I was raised to enjoy reading, so that isn’t in itself the challenge. The challenge comes in reading so much that I will inevitably get fired up and/or completely frustrated by reports or editorials that are as lazily researched as they are lopsided.

Before I go any further, I must state – for my validation as well as my superiors’ – that my views are my own and in no way reflect the mission of my unit or larger organization: the 116^th Public Affairs Detachment of the North Dakota Army National Guard now serving under Kosovo Force 12 Multi-National Battle Group-East.

Although many may see that previous paragraph as nothing more than a disclaimer, serving to alleviate any responsibility from the people I work with and for, it serves a greater purpose. It allows me to voice my own perspective because frankly, I don’t have the professional luxury of going around picking fights with people. I wouldn’t want that possibility either. Organizations such as the NDNG and KFOR do not exist to serve as a podium for my personal views. So while I reserve the right to use the perspective and experience gained from working in these organizations (and others) to write on my personal web site, I will not do so while on duty. That’s not what I’m paid to do.

What I am paid to do, as a public affairs specialist, is write stories, take photos, design publications and help put together video packages. These all serve to relay the perspective and accomplishments of the soldiers on the ground to their family and friends back home, as well as any person who may happen across one of our many, many releases.

Apparently some of these releases have ruffled some feathers. One writer in particular, the news editor of the Valley City Times-Record, chose to write an editorial piece that ruffled mine. Again, I’m not writing this as a public affairs specialist. I’m not writing this at work. It’s 2100 hours here as I write from my room, on my personal computer for eventual release on my personal web site (which I created and maintain with my personal funds) as an American citizen who will not be called a liar.

This link will take you to the editorial piece in question, Articles written by Guard worth ink . In it, News Editor Lee Morris complains about “a blatant bias” in the work that we – that I – do. Later in the piece, Morris ignorantly states that the releases put out are “never going to be as accurate as it would if a well-trained reporter covered the mission.”

Pardon me for a moment as I try and suppress my outrage.

While there are some newer members in our unit who have only recently entered the communications world, the rest of the unit more than makes up for it with a combined total of more than 65 years working in some facet of this industry, whether that be advertising, news, photography, videography, graphic design or public affairs.

Sixty-five years, plus some. That’s one decade less than the average life expectancy of the normal human being, told in experience and spread among one team. Sixty-five years of work that builds on training we’ve received at the Defense Information School (DINFOS) at Fort Meade, Maryland, and further augmented by many of our civilian degrees. Even had we not been well-trained, 65 years still translates into a wealth of experience. So does the Pulitzer Prize that one of our guys won as part of the Grand Forks Herald covering the ’97 Flood.

Morris writes that the Times-Record has been unable to take the trip to Kosovo to interview Soldiers from Barnes County. I can sympathize with that statement, even if it seems like a cop-out to some. Getting overseas to interview troops isn’t easy, and it doesn’t come without a large investment of time and resources. Although it does need to be said that while the Times-Record hasn’t been able to make the trip due to the limited resources available to a smaller news outlet, others haven’t been so unfortunate. Well-trained reporters from the BBC, the Associated Press and Agence France Press have been able to make it here, in addition to American freelancers and media outlets local to Kosovo.

This proves Morris wrong two times on the same point. If we were not well-trained, how could we possibly stay in the roles of communicators for so long? And if we were not trained well enough to tell an unbiased story, then surely the accounts of those reporters who have come to Camp Bondsteel would contradict our statements.

Unfortunately for Morris, neither of these cases can nor will prove true. The news editor must not realize that there are no negative pieces written or told about Kosovo because, frankly, that wouldn’t be accurate reporting. Our reports, as well as the reports from the civilian media outlets, prove that.

The only negative-themed piece to talk about this rotation was an AP article that erroneously misprinted an account of a Unit Public Affairs Representative. The original report highlighted how some soldiers provided first aid to a man seriously injured in a vehicular accident. The AP version in the Fargo Forum egregiously added a roadside bomb into the mix, which startled families who were previously under the correct assumption that there were – and continue to be – no roadside bombs in Kosovo. This error in fact is at best a misprint, and at worst, high sensationalism that serves no purpose other than to sell copy. To my knowledge, a retraction was printed, although buried mid-paper.

To assume inherent bias on my part is to damage my credibility, which is something I’ve worked very hard over the years to gain. I’m going to go out on a limb now, and be a part of the game of assumption. I remember a person with the name Lee Morris who graduated from Minnesota State University Moorhead ahead of me. So, if the Morris writing now for the Times-Record is the same Morris from MSUM, I have one more simple statement on the issue of being “well-trained.”

If I am not well-trained, Lee Morris, than you must not be either. We attended the same university, majored in writing-intensive programs, worked for The Advocate in editorial roles, would have taken some of the same classes from the same instructors and completed much of the same coursework. In addition to the bachelor’s degree we share, I must again restate my time at DINFOS, which at 40 hours per week at 12 weeks roughly equals an associate’s degree.

That time in training combined with my experience – while obviously not enough for you – seems to be more than enough for the eight publications I have worked directly for and the countless others that have picked up my work and the work of the 116^th PAD.

Morris furthers the outrage from behind the safety of the editorial desk by 1.) placing the responsibility of news-gathering on readers uninterested in being interviewed Your newspaper: Hey, you in the shell: Come on out, 2.) espouses the error in one-sided reporting Media must listen to all sides on outlet issue and 3.) takes small town mindsets to task for close minded thinking Editorial: Exclusion forms division in small towns

Never mind that in these opinion pieces he comes off as self-righteous (Your newspaper), and both pompous and hypocritical (Media must listen and Exclusion forms division).

Journalism 101, Mr. Morris: Not every person wants to be interviewed. Not every person who does want to be interviewed has something important or interesting to say. If you are going to comment on how wrong it is to only report one side of a story, don’t then report on only one side of a story. Sometimes, a poorly written, terribly researched opinion piece does nothing more than perpetuate a stereotype.

This is where I take umbrage again. Before I go any further I’ve again got to maintain Total Disclosure: I grew up in Hazelton, North Dakota and graduated from H-M-B High School in 2001. “GO TIGERS!”

Some folks may remember Hazelton as being in the news recently. The AP (Honestly, I don’t really hate the AP, but they do make it easy) reported on the story of a man and his family who moved from Florida to Hazelton to carve out a new life. It’s important to disclose that I’ve never met these folks, so have no personal opinion of them and no first-hand experience with them. I can attest that at times smaller towns like Hazelton can seem closed off from the world. I can guess that in a town of 240, setting up a business will make people happy, unless it is a business that competes directly with one that has already been serving the community.

That is where my writing on Hazelton, its people or the family that has decided to move away comes to an end, and I start writing about the AP report, and later, Morris’ editorial version of it.

It doesn’t surprise me that any media outlet would take a shot at a small town for being a small town. What does surprise me is that so many people bemoaned the small town and its people for being so closed-minded and lacking in perspective when the story itself was a one-sided hit piece that seemed to take no action in finding other viewpoints. I’m not trained in cultural anthropology in any way, but I’m going to take a guess and say that small communities might very well be wary of so-called “outsiders,” especially if those small towns haven’t gotten a fair shake. The cycle, if it can be called such, will only continue if one side of an obviously two-sided story goes unreported.

I will not defend the reported actions of the Hazelton townspeople, some of whom allegedly yelled obscenities and threats. I will, however, attack the very nature of the AP article and Morris’ editorial, neither of which seek to maintain any semblance of objectivity, instead getting one perspective and running before the folks of Hazelton can have a say in their own defense.

Morris and his ilk wail and gnash their teeth at the thought of a dying newspaper industry, yet refuse to acknowledge their own complicity in the matter. People want to support community-based newspapers, whether those papers are printed daily or weekly. However, when a person in the influential role of editor chooses to chastise his audience for not participating in interviews (Your newspaper), rails against an organization dedicated to offering his paper and others’ public domain information (Guard worth ink) and quotes a one-sided report to write a one-sided opinion about how terrible one-sided towns are (Exclusion), that person not only damages their own credibility but the credibility of the news outlet they work for and the credibility of the people they want picking up the paper .

While I don’t feel it necessary to do so, I again state that these are my personal views and as such, cannot be applied to my organization.

I can no longer in good conscience keep these views to myself, especially when it seems that many editors, including the one in question, have no problem picking written fights with so many while at the same time offering no solutions. I, on the other hand, have never had a problem fighting the good fight, or picking up the gauntlet when offered.

Article Keywords: Picking a fight, The Uncouth, Bogus Editorials, Valley City Times-Record, Hazelton

Digg It Myspace Facebook

Comments

There are no comments on this article.