he<\/em> was wrong. We do make mistakes, yet his solutions revealed he had no idea about the way the media works. That\u2019s when the tension began. He continued, informing us exactly how we should go about doing our job as if he had a greater understanding of how to balance the various pressures reporters and editors are under than we did.<\/p>\nThe more he went on, the more his analysis revealed he has absolutely no idea of those pressures. Circulation\u2019s falling; editors are demanding exclusives that will \u2018cut through\u2019; there isn\u2019t enough time; there isn\u2019t enough money, and work just isn\u2019t fun anymore.<\/p>\n
Now don\u2019t get me wrong. Everyone\u2019s entitled to their view and his diagnosis was (partially) correct. Nevertheless his remedy, if applied across the board, would have put us all out of a job within weeks.<\/p>\n
Turn the argument around the other way. When any armchair military expert tells generals what to do, the officers will be understandably annoyed. That\u2019s the point. Nobody would trust a journo to command a platoon attack, let alone conduct a battalion withdrawal in contact. Equally, our general should have realised that he doesn\u2019t have the hard-won competence to churn out a regular column on those issues, let alone direct editorial coverage for a news outlet or choose how stories will be \u2018framed\u2019.<\/p>\n
Our general was utterly and genuinely convinced the Army\u2019s a good institution; one that would never act inappropriately. He also believes his vision of what should be reported is correct. Critically, he doesn\u2019t understand the imperative that drives us to discover the truth is the absolute opposite of the one that impels him to accept what he\u2019s told by his superiors. His mistake was to believe he understood our work. But there was a second problem: the dynamic of that particular moment. He thought he understood the news business.<\/p>\n
Despite appearances, journalism is sophisticated. It provides daily operational experience of what works and what doesn\u2019t. While the stakes aren\u2019t nearly as high as they are in battle, they\u2019re still significant. (As a correspondent, I\u2019ve watched as people were killed in front of me in both Cambodia and Thailand and seen them being dragged away to be shot in Burma and China. Compared with real danger, spending time behind-the-wire in Afghanistan is a doddle).<\/p>\n
Nobody\u2019s more aware than we are of the limitations of reporting. Every day our readers provide immediate feedback if we make a mistake. Competition\u2019s intense. Editors don\u2019t have to rely on \u2018gut feeling\u2019 to understand the mood of the country. They\u2019ve got hard data instead, dealing with exactly what our audiences do and don\u2019t want to hear. The general\u2019s \u2018typical Australian\u2019 doesn\u2019t exist; instead we serve up news to market segments. A superficial radio story won\u2019t deal with complex issues, whereas a \u2018real\u2019 story in The<\/em> Sydney Morning Herald<\/em> will probe deeper and harder. That\u2019s why they’re far more valuable to readers, the army, and society as a whole.<\/p>\nJournalists aren\u2019t trained to be suspicious but we\u2019re taught to challenge and question everything. That\u2019s the reverse of the military. There\u2019s also immense pressure, in this age of increasing diversity and technical change, to respond to market demand. That\u2019s why we address issues in the way our readers, viewers and listeners want them explored, rather than in the way institutions want them presented. We work for our publics, not the hierarchy.<\/p>\n
Our interlocutor believed he knew what Australians want and how they think. Good luck to him. But his supposed \u2019knowledge\u2019 was based on nothing other than feelings and emotions. And there’s the rub\u2014journalists really do<\/em> know what their audiences want, because we have to. In the internet age we get feedback on stories within minutes of publication.<\/p>\nIt\u2019s anyone\u2019s right to say they don\u2019t like the product. Just don\u2019t patronise us by saying you understand our job better than we do. Our general wouldn\u2019t have tried to fly an F-35, so why did he think he could successfully edit a television bulletin?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Chief of Army\u2019s conference was remarkably successful. That’s a truism, because those sorts of events always will be. Gather together a parade of senior officers who\u2019ve known one another for years; all competing to …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":28756,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[44,488,333,730],"class_list":["post-28753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-australian-defence-force","tag-australian-army","tag-journalism","tag-media"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Knowing your audience: media and the military | The Strategist<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n