Document created: 6 January 04
Air University Review, July-August
1972
If there is one thing that makes a professional Information Officer grit his teeth and cringe, it is to be called an “ISO” or, even worse, “PRO” or “PIA.” Those abbreviations stand for what used to be the Information Officer’s equivalent a long time ago. (We have not been Public Information Officers for a full generation.) The old terminology is objectionable not because we are sensitive or finicky but because the offender seems to be thinking we are still performing the same functions as the PRO of World War II.
To say the least, the ball game has changed. The truth is, the Information Officer’s job goes far beyond getting the news media work done. It also encompasses community relations and internal information—indeed, relations with people of all kinds, both inside and outside the organization. The IO doesn’t do all this communicating himself, of course, for that would be beyond human capacity; since we are all communicating all the time, everyone of us in a blue uniform is a communicator.
Information is not only a tool of management, as we often hear; it is the very function of management itself. It is implicit in every policy decision and every action. It is not a function that can be contained within a limited category as something that is the IO’s job and no one else’s.
Calling the Information Officer the “PIO” leads into a semantic trap. Public information (only a fraction of the IO’s job) consists of efforts to communicate with the general public via the mass media—press, radio, and television. Mass media are important, certainly, but they cannot be relied upon to carry the Air Force story to the public all by themselves.
Mass communications do have certain inherent advantages, chiefly in that large numbers of people can be reached economically. But there are disadvantages as well. We in the Air Force do not run the mass media. We can submit a story or a story idea, but the mass media control its acceptance and how it is used. Furthermore, media use of a story does not guarantee that every reader (or viewer) will see and digest the information.
In addition, all the mass media constitute a “buyer’s market.” There are more stories competing for attention than can possibly be used. I had a talk not long ago with one of the news executives of one of the major television networks. He said that most Air Force stories are simply “too bland and unexciting to rate even a minute or two of precious network time.”
But there is one kind of Air Force news that seems to make the grade these days—bad news. We have all seen the many prominent national news stories about scandals and mismanagement, corruption and atrocities in the military services. There’s a good reason why this kind of news gets exposure: quite simply, it’s exciting, and exciting news is what sells newspapers and gets good audience ratings. At least for the foreseeable future, we must live with the fact that the mass media will tend to be more willing to use bad news about the military than good news.
Compare this communication situation with that of a well-informed public speaker before a group of concerned civilians. He has their undivided attention; he does not run the risk that they will get up and go to the icebox for a beer. In short, public speaking provides eyeball contact between our spokesman and large numbers of people, a kind of communication unattainable in any other way.
The responsibility does not belong to the Information Officer alone. Air Force Manual 190—4 pointedly states:
It is incumbent upon general and senior officers to avail themselves of every practical opportunity to speak and otherwise officially represent the Air Force before reputable groups. (Italics added.)
This responsibility, sometimes ignored, is more important today than ever before. What we need to achieve is public understanding of the Air Force mission and the tools we will need to accomplish that job. It is in the public interest to do so.
When a responsible spokesman stands up to deliver the facts, he should underscore the point that specialized Air Force interests and the public interest do coincide. One of the central truths of the modern world is that government is growing larger, more complex, and harder to understand. Certainly the military, despite recent large cutbacks, has undergone a general trend of increasing size and complexity. The inevitable result of this trend, unless steps are taken to counteract it, is that people will feel more and more remote from the government. And, unless we do something about it, we will become more and more remote from the people.
The tendency toward remoteness can be deadly at a time when public opinion is more powerful than at any other period in American history. What people cannot understand, they will mistrust. When the concerned citizen cannot find out to his satisfaction what the military is up to, he will tend to believe the worst. Much of the recent criticism of the military in the United States is a direct result of this tendency.
Too often, an officer who would seemingly be a good spokesman gives the appearance of giving a speech only after he’s finally been trapped and there is no escape. This may fill the proverbial square, but it doesn’t contribute to communication. Especially in these days when a civilian group is likely to adopt a questioning attitude toward whatever we have to say, it is vital that each officer prepare well for every speech he makes, with the goal of making a real contribution to the audience’s understanding and appreciation of the Air Force role. We all lose when a spokesman fails to make this contribution, either by boring or alienating the group—or by missing the opportunity completely.
A constant problem is the speaker’s aptitude in the public arena. The need still exists not to neglect the art of speechmaking! The objective is to communicate our military capabilities and requirements without the cynicism of damning those who oppose or the arrogance of threatening national catastrophe if our needs are not met. Excellent speech material is available in the Aerospace Speech Series, and every general officer should be required to have a 15-minute speech written, approved by Security Review, and ready for presentation with minimum updating. “Have the word—want to be heard” then becomes the byword, and the local IO arranges the appearance. A short, succinct, sincerely delivered speech establishes the background for audience questions, from which emerges public opinion. Direct responses to questions about the Air Force, consistent with security requirements, establish credibility. The speaker must be willing and prepared to answer all questions directly and forthrightly. President Nixon put it this way in his address to the nation on 3 November 1969:
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
The American people welcome dialogue and have traditionally listened to viewpoints. We must zealously guard against perpetrating pious platitudes; only facts must be used, and they must be framed by a well-briefed awareness by the speaker of Air Force requirements. The need for the public to know the facts has never been greater, and the obligation to tell it like it is has never been more pressing. We cannot, in good conscience, blame the public for their lack of understanding.
And no matter how much we may seek scapegoats in the press or on TV, in the Congress or on the university campuses, there is finally one inescapable explanation for this lack of understanding. We do not need to look far to find who is remiss.
The time for self-delusion is past. Information Officers all over the Air Force keep track of and file reports on the speeches and public appearances made by generals and other senior officers. A casual look at the reports would seem to show speech after speech lulling us into the comfortable notion that we are truly communicating. But a second look shows that our spokesmen are speaking almost exclusively to audiences composed of Air Force officers, dependents, Air Force Association members, military students, aerospace industry officials, and others who already understand and accept our point of view. We are not talking to the public; we are talking only to ourselves. We are not confronting; we are consoling! The question which arises is not is or is not talking but who is listening?
The audiences made up of friends and members of the Air Force are important; we should not ignore them. But we should not delude ourselves that speaking only to them fulfills our responsibility to speak to the public—no matter how many squares it may fill in the official report of the Air Force Speakers’ Program. We are copping out on a responsibility to communicate with people who have no Air Force connection, because those are precisely the ones we need most to reach.
I do not think we are afraid of the truth, but I think we act as though we were. The time to hide is not when the going gets rough. That is the time to be up front, to be seen and be heard. If a visitor from another planet should come to observe what we are doing, he could only conclude that we were cursed with an obsessive death wish—like the mythical lizard that ate its own tail until nothing remained.
To be practical, we all know that even when a senior officer is motivated to speak, he may have difficulty finding the right platform. But help is available for each Air Force speaker from his Information Officer. Getting the right speaker and the right audience together is one of the functions of the IO.
Let’s face a fact of life: If Air Force spokesmen continue to ignore the audiences and publics that lack the surety of acceptance, then those segments of our society will form their opinion about us based on what others say. The consequences are clear. Since bad news tends to dominate news coverage, then good news will rarely be adequately reported to the American public according to present practice. Word-of-mouth communication is traditionally the most effective and valuable of all communication techniques. It is time to respond to the people’s preference to accept information from a known and respected authoritative source. It is also our best hope that the good news will have equal opportunity to be heard.
It has been said in many ways by the concerned leadership of the Air Force. General William W. Momyer, Commander, Tactical Air Command, put it this way in a letter to his subordinate commanders dealing with public attitudes toward the military:
A major cause of the problem seems to be a combination of diminishing mutual understanding and blurred communications. . . . It is a problem that we must recognize and do everything possible to solve.
Let me address you, a valued reader, as an individual. There is one spokesman you should develop for the Air Force, and that is you, yourself. No one else in the world can speak as authoritatively as you can about what you are doing for the United States now. The American people welcome the opportunity to be told the facts about how the Air Force is conducting its role in national defense. We must tell our story so as to be responsive to each audience’s interests, factual with regard to the subject matter, and in timely recognition of the opportunity. Achieving this will, in my opinion, get us back on the right track to have people start listening when an Air Force representative starts talking.
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
Colonel William R. Edgar (M.B.A., Harvard University) is Commander, 4500th Air Base Wing, Langley, AFB, Virginia. During World War II he was a pilot and light bombardment instructor. He has served as NATO Operations Staff Officer; in Personal Retention Division and Selection Board Secretariat, DCS/P, Hq USAF; in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force as Liaison Officer to the House of Representatives; and as Director of Information, Tactical Air Command. He is a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
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.
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor