Keynote speaker
Mr. Bill Kurtis, CEO of Kurtis Productions, spoke to symposium attendees and CGSC Classes 09-02 and 10-01 on his experiences as a correspondent from 1966 to the present. The majority of his speech addressed his experience in reporting on the effects of Agent Orange on American Soldiers and the Vietnam landscape, although he covered a number of related issues such as the fall of Saigon. During the question and answer session, Mr. Kurtis fielded questions about the impact of technology on the press and objectivity of the press in wartime. When asked how the military could best work with the media community, Mr. Kurtis offered two points, “Utilize the local media,” and “Don’t lose the trust of the media, because it’s impossible to get back.”
Panel Session 1: Forging a Relationship: The Army and the Media
Moderated by Dr. Don Wright (CSI), the panel consisted of two papers, “A Horrible Fascination: The Military and the Media” by Mr. Frederick Chiaventone, noted historical novelist, and “Ethics and Embedded Journalists: Beyond Boundaries of Industry Induced Guidelines on Objectivity and Balance” by Mr. Ron Martz, former embedded reporter and journalism instructor. Mr. Chiaventone presented a general overview of the military-media relationship from the nineteenth century with the intent of highlighting the examples of both antipathy and cooperation between the two institutions. Mr. Martz provided personal insights from serving as an embedded reporter in Iraq as well as teaching journalism to undergraduates. A lively discussion session focused on the issues of ethics in wartime reporting and the decisions that reporters must make in the process of covering the story. Mr. Martz offered his personal observation that complete objectivity was not possible, that human perception is always influenced by a specific viewpoint and experience.
Panel Session 2: The Philippines and the First World War
Moderated by MAJ Clay Mountcastle (CSI), the panel consisted of two papers, “Its Officers did not Forget: The Philippine War, the Press, and the Pre-World War I Army,” by Dr. Thomas Bruscino, School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) and “Conflicts of Interest: Media Ethics and the First World War” by Mr. Jared Tracey, Airborne and Special Operations Museum historian. Dr. Bruscino’s presentation highlighted the controversies surrounding harsh counterguerrilla methods employed by U.S. Soldiers in the Philippines and the media outrage that ensued. Mr. Tracey’s paper outlined the evolution of military censorship during WWI and the reaction of military officers. Both presentations underscored the fact that, before the event of WWII, the military and the media were often at odds. The short question and answer period focused on the partisan nature of the print media at the turn of the century.
Panel Session 3: The Vietnam War
Moderated by LTC Scott Farquhar (CSI), the panel consisted of two papers, “Generals Westmoreland and Abrams Meet the Press: What Went Right and What Went Wrong with Media Relations in Vietnam,” by Dr. William Hammond, Center of Military History and “The Viet Cong Assault on the US Embassy at Tet and the Military Media Controversy it Launched” by Mr. Donald North, independent journalist. This session was attended by 104 personnel. Dr. Hammond covered the varied experiences of commanders in Vietnam in dealing with the press. Mr. North’s paper illustrated the strong impact of Tet on the media coverage of the war and the public sentiment. Discussion focused on the strong and lasting effects of personal rifts between reporters and military figures during Vietnam. During the day, CSI conducted two presentations of its Virtual Staff Ride, using the Operation Anaconda scenario. Both presentations were well received by the varied audience that attended. Mr. Kurtis was especially taken with the presentation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mr. Kurtis' view and tip about "don't lose the trust of the media because you will never get it back," seems to me a very absolutist and pessimistic view of the relationship between the media and the military. The comment seems to suggest that to work well together both sides (media and the military) should work to foster a trusting relationship. I suggest that such a relationship is not necessary. Both sides are professionals and both sides have their own agendas to promote. The media is there to write stories that will generate advertising revenues for them while the military would like to show progress to the American people so that we can continue to count on their support.
ReplyDeleteThere is still some element of "distrust" for some of the military about the media (i.e. that we will not get a fair shake, that the story will be slanted to be sensational and negative for us.), but we bear it because we live in a free society who has a free press and although some of us may not trust the media we are still professionals and will do our jobs because that is what is expected of us by the American people who we serve. So, Trust is not a necessary component for a relationship with the media. Truth is.
I appreciate Mr. Kurtis' willingness to spend time with us and share his experiences. Overall, I believe his presentation was well received. His points were consistent with, and reemphasized those from the media panel and the C141 block.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, his review of the Agent Orange coverage reinforced the usefulness of the media to the military and what a powerful tool it can be, even when operating from local channels.
His message highlighted the need for us to actively seek out opportunities to put our stories in front of the American people, both to mitigate misunderstandings and ensure the public gleans an accurate picture of the issue.
The presentation also reflected how tactical level decisions, can have strategic level impact, so it tied in well with other non-media blocks of instruction, such as the C110 module as well.
If Mr. Kurtis provides a similar presentation for future classes, I would recommend elimination of the prison inmates clip from A&E. Though probably not intended, I believe a few people were offended by both the images and the content.
Maj William Roberts SG 18D
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Mr. Kurtis provided his candid insights as related to his prolific career in media. Points to remember include his advice for military leaders to build relationships with media personnel. It's likely safe to say he meant professional relationships only, as friendships with media personnel may lead to "off the record" comments and thus unwanted celebrity. Networking with media personnel may assist military leaders in getting the right message out to the right people at the right time.
ReplyDeleteMr. Kurtis also addressed the critical issue of credibility. Ideally, the media must maintain credibility in order to survive continuous public scrutiny. The military should maintain credibility with the people, both here and abroad, in order to accomplish today's complex missions with the desired endstates.
MAJ Michael J. Hickman, SG 13A
Mr. Kurtis's overall presentation illustrated three key points 1) develop a positive relationship with the media, 2) never sacrifice your credibility with the media and 3) know your operational environment. The last one was not stated, but clearly evident with his vague and often incoherant babbling, as well as his extremely distasteful prison clip. The last lingering memory I will have of this keynote speaker is of Speck in his "blue panties" and "man boobs". I felt that this clip was extremely unprofessional and Mr. Kurtis should not be allowed to present to future classes. I would completely disagree with my peer's statement above that Mr. Kurtis was well received. I had to re-read the book on resilency to perservere through the mental imagery seared into my mind.
ReplyDeleteMAJ Gavriluk SG 17C
Unlike most of my classmates, I think I learned a lot from Mr. Curtis’s presentation. He really helped to develop my public speaking skills yesterday, and next time I have a speech to make, I’ll use his patented “Bill Curtis 10-Easy Steps for Public Speaking” method:
ReplyDeleteStep 1: Blow off any prior preparation about your topic. Don’t even think about coming up with any organized, coherent, and relevant thoughts that will interest your audience. You are getting paid either way, so just wing it.
Step 2: Warm up the audience with a lame dirty joke. This joke should be totally un-funny and contain language that is wholly inappropriate for a coed professional setting. Bonus points if you can offend multiple ethnicities, religious minorities, and women all in the same sentence.
Step 3: Remember the three “R”s- Ramble, Ramble, Ramble. Make sure your speech is as disjointed and illogical as possible. Test the resiliency of your audience by seeing how many are still awake at the 45 minute mark. Bring video or multimedia to help out with your presentation, but forget to use it until the end of the speech. If this video is relevant to your topic, do not tie it in or explain it.
Step 4: Never be afraid to indulge in sheer and utter narcissism. You are a celebrity who makes commercials for a living, so it is all about you, and don’t you let the audience forget it.
Step 5: Broach a topic that might be relevant to your audience about 2 minutes before you close your speech up. You want to give them something, but you got to leave them wanting more.
Step 6: Take questions, but don’t actually answer any of them. Just tap dance around for a minute or so, and then bring the conversation back to your command theme of “me, me, me…..”.
Step 7: At this point there will probably be a few audience members who you haven’t insulted or bored to death yet. Finish up your speech by throwing out something is totally irrelevant and completely offensive, like a good shocker video - the more distasteful, the better. Snuff films and gay porn work well for this.
Step 8: For an encore, throw out one more crass insult as you leave the stage. The audience always finds it amusing when you insinuate that certain respected members of the group are a bunch of sexually deviant homicidal sociopaths. Trust me, you will have them rolling in the aisles.
Step 9: Squander a golden opportunity to impress your audience or effectively communicate relevant information and life experience with them at all. Do your best to not represent your profession well. Make sure the audience leaves the room knowing that you are a tactless, unprofessional, and sophomoric dolt.
Step 10: Collect your paycheck, and give yourself an upgrade to first class on the way home. You’ve earned it!
Regards,
MAJ Craig, SG 17C
I don’t think that I necessarily agree that Mr. Kurtis’ presentation was without value to the class. We may have heard most of the valuable information before, but there were still a few things for us to take away.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the prison video was a poor choice, as it was completely irrelevant to our topic and inappropriate as well. The Agent Orange videos were probably also unnecessary, though they did tie in to his history with the story. His experience in breaking the story of Agent Orange shows that the media can have a positive influence on the military.
I agree completely that the media is only as good as its last story—this is a double-edged sword as this applies equally to the military as well. As he stated, once you lose the trust of the media and public, you are doomed. If your last story is exposed as a lie, half-truth, embellishment, etc., you are in serious trouble.
The use of local media as he suggested is not necessarily an easy fix. For National Guard or Reserve units that are generally drawn from a specific area, local media will probably have much greater interest in a story. A regular Army unit, that comes from all across America, might not be able to draw local media interest.
I think that Mr. Kurtis probably has many interesting stories to tell, and his manner of speech was easy to listen to. However, I don’t know how much value his presentation had, and I am not convinced that having a well-known journalist is valuable in and of itself.
Mr. Kurtis may be a great journalist and his account of how the Agent Orange story was broke was fascinating, I don't think he contributed anything that help me do my job better.
ReplyDeleteIf intention for bringing in journalists is to promote better relationships between the media and the military, then I don't think it is paying very big dividends. One of the biggest devides between the military and the media is the perception that the media is negatively biased against the military. Every journalist confronted with this problem so far has answered it the same way. They have all said that they and all the journalists they know are most concerned with doing a good job and getting to the truth. They acknowledge our concerns but ultimately deny a bias exists.
I do not disbelieve the honesty of the journalists who have spoken to the college but I am not satisfied by their answers.
I think it might be more productive to get an academic who has studied the media to come in and talk about how the media works and why they make some of the choices they make. This would provide a so-called neutral party to come in and try to take some of the wind out of the arguments about media bias. If the academic could even provide numbers from different studies on the media to see how balanced some reporting can be.
I am already tired of listening to journalists come in and give the same answer to the same questions. Let's change up the format and the debate.
I agree Laine that there is still some distrust with the Media, I respected Mr. Kurtis’ experiences as a correspondent during the Vietnam War and his perspectives on investigative journalism and appreciated his candor. I believe that the relationship between the military and the media has improved over the past decade and will continue to improve as leaders and Soldiers see the benefits of engagement as opposed to media avoidance. We have learned the hard way how important it is to maintain a connection to the American Public.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked the depiction of the process it took to move a piece of film from country to show during the Vietnam era. It was interesting to hear the expensive and tedious manner used then as compared to the real time technology used today.
I also agree that we could have done without the Prison clip at the end; although if he did it to create discussion, it distracted from is overall message and the majority of the class could not get past it.
MAJ JEFFREY A. LOVELL, SG11D
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
I have seen the word "truth" bandied about throughout this blog. I did not attend the presentation, but hope that each blogger realizes that the truth (with few exceptions) is constructed based upon your point of view...the CJCS has noted as much today in his comments on strategic communication. A critical chasm between the military and the media is that the military ALWAYS thinks they are the "good guys"...the truth is that we are not always the good guys from someone else's perspective...
ReplyDelete