Comments for Feed me, Seymour!

Feed me, Seymour!

2009-01-12T13:21:05Z

Okay, the new task I have sits me in a secure facility, on systems with lots of web filters and a pretty stout user policy, and is near-real-time war work. Which has crimped me. Really crimped me when it comes to direct participation in things like the Blogger's Roundtables. Sitting out in the car on a cell phone ain't a conducive atmosphere, and, in fact, my current situation is one of those things that limit bloggers as replacements for the MSM... since so very very few of us make a living at it, and another reason this is a group blog...

All of which is a whine to set up this swipe at my ol' buddy Noah Schachtman, who, apparently, doesn't feel compelled to shill his stuff to me, expecting, somehow, that I'll read it or something. Okay, he makes a living at this stuff, he doesn't need to shill it out. But good golly gee, no one else dropped me a line about it either!

The Air Force, other than Noonan at Op-For, has started to show up on the blogosphere - and, in classic Air Force fashion, they've got charts 'n darts!

No, seriously! But you'll have to click the "read more" button to see it.

Be polite, tell the truth, be supportive, and don't hang around with haters, and tell Mom if you run into really nasty kids.

OSD and the Army have arguably done the best job of blogger outreach, clumsy as it's been sometimes, especially on the recruiting side of things. In the recruiting sphere, the Army understands blogs might be useful, but because they don't really understand bloggers and how they work, they haven't come up with a good, functional way to leverage them. And, in truth, it may well just be that the best way to leverage bloggers (vice maintaining their own social media presence) may be buying ads.

But the Defense Department (OSD) and Department of the Army (DA) Public Affairs people are trying hard to figure it out, just as we're trying to figure out our relationship with them, which is really much more complex than the traditional media's relationship. Those complexities make a lot of old school PAO types throw up their hands and walk away - and counsel the services to do so, as well. Jack Holt (OSD) and Lindy Kyzer (DA) have their own internal battles they have to wage, as they flex, adapt, and educate.

The COCOMs, the Combatant Commands, in the form of CENTCOM, actually led the way - not unusual, they guys at the relative tip of the spear usually have the greatest need to innovate.

The Navy seems mostly content to let this happen via OSD (though I may just not be a target of Navy PA shops) but they've taken the big step of treating bloggers as typical embeds, at least in terms of non-combat access. There was the recent embark opportunity on USS Kearsarge, and the upcoming embed opportunities aboard USS Nashville off of Africa and USNS Comfort in the Caribbean (but ya do hafta get yourself to the ports on your own dime, just like the big boys do - except the big boys have expense accounts...).

It's significant that most of this stuff is handled by... junior-to-midgrade officers and civilians. First - it indicates that while they're taking us seriously, they're not taking us too seriously, which is okay - because frankly, the younger, more junior folks understand this stuff better.

So, the Air Force hits the field with Captain David Faggard, who is the AF point man. Not surprisingly, the AF splash comes in the form of offense, not defense. Mind you, they've been playing defense, and in hardball fashion, for years, and there is some irony in their offense.

The offensive comes with the publication of a Counter-~~terrorism~~, ~~bad publicity~~, -Blog strategy, in which Airmen are trained to Orient, Observe, Decide, and Act on blogs. Colonel Boyd would be bemused, but then dig into it, I'm sure. They have guidance on how to do it, too. And rather than write a manual, they produced a flow chart, which I'm sure is now posted by every PC in Zoomieville...

I think it's a pretty good chart. Please weigh in if you think otherwise. (Here's a slightly easier to read version)

If it's good news, just leave it be or reinforce it. Don't engage "trolls" and "ragers," rather, observe and report. This is sound advice, as engagement on those guys and gals just feeds 'em and makes 'em happy to have another target - and they aren't really interested in your opinion unless it aligns with theirs, anyway. As they'll tell you in scatological detail, along with their blogpeeps.

Interestingly enough - the "Misguided" and "Unhappy Customer" categories... heh. That's where a lot of bloggers fit, as unhappy customers and thinking "the other guy" (choose your villain) is misguided...

Dusty already follows this guidance, either in comments or in email to me, when his beloved Air Force is pinged in these halls. Sometimes rather tartly, I might add...

But Dusty - have ya reported us to HQ yet?

If anything is going to give the paranoiac wing of the Blogosphere, Left and Right, pause, it's that block. Report the Trolls and Ragers to HQ. Heh. That's precisely a part of the job of the PA guys, however, to track the negatives, and to counter where appropriate, not just to push the positive.

Anyone notice how the chart pretty much just codifies, in blog-terms, the same stuff your mother, Elementary, and Sunday school teachers tried to impress upon you? There's nothing new in there but terms.

Be polite, tell the truth, be supportive, and don't hang around with haters, and tell Mom if you run into really nasty kids.

Comment from SangerM on 2009-01-14

2009-01-15T04:14:48Z

So, so, SO sadly typical of the AF, which tends to overthink everything and endlessly bogs itself down in trying to define the rules to the n'th degree before it ever gets out of the starting gate! You have no idea how UNFUNNY and salt-in-the-woundish this is to me!

Rules!!! Rules are what matters, not the reasons for them, not the purpose for the mission, not the objectives, just the Rules! This is not an organization (not in my experience anyway) that understands "get the job done the smartest, fastest way possible" even if it breaks a few rules. If it had been the modern AF at Mobile Bay instead of Farragut, history would likely have recorded "Damn! Torpedoes! Pile on as much steam as authorized! But first do a risk analysis and don't exceed our monthly coal allotment!"

Sound bitter? A little. The AF is chock full of really good, really decent, and mostly very competent people, but the slavish adherence to rules is just mind boggling to me. I get it that planes require careful maintenance and people die and missions fail when that's not done, but everything is not life or death and some rules are just guidelines or they are just plain stupid. Doesn't matter, though. Rules is rules and that's all there is.

And I love that this is being handled by the "emerging technology division" as if blogs were just invented. Heck, most blogs are blocked by the AF net nanny anyway, as is any website that uses cold fusion to deliver content (anything with .cfm endings), and even alltheweb.com, which is owned by Yahoo, I think. I'm surprised they let Wikipedia in....

Yeah, I'm impressed.

Comment from Argent on 2009-01-14

2009-01-14T13:15:18Z

Well at least you didn't say damsel is distress. Though the juxtaposition is a worry.

I guess this is a reasonable guide though I wonder how much flexibility would be permissible and practicable. All the same it looks rather obvious to me. I think unless something adds then the KISS principle should apply.

No not the bad makeup KISS.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-01-14

2009-01-14T13:02:25Z

Unless the Air Force has taken a huge swing away from how hierarchical organizations (especially on the institutional, vice operational side) approach these things - it is certain this is a "Colonel-in-disguise" - because Captain Faggard didn't get this out without running it by a Colonel, or bigger chunk of nickle-coated-tin.

The good Captain is the "fainting goat" put out to lure the wolves away from the sheep.

Comment from Rivrdog on 2009-01-13

2009-01-14T00:21:01Z

The chart has "Satire" lumped right in there as uber-bad, right under the "Rager" heading in a RED box.

The chart is a typical brass-hat response. Capt. Faggard is either "Captain (Forever) Faggard" or he is a Colonel in disguise, but don't confuse him with someone young and "with it". Satire, for the Captain's information, is an INTELLIGENT response of a HUMOROUS nature. Satire is NOT to be confused with anger, which the Red Box means to warn against, so I proclaim the chart faulty and in need of a complete start-over. The Air Force could use this policy to bring some actual smarts to the fore, to the betterment of the entire Service, but not as THIS is written.

Give the Air Force some credit for trying, but a failing grade for the quality of their guidance.

Rivrdog
(Squadron Comsec/Opsec Officer in earlier times).

Comment from AFSister on 2009-01-13

2009-01-13T16:56:34Z

But Grumpy... FACTS are not allowed in the Air Force! You know that!
;-)

Comment from Justthisguy on 2009-01-12

2009-01-13T03:41:23Z

So, where is the link to the canonical list of Air Force jokes? I speak as the former executive officer of the AFROTC band at Ga. Tech, in 1969, or so. We were considered silly by the naval ROTC people, and the Army ROTC people, who actually marched to drill, with band, and road guards, and rifles, and everything. They were right; we _were_ silly. I'm sure there are plenty of non-silly, kewl&manly AF types (Michael Z. Williamson comes to mind) but sorry, AF guys, there is a wide-spread perception among the other services that the AF has serious silliness issues.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-01-12

2009-01-12T18:27:31Z

Please help a dumb old vet. What happens when reality breaks out? You can not push it into any of these boxes. This is especially true in this post-9/11 World, where the POTUS stands up and tells us, "I want you to think outside the box." Now the Air Force writes a directive and we have a Presidential directive which contradict each other. Please tell me which one do we disobey? I should say something like, Please submit a "Reasons and Basis Document" for your opinion.

@Mrs G Re: comments 12 JAN 2009 10:54AM and 10:57AM- About your "juvenile comment" and your question of being RAGER or MISGUIDED. First, don't let me rock the boat, can't have that type of behavior. My answer would be this- If this is the captain's name, your comment is NOT juvenile, nor RAGING nor MISGUIDED. WARNING- I'm going to use a new term, the term is the word, "FACT". Now, my problem is where do I put them in this [REDACTED] flow chart..

Lighten up and have some fun. Life is shorter than you think.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-01-12

2009-01-12T18:16:02Z

Mrs. G- hopefully under "misguided", although with Obama's plan to remove "don't ask, don't tell"... perhaps "troll" would be better.
heh.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-01-12

2009-01-12T17:24:57Z

I dunno - I'm thinking "Troll" really... Perhaps the good Captain will find this post and let us know his assessment.

Comment from Mrs G on 2009-01-12

2009-01-12T16:57:46Z

BTW does my juvenile comment regarding Capt Faggard fall under RAGER or MISGUIDED?

Comment from Mrs G on 2009-01-12

2009-01-12T16:54:31Z

Well I won't comment on this but I will say that Greyhawk laughed when he saw it. He pretty much summed it up in the photo he used in his link.

I will say, having an AF point man named Capt Faggard, doesn't help any ;P

Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-01-12

2009-01-12T14:31:22Z

Your summary was spot on.

Which HQ should us retirees report to?