Read on Twitter
THREAD: There's been a big @DefenceHQ push against negative media coverage today. However, none of it has actually disputed the alleged facts being reported.
Take the below tweet - no media coverage has said the British Army *weren't* 100% recruited last year and c85% for 20/21. https://twitter.com/UrchTyrone/status/1358120124096667655
Take the below tweet - no media coverage has said the British Army *weren't* 100% recruited last year and c85% for 20/21. https://twitter.com/UrchTyrone/status/1358120124096667655
Take this tweet: the second half is a bit irrelevant - again, it's not actually disputing anything in the coverage.
The first half begins "contrary", but then proceeds to say nothing which actually counters the data these media reports are hinging from. https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1357971013280137217
The first half begins "contrary", but then proceeds to say nothing which actually counters the data these media reports are hinging from. https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1357971013280137217
Hear me out for sec: if the media gets hold of data which says that the Army lacks personnel, it will frame this as a bad thing.
The MoD can then either dispute the underlying data and claim that it's wrong/out of date, OR dispute the way in which the data is being presented.
The MoD can then either dispute the underlying data and claim that it's wrong/out of date, OR dispute the way in which the data is being presented.
In this case, it would appear that the @DefenceHQ line is: "the way this data is being presented by the media is misleading, all is fine, things are on the up, we're recruiting lots of people, yada yada yada."
That's fine, but you can't you can't then frame your narrative as fact checking, or say things like "don't believe everything you read."
There is not a single sentence in any media coverage I've seen which the MoD appears to be disputing or explicitly stating as untrue.
There is not a single sentence in any media coverage I've seen which the MoD appears to be disputing or explicitly stating as untrue.
They are disputing the analysis and response, given by Richard Kemp, @Tobias_Ellwood, etc, but NOT the facts reported by newspapers. That's an important difference.
(Definitions: Crucial here to distinguish between "untrue" and "misleading". You can have a media piece which cites solid, correct data, but portrays it in a way which makes it seem as though something that it is not.)
If you're going to go public with a counter to the media reports, you need to be clear what narrative you're actually pushing.
Are you disputing the underlying facts of the article, OR the way the facts are being presented?
Are you disputing the underlying facts of the article, OR the way the facts are being presented?
A reminder of the core of the article:
-32 out of 33 infantry battalions are below requirements
-1st Bn Scots Guards have just 339 deployable personnel
-Of the 14,984 personnel required for 33 battalions, just 11,301 are actually deployable (a v important metric)
-32 out of 33 infantry battalions are below requirements
-1st Bn Scots Guards have just 339 deployable personnel
-Of the 14,984 personnel required for 33 battalions, just 11,301 are actually deployable (a v important metric)
Everything else is just colour.
Some quotes, some context, a bit of background, you know the drill.
Those three points above are key, and unless you can directly dispute them as facts, you're going to struggle to successfully counter the wider narrative/headlines/analysis.
Some quotes, some context, a bit of background, you know the drill.
Those three points above are key, and unless you can directly dispute them as facts, you're going to struggle to successfully counter the wider narrative/headlines/analysis.
Full disclaimer - I haven't seen the report that the Daily Mail is citing, nor am I particularly interested in whether or not this is some huge scandal (for those who are interested in that, go read @pinstripedline - his blog is great). https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1358013349343203328
I'm simply here to say; we all know the MoD has struggled with having a coherent and successful social media strategy.
This is yet another example of a mini push, presumably coordinated by @DefenceHQPress, which by nature of what it's doing, won't be very effective.
This is yet another example of a mini push, presumably coordinated by @DefenceHQPress, which by nature of what it's doing, won't be very effective.
As pointed out by @PhilipIngMBE, all too often MoD messaging is reactive and defensive, rather than proactive and authentic.
I've been banging this drum for agessss, and to the MoD's credit, things are getting better. BUT there's still a whole lot of room for improvement.
I've been banging this drum for agessss, and to the MoD's credit, things are getting better. BUT there's still a whole lot of room for improvement.
As ever, if I’m completely missing the mark here, feel free to say so. This is a discussion - it shouldn’t be an echo chamber.
