Familiarity Breeds Contempt? What the Australian Defence Force Thinks of its Coverage in the Australian Media, and Why

Abstract

This article offers the first empirical study of the origins, nature and effects of Australian Defence Force (ADF) opinions about the Australian media's coverage of Defence issues and ADF operations. It summarises the history of fractious military–media relations in Australia, and looks at the principal contributors to the current antipathy between the parties. It argues that while the media routinely denounce the military's motivations in its dealings with the fourth estate, they have no means of understanding its rationale, as until now there has been no empirical analysis of what the military thinks of the media's treatment of it and how these opinions have been shaped. The article then presents and examines the results of its survey of the 2011 intake at the Australian Command and Staff College. From an analysis of these results, it proposes why the ADF has such a low opinion of Australian media coverage of the armed forces, and examines the consequences of these opinions for current and future military–media relations.

More connected, less attached: Factors shaping junior ranks’ perceptions of the Australian media’s coverage of the Australian Defence Force

“…On the evidence of these figures, the present sample makes less use of the mainstream media (commercial broadcasting excepted), accesses the news less regularly, is more likely to do so via social/online sources and is correspondingly more inclined to regard friends and family as a major influence on their perceptions of the media than were the respondents to Foster and Pallant (2013). In detail, the study found a significantly higher proportion of defence force members who access the news every few days (18.9% compared to 4.4%), access it through the social/online sources (19.9% compared to 6.5%) and list friends and family as major influences on their own media perceptions (27% compared to 14.1%).…”

“…While the respondents in the sample are younger, more male, more junior and more army than the organisation as a whole, these apparent limitations can actually be regarded as strengths as their responses offer the first credible data reflecting the views of the ADF's rank and file about Australian media coverage of defence issues and ADF operations. The insights from the current sample gain added depth when compared with the data from Foster and Pallant (2013). These comparisons help illuminate the meaningful continuities with, and differences between, the media that the officer elite and the ordinary ranks use to access news, and by what channels and how often they access them, thus offering a deeper insight into how and by whom the other ranks' opinions about the Australian media's coverage of defence issues and the ADF have been formed.…”

“…Table 3 details the key demographic and service information about the present sample and identifies the principal differences between the respondents to this study and those of Foster and Pallant (2013) -differences of age, gender, arms of service and rank. Three main differences are clear between the sample profile of this study and that of Foster and Pallant (2013) and are marked in the table by bold text -the current sample is younger, lower-ranked and drawn more predominantly from the Army. Given that the questionnaire shaping this study was distributed to personnel in the field it is no surprise that it is heavily skewed towards a younger, more junior sample.…”

“…In illustrating how and by whom the rank and file's views about media coverage have been informed, and the nature of these views, these data provide important information to the ADF about the optimal media and most effective channels through which it might communicate with and shape the opinions of the various constituencies it serves -its own personnel, the government and the public at large. Table 4 displays a comparison of media consumption habits between this study sample and that of Foster and Pallant (2013). Bold text denotes a significantly higher result for one of the two comparison studies.…”

“…The final significant difference lies in the sample's arm of service. Where the service affiliation of respondents to Foster and Pallant (2013) roughly corresponded with the broader distribution of personnel within the professional ranks of the ADF in 2011 (49.5% Army, 30.8% Air Force, 18.7% Navy), this study is more heavily skewed towards the Army (76.2%) with the Air Force's representation reduced by a third (19%) and the Navy's almost wiped out (2.6%). The reasons for this are clear.…”