You must remember Tom, the institutional cultures of the two communities - journalists and the military, are antithetical.

At least you and your colleagues won't have to endure the infamous Five O'clock Follies and hopefully won't hear the now famous line repeated from that era, "We had to destroy the village to save it," or will you? : - o

Tom,

As I've said before, Army Public Affairs takes military public affairs ineptitude to a whole new level of bad.

The Army remains the ONLY service that does not view public affairs as an initial-entry, officer career field. The Navy, USMC and USAF all track their public affairs professionals from the point of commissioning. The Army cobbles together its cadre of public affairs officers from the wretched refuse of who remains in uniform after 7-8 years of active duty commissioned service and who affirmatively opt out of staying in their "operational" career track. At the point that an Army Public Affairs Captain begins the first day of his/her first PA assignment, his USMC and USAF counterparts already have 7 to 8 years of cumulative experience.

What does this mean?

The overall talent/quality of the Army Public Affairs community is objectively lower than that of the other services. The persons best suited to PA work cannot pursue that career field right out of ROTC, OCS or USMA. Of this natural talent pool, how many stay in uniform to even be eligible to become PAOs? Of those that remain, how many good performers opt to remain "operational" in their branch and forgo PAO opportunities - even if their God-given abilities are best suited to that sort of work? Why would solid performers in the Infantry, Intelligence or Logistics choose to derail their career to become PAOs in an Army where promotion to Lt. Colonel is virtually assured regardless of performance or ability?

After watching serial dissemblers in the Army PAO community like COL Bryan Hilferty and COL Steve Boylan over the past few years, I'm continually surprised that its taken people this long to "call out" Army Public Affairs for its performance during OIF and OEF.

does PAO print or television media deadline manipulation really matter?

The only difference between a Military PA official and one in another organization is the uniform. I've seen pundits from both sides complain about the same thing from Treasury, State, and the White House. This isn't a breach of integrity. You got the information. You just didn't get it at a time that was convenient. I am sure that it is annoying. Just realize it is PAs job to protect the Military while not compromising its integrity. In military terms, while journalists are not considered nessesarily hostile, are certainly not considered friendlies. Your interests are not the same interests as ours. You are not dealing with an unbiased source. This means that, while information that could damage the military is given out through PA, it will be done so in such a way as to minimize the damage. This is really no different than newspapers printing corrections in a small block at the bottom of page 12. Smile, tell the guy he's doing a good job of making your work hard, buy him a beer later and, maybe, you might be able to obtain an "unofficial" copy at 8am next time.

The PAOs just don't seem to understand that because an action is allowed - ie. kicking a reporter out - it isn't necessarily beneficial. This is the same problem they've shown with their refusal to declassify gun-cam footage from airstrikes where civilians are alleged to be killed. It's like an entire career field doesn't get COIN.

The military cultivates a hostility to journalists. This is usually just minor ignorance when it's a low-level soldier, but it's downright counterproductive when those tapped to deal with the press have this same perspective.

Cow Cookie,

Good points all around. While many raise the issue of junior PAOs not having basic branch experience, I don't think that anyone can say that the USMC has anything less than a stellar Public Affairs/Media operation. USMC PAOs know their own Corps very well and I don't see rifle company or maintenance company command as a prerequisite.

I have been watching this discussion for several days and I have to chime up as not all the 'facts' presented are correct or at least in the correct context.
First "IRR" I would ask how many deployment AARs you have submitted to substantiate or enter into the professional discussion the shortcomings you note.
The Navy does not access ALL PAOs directly into PA. Look at their Admirals and captains. The navy strategy has been to get an officer either SWO (surface warfare qualified) or AWO and certified on a department BEFORE becoming a fulltime PAO. You can equate this to Army CFD or branch detail. The Marine Corps practiced the same policy-lead marines then become a spokesperson PAO. My deskmate at DINFOS was a marine Captain now USMC PA Colonel. That means the marines in my small group couldn't possibly have had 7-8 years service in PA beyond mine. Similarly, thre were AF Lts and CPTs both in my class. The LTs mainly had been in a wing or squadron PA section for 6 months then sent to DINFOS. ALL the cpatains had been in another AFOSI before coming to DINFOS. Again, a blend of direct commission and warrior experience but mainly the latter.
Secondly, the 'wretched refuse' is absolutely incorrect. Since you refer to one particular officer I wil tell you that the officer CFD boards for his approximate year groups were directly instructed to choose and were given quotas from each of the top 1/3, middle 1/3 and bottom 1/3 of all rater profiles. This was done to prevent just such the occurrence you stated-no one Functional area got all the top 1/3 or all the bottom 1/3. In fact I know of one particular officer that had all top block infantry OERs, rifle and scout platoons, two company commands, selected first look CGSC and usual fruit salad/badge accoutrement for excellence and was taken out of that second command to go involuntarily to PA. So your 'refuse' opinion is incorrect as evidenced by both hard fact (the board instructions) and an example.
I would also ask how you justify the comparison that the 'overall talent/quality' is lower in the Army PAOs than the other services. Your justification infers journalism and photography skills are the differentiation. you are right officers aren' and shouldn't be photographers and journalists. They are planners, operators of the operational art in the information domain. The NCOs are the expert journalists and phtographers and now they are more relied upon as PA planners, coordinators and operators.
And to all who try to blame the PAO for failure to release and provide access and have an overall uncooperative unsupportive mentality I say this: PAOs can not walk out to an AH 64 and pull the guncam footage. They cannot declass (in most cases) anything. They are not the ones who set the attitude of the command for full disclosure and support. THE COMMANDERS SET THE COMMAND CLIMATE AND ATTITUDE IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE PAO. Now do all PAOs get it right? No. Nor do all artillerymen, infantrymen or logisticians. But the commander sets operational goals, the priority of effort and support. I have worked for both Navy and Army flags and PAOs and commands. Yes the navy got it right in support of PA goals and objectives. The Army flags that wanted to 'get out there' only did softballs and Kiwanis clubs and never got the strategic context or processes. The newer flock of BCT and Division commanders are starting to get it. Some of them still don't. But the Petraeus memo was not aimed at PAOs. It was aimed at Commanders to support the PA and media and Public. i could go on and on but bottom line, 'IRR.' Take your personal hatchet to a private venue. If you have real recommendations-then write a credible recommendation and AAR and get it published.