The following letter came in answer to my editorial of last issue. I have to agree with the writer's comments - I was guilty as he charges! In any case his observations on the subject will give us all a better insight into the wargaming P.R. problem and are so to the point that I decided to present them as a sort of "Guest Editorial". Mr. Shaughnessy is currently Creative Director of an advertising agency and has won his industry's highest award, a CLIO, and wargames in Ancients, Napolionic land & Naval and WW II. ED
Bulwer-Lytton, Richelieu
Let's face facts for a minute. A match between a Flair felt tip pen and a 15mm French calvary saber is no contest. In the hands of even the greenest journalist, the Flair can effectively write off the sword every time. In light of this, I'm afraid that your "Vanguard" editorial (Volume 1, Number 3) on unfair press coverage accomplished very little in the way of resolving the problem, as you saw it. Why? Because you were guilty of the same excesses of which you blamed the news media. An example:
"Have you ever noticed how they (the news media) ALWAYS feature the 'Fringe element'"ÄMY emphasis.
Your attack on all the media in this manner was as senseless, and unjustified, as those you recorded at the hands, pens, microphones, and cameras of the press. As a media insider, I can easily understand why our hobby invites such a distorted view of itself.
A reporter, like everyone else, is, in most instances, just trying to do his or her job. This means taking the line of least resistance whenever possible. Realize, for a moment, that the assignment of covering a bunch of grownups who play with toy soldiers doesn't rate on the same level as the Watergate Break-In, the Pentagon Papers, or even a two alarm fire to your average reporter. This is the person who ultimately must find an interesting angle or twist to each assignment. So in his or her zeal, or lack of it, which ever the case may be, sensationalism is mistaken for imagination. The result of this is often an expose on:
"The Warmongers Among Us."
The question to be asked really is "what do we intend to do to correct this situation?" The answer is not to chastise the press. Like us, their first reaction to an attack is to become defensive. An advocacy relationship will do little to remedy the problem. What is needed is information, not accusations. Attacks such as the one you launched in your "Vanguard" column can win a skirmish, and lose the war, if you follow my drift. The basic discrepancy would still exist long after we're through patting ourselves on the back.
We want, seek, and crave press coverage of our campaigns; our "Little Wars." Like a glory-hungry general after the all-important victory, we throw caution to the wind and sacrifice all for a few fleeting moments in the spotlight. Most interviews concerning our hobby occur at our invitation. We invite disaster, then complain vehemently when the inevitable unfolds.
Your suggestion of requesting text approval is sound, but unrealistic in the time frame of many "feature" situations. Such assignments, contrary to our expectations, are not hot topics, but strictly fillers; something to fill out the waning moments of a newscast, or to justify the extra pages of advertising in a newspaper. Such assignments are often spur of the moment things, pushing deadlines. A better idea is for us to formulate a plan before the battle is joined, and then to stick to it in the heat of the interview.
Rudyard Kipling formulated a list of the basic elements any well-structured news story should contain. They're known as "The Five W's", and any first year journalism student should be able to recite them by heart: 1. Who? 2. What? 3. When? 4. Where? 5. Why?
These are the questions any article or feature should answer. And they also happen to be the starting point for developing our strategy: Who are you? What do you do? Where and when is it done? Why do you do it?
All of us have, at one time or another, answered the questions of someone unfamiliar with our hobby. Try to recall what you were asked at that time: How did you get started war-gaming? How do you determine a hit? Where do you find the rules? Do you play for the challenge, or an interest in history, or what? Do you just recreate actual battles, or do you design your own?
Write the questions, and your answers, down. Rehearse your responses, using them as a guide for structuring the interview in your favor.
It's not enough to say, "here we are; do a story on us." With that attitude you're throwing yourself at the interviewer's mercy, trusting his or her discretion about what makes an interesting story about your organization. We must accept the responsibility, as well as the credit, for our actions, behavior, etc. In every instance where wargaming groups have prepared beforehand, the results have been gratifying. The following are just a few examples:
Atlanta Journal/Constitution Sunday Magazine, December 3,1972: Cover story, "Please Don't Call Them Toy Soldiers", a five page, favorable report on the Atlanta War-gaming Society.
Dallas Morning News Weekend Entertainment Guide, April 22, 1977: Cover story, "War Games People Play or War Is Heck." A two page center spread article on the growth of the war-gaming phenomenon in Dallas.
Sunday Cleveland Plain Dealer Magazine, October 16, 1977: Cover story, "War Games", and TEN PAGES inside, including a sample war game prepared by Simulations Publications, Inc. Probably the best mass media report on the background and current status of the hobby. The article included a lot of history and insights, thanks to Sam Kanai, editor of the Northern Ohio Wargaming Society's bi-monthly newsletter, and Tom Hawley, a NOWS member.
Dallas Times Herald, March 2, 1978: Half page article, "War Games: A Chance To Fight Your Own Battles." Favorable update on wargaming in Dallas.
Time Magazine, July 31,1978: American Scene, one page article, "In Ann Arbor: The Guns Of July." Favorable, but brief, microcosm of hobby. I
n a couple of these articles the tone was slightly condescending, but the final appraisal of our hobby in each was a far cry from the instances mentioned in your editorial.
Your call-to-arms was ill-advised, in structure if not intent. Nobody requests food, then bites the hand that feeds them, to employ a cliche. You were right when you suggested that our hobby needs the equivalent of a P.l.O. (Public Information Officer). There also needs to be a recognized central clearing house of information, covering our activities, organizations, etc.
You can't demand respect. You earn it, through information and achievements. I've seen this approach work. In some instances I was responsible for helping make it work. In my capacity as advertising advisor, I helped Yaquinto Publications, Inc. Iaunch their enterprise. In addition, I have endeavored to improve the visibility and status of our hobby whenever the opportunity presented itself.
In conclusion the best advice I can offer is "know thyself." You can't hope to convey a favorable image of your group if you don't know what your image is.
Sincerely,
Bill Shaughnessy
The Devil's Advocate
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 1 #4
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1979 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com