Here’s an addition to the Banned Words list: transparency.
PAOs talk about the importance of being transparent with the media and American public. Why?
We in the military (like any functioning organization with a goal) strive to share true, relevant, and releasable information, but that doesn’t make us a transparent organization. Rather, we are purposefully, unapologetically translucent.
Every organization has bias. Even the credible, truthful ones like the U.S. military use judgment and context to filter what we share with the world.
PAOs and communicators help control the filter. Say too much, and you’ll cost your commander options and decision space. Don’t say enough, and your organization will lose credibility, partners, buy-in, and understanding.
Three reasons the semantics here matter to me:
- We communicators should recognize our nuanced responsibility to protect and share information in service to the mission. If the answer was always “transparency,” we wouldn’t need PAOs to bring situational understanding or judgment or the table.
- “Transparency” is a false promise, which journalists know we can’t and won’t ever fully follow through on.
- Your staff peers (intel, ops, your friend the SJA, etc.) likely don’t care about transparency, even though they may believe in credibility, honesty, and accountability. The word “transparent” scares people in the JOC, rightly so, because it implies you’re not going to act as a filter.
Important distinction: translucency is not deceit. We tell the truth, if and when the filter tells us doing so is in the interest of our organization’s credibility, mission, resources, authorities, and operational support. And when it would be inappropriate for us to share something with the public, we offer whatever true context we can, but nothing more.
(Photo by Sgt. Jonathan Thomas, DVIDS)
