Driveby accusations of compromised integrity tend to create smoke
that obscures. It is easy, but it does not do much to advance the cause
of transparency. Pugliese is right that the government is not transparent
enough in defence matters. But spewing random accusations to taint
those in the field does not provide greater transparency, but rather
helps to foster more confusion. It reminds me of what defence
contractors do if they lose a bid--they raise questions about the
process. So, we never can tell if the process is decent since the
losers always shit on it. It may be populist to question the motives of
all elites, but if one listens to these academics and the reporters
they talk to at all, you will find that most just want Canada to do
better. We may disagree on what better means, but those in journalism
and in academia are not motivated by profit.
There is some irony in David Pugliese regularly calling out his media colleagues for not being sufficiently dogged or pure of heart or whatever. What is it? Well, he has set himself up with his Counterspin column in Esprit de Corps as THE defence media critic while being a defence journalist. That seems to be a conflict of interest, which is his go-to criticism of many other people in this space.
Pugliese regularly criticizes his colleagues for not mentioning that some of their interview subjects may receive some funding from the Department of National Defence. Of course, it is unrealistic that in any quick media hit that the journalist will mention all of the funding their subject receives. But there is more to this, of course.
It is the questioning of everyone's integrity. That is what is galling to those who find themselves the subject of these quick driveby's in Counterspin. Yes, folks get $ from DND. To be clear, each university has a research accounting office that ensures that the money is spent on legitimate expenses, and for DND or SSHRC money, that money is never income for the researcher.* This money never goes into the pocket of academics--it pays for the salaries of research assistants, it pays for travel for conferences and workshops, it pays for hosting events, and the like. I am not paying for my kitchen renovation from the money I have received from DND. So, are folks like me going to sell out our views for some research assistant salary? If one suspects that they answer is yes, then read our stuff. Critically evaluate our stances. Just to mention the money is the laziest way to engage in criticism.
Pugs criticizes anyone who is too close to the military. I get that, but he is very close to the military too. Not the institution but to those in it. Where else does he get his leaks? So, he is very dependent on those folks. Does that make his reporting problematic? It kind of depends on the story and the motives of the leakers, doesn't it? Are they all pure of heart? Damned if I know. I wouldn't say that they are all tainted by being military personnel or being upset military personnel. Likewise, I wouldn't say that anyone who meets with those who aren't leaking are either pure of heart or full of ill intent. Again, to evaluate, read the stuff. I read Pugliese's stuff, and much of it is excellent, important, and necessary reporting. Some of it is clearly folks using him to grind their various axes on minor issues that still seem to get on the front page.
I am guessing Pugs would say that we say nice things about the powers that be so that we can get access. Access for what? Not to line our pockets because that is not how academia works. Maybe we want access so that we can learn more, to understand things better, to share those improved understandings with our students, with those that read academic work, and with the public when the media reaches out to us. Again, are we selling bits of our souls so that we can get this access? The way, of course, to answer this is: read our stuff.
One of the reasons this is all so very upsetting is that we live in a time of diminished trust in institutions and expertise. There have been good reasons to distrust government, given how they have handled various crises and have made it hard to access information. However, there are very few non-government voices in the defence and security community. We do not have much of a tradition of relatively non-partisan think tanks. We have various associations that get significant funding from defence contractors. And we have very few journalists who have expertise on defence (Mercedes Stephenson has an MA from a Strategic Studies program!).
This means that academics here get more attention than they do elsewhere. It imposes upon us significant responsibility, so we do disclose on our websites where we get funding. But we do not spend every media hit reporting who funds us. We do not have the time, and, yes, we don't think our views are bought by whoever funds our research and dissemination efforts. Indeed, academics would probably be voted most likely to bite the hand that feeds them. For example, the same year I spent significant effort to get defence $ to fund the Canadian Defence and Security Network, I also spent calling for the Minister of National Defence to be fired.
The CDSN does not receive defence contractor funding. We have had discussions about the perils of funding sources, how to remain independent, and we plan to have future events address the challenges of ethical engagement, building on the work done in the US funded by, gasp, a foundation--Carnegie Corporation of New York. These are important conversations, and we should be having them. But starting from the standpoint that only one man in Canadian defence journalism has integrity is not helpful or informative. But maybe it makes sense if he wants to taint rival sources of information. Of course, that would be speculating about his integrity, and that would be wrong.
* For those who are unfamiliar with academia, when it comes to grants, the way it works is:
- Apply to multiple grants
- Wait. Tom Petty was right, the waiting is the hardest part.
- Grant application is approved by funder. Does not always happen as I keep saying: rejection is inherent in the enterprise
- Get research ethics clearance from university committee. The aim here is largely not to harm our research subjects--the people we interview. These processes were developed after psychologists did bad things to the people they studied (Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram experiment)
- The university receives money
- Fund research assistants, organize events, arrange travel, etc.
- Be reimbursed (one can sometimes get advances) for money spent on planes, trains, automobiles, hotels, per diems (usually something like $70/day for meals) with the aforementioned research accounting offices tracking what we spend and rejecting inappropriate expenditures..
- Report on activities and spending.
- Publish and engage the public/media. Sharing our knowledge is one of the essential components of the job.
3 comments:
Fantastic post. It wasn't until my sister earned her Doctorate that I realized how difficult it is to be in academia. Thanks for bringing facts and reason back into the fray.
There are too few people covering defence in Canada to have Pugs out here throwing mud at everyone who does thoughtful and meaningful research. It is a shame and distracts from the much more important conversations we should be having on DND/CAF transparency. I didn't think much of a national govt labelling a journo, but Pugs' reaction doesn't sit well with me. Shouldn't he have done his research before attacking academia? Maybe he should ask for a research assistant or two?
'Read your stuff'? I stumbled across your tweets which led here. Discovered Stephanie Carvin similarly. I assume communication within academia works; that this blog was directed to journalists, not me - ten years retired and losing interest in the problems of the world.
This blog is aimed to academia and beyond. We do produce a lot of stuff so it is hard to keep track. Some do blogs, some have podcasts, some tweet, and some simply do the old stuff of academic articles/books. My basic claim is that before one judges if we sold out, read what we write and say whether it is on twitter, in our academic publications, or in our interviews with the media.
Post a Comment