Attitudes twards the media

[marct]

Hi Folks,

In a recent post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=12940&postcount=44) in the What is our message (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2516) thread, I asked


Do you know if anyone has actually studied this [anti-media bias amongst serving troops] (i.e. interviews, focus groups, etc.)? If someone has, I would really like to look at their data. If they haven't, I would like to set up a research project to do so.Well, so far nobody has posted, PM'd or emailed me about such studies.

What I would be interested in knowing is this: If I put such a study together, do people here think that a) it is worth looking at and b) would you be willing to take part in it (anonymously)? Obviously, the study would have to be conducted online.

Marc

[Jimbo]

Marc,

What do you see the end purpose of such a study being?

[marct]

Hi Jimbo,


What do you see the end purpose of such a study being?

Good question, and I should have put it in the original post. Basically, I think that the study can be used to

discover what problems serving soldiers may have with "the media", broadly construed.
why they have these problems
how can these problems be mitigated both inside the forces and inside the media;
what could using "alternate media" ('net based media) do to either mitigate or sidestep problems with the mainstream media.Basically, it's exploratory research: I don't know what the specific problems are, although I have certainly seen a number of posts here that express a lot of anger. I want to find out what the problems are and,if possible, see if people have suggestions and ideas on how to fix them.

BTW, I will also be trying to run a parallel study on problems that the Canadian Forces have with our media - same design but, possibly, different problems / answers.

Marc

[goesh]

Whew! You like to work, don't you? Certainly you should proceed but talk about methodolgy pitfalls and raging variables to grapple with. Sounds like a good joint project for Stat/Anthro/Sociology Grad students....

[Menning]

I'm currently involved in such a study as part of my master's thesis. I've been interviewing students at CGSC to ascertain how field grade officers feel about the media and what role the media should play within the nation and when covering the military. It will be several months before I've finished research and written my conclusions. You are more than welcome to my findings when I'm finished. Feel free to contact me at any time.

[selil]

Marct,

"IF" you want some help....

I think you'll have to do a couple of things to identify bias.

1) How much, what kind, and where do serving military members get their media information.

2) An interesting side lobe in the stats is likely going to be "other military members" as a source of media.

3) They should rate different media formats (to assign bias scores) to particular venues and types of media.

4) It might be interesting to look at particular reporters/celebrities and see if there is a consistent feeling toward a personality versus a medium.

[marct]

Hi Folks,


Whew! You like to work, don't you? Certainly you should proceed but talk about methodolgy pitfalls and raging variables to grapple with. Sounds like a good joint project for Stat/Anthro/Sociology Grad students....

LOLOL One of the key things about doing Anthropology style research is that you have to be flexible in your methods, even if they tend to be mainly qualitative. I fully expect to bring some other people into this project to offer additional takes on how to interpret the results.

There's a style of research called "participatory action research" that uses multiple methods and, at the same time, gets the people who participate in the study as "co-researchers". I fully expect to be using a variant of that.


I'm currently involved in such a study as part of my master's thesis. I've been interviewing students at CGSC to ascertain how field grade officers feel about the media and what role the media should play within the nation and when covering the military. It will be several months before I've finished research and written my conclusions. You are more than welcome to my findings when I'm finished. Feel free to contact me at any time.

Menning, thanks! I am really interested in seeing what you come up with. I hope that yo will be interested (after the thesis is completed :D) in coming in on this one. I will be in contact with you.


"IF" you want some help....

Always!


I think you'll have to do a couple of things to identify bias.

1) How much, what kind, and where do serving military members get their media information.

2) An interesting side lobe in the stats is likely going to be "other military members" as a source of media.

3) They should rate different media formats (to assign bias scores) to particular venues and types of media.

4) It might be interesting to look at particular reporters/celebrities and see if there is a consistent feeling toward a personality versus a medium.

Some really good points here, Selil. I think the importance of rumour (#2), at least in the form of "I read an article in..." is probably crucial. It may not even be in that form, but could be in "synopsis pieces. Definitely something to explore.

I also think you are on to something with the personality vs. medium is one to follow up on.

Marc

[John T. Fishel]

Marc--

Why not go whole hog and do a comparative study of US/UK/Canadian/Australain military attitudes toward media. I suspect that RMC and the Canadian Defence Academy as well as the UK Defence Academy would be interested in funding such a project as would sponsors in the US and Australia.

If I were doing this, my next step would be to draft a research proposal/design and shop it around. An American scholar who might find it interesting is Jim Grunig, Professor Emeritus of Communications and Public Relations at the University of Maryland.

Let me know if and how I can help.

John

[J Wolfsberger]

Marc,

I think it would be very useful. For my two cents, I'd also ask if there is a particular incident they can recall that strongly influenced the attitude.

[goesh]

-then there's relationships/cofactors to wrangle with like accounting for those surveyed who are primarily green zone troops V those non-green zone, correlating stressors to perception of bias like time in country, does that contribute to bias perception or not, it should by all accounts based on common observations being reported/detected, i.e. Ender's comments about some troops preferring to escort insurgents over journalists. Is there a decreased immunity to bias the longer one is in country or not? Who is reading the most news and why? What about a given unit's demographics? Will Iowa Guardsmen for instance be less or more biased than career NCOs and why? This is dissertation material on the statistical aspects alone - talk about walking through a mine field of variables. Run a general survey of those who have been in country V those who have not to build a data base, to generally qualify the assumption that bias exists. Surely to God there will be a 'bump' with those who have been in country.

[Cori]

I agree that this is going to be capturing perceptions only: that of course would be the point, the argument is that knowing how widespread certain perceptions are would be useful knowledge. I think I like the idea of asking about particular newsies, but it certainly makes sense to ask both where they get the majority of their news while at home and when deployed (and what kind of access to news they have had while deployed -- I suspect the answer to that will vary wildly.)

Before the last post went up I was just wondering if it would be possible to ask open ended questions of that sort: did you have a particular first-hand encounter with the press that shaped your attitudes (positive or negative) that you would like to share? And, did you hear about someone else's encounter with the press, and did that story shape your attitudes (positive or negative? If so, would you like to share that story? (Probably need to tell them not to include names for that question.)

Several years ago I did a survey of milblog writers. This was before the big bump in milblogs, and I didn't get enough respondents to really call it more than a series of personal corresponences, but several noted that what prompted their beginning a blog was the desire to correct what they believed was the misimpressions family and friends were getting from the press. You do hear/read that over and over from troops, that when they do get access to the coverage it seems disconnected from their own experience of the war, and some type of question needs to get at whether or not that attitude is really wide-spread (because obviously the blogging community is going to be somewhat self-selected on that score: you don't take that action step unless you're mighty unhappy. Now, a lot of people are that unhappy, the question is how representative they are.)

[marct]

Hi John,


Why not go whole hog and do a comparative study of US/UK/Canadian/Australain military attitudes toward media. I suspect that RMC and the Canadian Defence Academy as well as the UK Defence Academy would be interested in funding such a project as would sponsors in the US and Australia.

I'll be going to RMC on Tuesday to talk with them about possible collaboration, and I will certainly be talking this project up there (thanks again for the contact). I think that the idea of making this a multinational comparative study certainly has a lot of value.


If I were doing this, my next step would be to draft a research proposal/design and shop it around. An American scholar who might find it interesting is Jim Grunig, Professor Emeritus of Communications and Public Relations at the University of Maryland.

Right now, I'm in the very preliminary stages of putting a proposal together: basically finding out if the people in the field think it's worthwhile. Honestly, I feel that if there isn't a fair degree of support from the people in the field, then the research will suffer. I'll be trying to get a very rough draft of the proposal together over the next little bit - mainly research design, and I'll be posting it here for comments.


Let me know if and how I can help.

Input, comments, advice and contacts are always welcome :D! Believe me, John, I will be asking for help from you on this one.

Marc

[Tom Odom]

Marc,

This area has intrigued and worried me sense Stan and I were dodging reporters in Goma.

I put together a newsletter last year on media and media relations under the title Media is the Battlefield. My reasoning in do so was NOT the media is the battle rather that media is a factor on the battlefield one has to deal with like terrain or time. I sometimes get a chance to actively teach and this is one of the points I try and get across: that simple antipathy or open antagonism toward the media is a waste of mental effort. It is rather like hating mountains. Better to learn to walk and climb in the mountains. Better to learn to deal with the media from a centered/neutral view than from a position on either end of the love/hate scale.

Another arena in the military that would be interested in this study would of course be the public affairs community. I would suggest starting at the top with DoD or perhaps the service chief PAOs.

Best
Tom

[marct]

Hi JW,


I think it would be very useful. For my two cents, I'd also ask if there is a particular incident they can recall that strongly influenced the attitude.

Really good point - I will also want to ask about whether it was an "incident" or something that happened to one of their buddies, mentors, teachers or "Captain X" (the mythical "someone"). When I was doing my PhD fieldwork, I actually saw one of these "stories" happen. I knew the people involved and the exact details of what happened and watched the story grow and mutate until it was spread around North America. Within 4 months, he story had been stripped of all personal details and was being used as a "wonder tale".


-then there's relationships/cofactors to wrangle with like accounting for those surveyed who are primarily green zone troops V those non-green zone, correlating stressors to perception of bias like time in country, does that contribute to bias perception or not, it should by all accounts based on common observations being reported/detected, i.e. Ender's comments about some troops preferring to escort insurgents over journalists. Is there a decreased immunity to bias the longer one is in country or not? Who is reading the most news and why? What about a given unit's demographics? Will Iowa Guardsmen for instance be less or more biased than career NCOs and why? This is dissertation material on the statistical aspects alone - talk about walking through a mine field of variables. Run a general survey of those who have been in country V those who have not to build a data base, to generally qualify the assumption that bias exists. Surely to God there will be a 'bump' with those who have been in country.

Hi Goesh - hey mon, I'm not redoing my doctorate!!!!!:eek::eek:

Yeah, you are quite right about all of the things that could make a difference. Years ago, I read a book by Gregory Bateson where he defined information as a "difference that makes a difference". That had a profound effect on my thinking, and it has really influenced how I conduct research. The corollary, of course, is "who does it make a difference for"?

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this for the past 24 hours or so (along with PMing and emails). A lot of the differences don't make much of a difference unless the situation is clearly defined. So that means that context and situation will be king. Loosely translated, I know that I have different perceptions of the same "thing" depending on when I am asked about it and what is going on in my life at the time, and I expect exactly the same thing to happen here. So, we could end up with questions like this for people who did time in the field with embedded reporters:

How much scuttlebutt do you hear about that reporter?
What types of things do you remember coming over the rumour mill?
Did they match what you had heard about them?
Did they ever get into a firefight situation when they were with you?
How did they react?,
etc.The reality is that I won't even know what questions to ask in a survey until I have some preliminary data, probably from focus groups and interviews. It has also been suggested that I should get out into the field myself so that I have a real feel for the situation and dynamics. Personally, I think that's a good idea (although my wife hates it).

Marc

[marct]

Hi Tom,


I put together a newsletter last year on media and media relations under the title Media is the Battlefield. My reasoning in do so was NOT the media is the battle rather that media is a factor on the battlefield one has to deal with like terrain or time. I sometimes get a chance to actively teach and this is one of the points I try and get across: that simple antipathy or open antagonism toward the media is a waste of mental effort. It is rather like hating mountains. Better to learn to walk and climb in the mountains. Better to learn to deal with the media from a centered/neutral view than from a position on either end of the love/hate scale.

I totally agree with your reasoning! I'd love to read your newsletter if it's available.

In a lot of ways, I suspect that there will always be friction in democracies between the military and the media, just from their varying social roles. More and more, I am seeing this project as a way to find out where the "flash points" are between the two, which of them can be mitigated and which ones can't. I think that the entire discussion about personalities and events is probably crucial to this; at least that's what my gut is elling me right now.


Another arena in the military that would be interested in this study would of course be the public affairs community. I would suggest starting at the top with DoD or perhaps the service chief PAOs.

When I can get a decent draft project proposal together on paper, I'll be posting it here for comments. Would you be willing to look it over?

Marc

[pcmfr]

Despite how you feel about the average journalist's politics, they can be valuable tools on a number of fronts. How many military guys can get an interview with an insurgent group? Make friends with journalists and get some of this intel. We can also "use" journalists towards our IO efforts, if done carefully.

[Ender]

I have reread what I wrote here in relation to the whole topic in general and I must admit that I am not an objective source on the matter. I may have been trying to kid myself but the truth is that I do have a very narrow view of the concept and that can't serve this debate very well at all. I am confident that calmer, sounder minds will prevail and I look forward to the finished products of the discussion.

[Cori]

In a lot of ways, I suspect that there will always be friction in democracies between the military and the media, just from their varying social roles. More and more, I am seeing this project as a way to find out where the "flash points" are between the two, which of them can be mitigated and which ones can't.

Keep in mind, there's a vast literature on the history of media-military relations. While in general you're correct, the institutions are going to be tugging at one another to some extent b/c of the nature of the institutions' roles, a relationship that had gone south after Vietnam really seemed to be healed to a lot of people with the institution of the embed program during the combat phase. Over the last four years the wheels have once again come off the wagon, and -- tragically, I'd argue -- the relationship looked at big picture has once again soured.

Now, this isn't just true from the military side. The military as an institution (NOT individual soldiers or units) has seen its credibility with the press badly eroded over the last four years. (And, again, speaking as someone who has been and continues to be a very, very harsh critic of the press, things are not going to be entirely resolved unless the military comes to grips with the fact that there are some legitimate reasons for that to have happened.)

As much as I think the idea of going after a cross-country study makes real sense, I think a major contribution would come from a study that also went after the perceptions of newsies who covered the war in a serious way. The primary difficulty, because organizations (one of the main problems in the coverage, IMHO) have often rotated so many people in for a turn or two who didn't have the background and were just there as sort of "relief pitchers" would be coming up with a careful definition of who's perceptions mattered, who you wanted to define in and who you wanted to define out among the journalists.

For ex, I think there is a very serious, highly professionalized, Pentagon press corps. They cover a different slant of story than the folks actually in Baghdad do. But their perception of the military obviously matters. In or out? Some of the folks in Baghdad have been there for a very long time, or at least have done multiple tours there, but they're more foreign affairs folks than military beat/war correspondents. In or out? What about people who have nothing to do with covering war or the military typically but got sent in because no one else at their network was willing to go and SOMEBODY had to go in to give the Baghdad guy a break? And so on and so forth.

But if you want to get at that idea of flash points, and in partiicular if you're looking for which ones are institutional and which ones are context-driven, coming out of behaviors/events that took place during this war and could be changed, I think you need to survey both "sides."

The argument I make in my work is that there are some aspects of covering this war that are unique, that caught everyone off guard, but which aren't going away, and which therefore have to be grappled with. This would be another way of coming at that.

The other thing is this: I've been a little concerned about how the resulting data might be seen, or used. The environment is now so charged, it's an issue you have to take into account. If you survey both, the findings can be presented exactly as MarkT phrased it above: a critical relationship has become unhealthy, this research is a step towards discovering why, and that's a necessary step towards discovering what can be done to heal that relationship.

[Cori]

If you could get their support, you could go through Military Reporters and Editors (http://www.militaryreporters.org/), and use their mailing list -- that would miss some people, but it would be a start, and give you a right good list of names and addresses at the same time.

[Stan]

Hi Marc !

I pondered over your request with a Saku on Ice (a wonderful Estonian beer :p ) when an American journalist that I've know for a while came in.

He told me to check out Accuracy In Media. www.aim.org

Their mission statement:

Accuracy In Media is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.

Some good blogs and stories there. Sounds perhaps too promising, but figured you could use the help :)

Here's a good short read:

Why We Are Going to Iraq
By Jeff Emanuel and Victoria Coates
April 4, 2007


In our writings here and elsewhere, the two of us have spent a great deal of time, ink, and energy discussing the Iraq war and attempting to convey stories about the mission that can't be found in the mainstream media. We've criticized the quality of the media's own reportage on events in the Middle East. We've pointed out episodes of anti-war bias, ignorance, and outright fabrications ad nauseam, all the while seeking to "correct the record" with a better reflection of events and developments as they actually are, rather than as they appear through the mainstream media's anti-war, anti-Bush prism.

Why have we spent so much time and energy on this pursuit? Because the evidence we see suggests a very different picture of the situation on the ground in Iraq than the one which the media presents day in and day out.

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hi Ender,


I have reread what I wrote here in relation to the whole topic in general and I must admit that I am not an objective source on the matter. I may have been trying to kid myself but the truth is that I do have a very narrow view of the concept and that can't serve this debate very well at all. I am confident that calmer, sounder minds will prevail and I look forward to the finished products of the discussion.

Actually, it was your posts that started the entire idea for this project :D. All too often, the idea of "objectivity" causes problems in social science because people are inherent "subjective". If we deny this subjectivity and don't look for the factors that help to create and maintain subjective impressions, then we (as researchers) have totally missed the ball.

Marc

ps. I know you're back in school now, so if you really want the references for this position they are Alfred Schutz and Thomas Luckmann Stuctures of the Life World vols 1 and 2.

[marct]

Hi Cori,


Keep in mind, there's a vast literature on the history of media-military relations.

Good point, and I'll be counting on you to keep me on track :). Could you shoot me some good references?


As much as I think the idea of going after a cross-country study makes real sense, I think a major contribution would come from a study that also went after the perceptions of newsies who covered the war in a serious way.

I would agree with that. Certainly if we are dealing with a feedback loop surrounding flash points, that would make a lot of sense, and that was certainly the impression I was getting from Ender's post of what was happening.


For ex, I think there is a very serious, highly professionalized, Pentagon press corps. They cover a different slant of story than the folks actually in Baghdad do. But their perception of the military obviously matters. In or out? Some of the folks in Baghdad have been there for a very long time, or at least have done multiple tours there, but they're more foreign affairs folks than military beat/war correspondents. In or out? What about people who have nothing to do with covering war or the military typically but got sent in because no one else at their network was willing to go and SOMEBODY had to go in to give the Baghdad guy a break? And so on and so forth.

I think, and I'm wide open to changes on this, that I would like to leave the selection of in/out criteria to the military personelle at the moment. If we are dealing with a "good reporter" "bad reporter" dichotomy, and I'm not sure if we are, then I think that it would be crucial to have that as a guide. At the same time, your suggestions about concentrating on the press corps and using their typologies is also important.


But if you want to get at that idea of flash points, and in partiicular if you're looking for which ones are institutional and which ones are context-driven, coming out of behaviors/events that took place during this war and could be changed, I think you need to survey both "sides."

I agree. It comes down to a choice on time strategies for the project. Ideally, we do need both perceptual topologies and I think that getting them both will be crucial.


The argument I make in my work is that there are some aspects of covering this war that are unique, that caught everyone off guard, but which aren't going away, and which therefore have to be grappled with. This would be another way of coming at that.

Too true! The prevalence of net 2.0 technologies alone has radically altered the face of the media, probably to the same degree that TV acted in the Vietnam war.


The other thing is this: I've been a little concerned about how the resulting data might be seen, or used. The environment is now so charged, it's an issue you have to take into account. If you survey both, the findings can be presented exactly as MarkT phrased it above: a critical relationship has become unhealthy, this research is a step towards discovering why, and that's a necessary step towards discovering what can be done to heal that relationship.

I agree totally. So, this now comes down to the "how" questions...

Marc

[marct]

Hi Stan,


I pondered over your request with a Saku on Ice (a wonderful Estonian beer :p ) when an American journalist that I've know for a while came in.

He told me to check out Accuracy In Media. www.aim.org (http://www.aim.org)

Some good blogs and stories there. Sounds perhaps too promising, but figured you could use the help :)

I can always use the help, Stan :D. I'll definitely go through their site with a fine toothed comb (I do check it out every now and then).

As you can see, this project is expanding all over the place. From some of the things that Cori, and others, have noted, we are going to have to bring in a complementary component based on the press corp and press coverage. I'm not sure how, just yet, but it will be there.

Marc

[Cori]

Okay, first, if someone can backchannel me how to do the thing where you make it obvious you're quoting someone, I'd really appreciate it.

That said, as I've backchanneled Marc, I think that were we to proceed with a survey of newsies, it would be critical that our criteria for who to survey be set completely aside from any results coming from the military survey. They need to be based on something like self-definitions of "beat" ("do you consider yourself primarily a Pentagon or national security correspondent?") or by empirical criteria, like number of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, or total time in those bureaus. If the point is to simultaneously or near-simultaneously produce these parallel surveys as a way of exploring the attitudes these two groups hold, to look for the "flash points" (to use Marc's term) or the attributions the groups hold that can become the basis for resolving conflict and moving forward ina more productive way, the newsies have to believe they had as much or as little input into their survey as military personnel had in theirs, that it is rigorously fair, and parallel in every way.

My 2@.
cd

[John T. Fishel]

If I were developing this project - I'm not, Marc is - I most likely would not use survey methodology to get at the newsies. This is a rather more limited group than the military and the more influential ones are even fewer. Therefore, I would address them in a series of selected in-depth interviews. This approach would, I think, cut the cost and the time as well as get satisfactory answers.

[marct]

Hi John,


If I were developing this project - I'm not, Marc is - I most likely would not use survey methodology to get at the newsies. This is a rather more limited group than the military and the more influential ones are even fewer. Therefore, I would address them in a series of selected in-depth interviews. This approach would, I think, cut the cost and the time as well as get satisfactory answers.

I think I'm going to defer to Cori on this particular issue. Right now, from what I understand, she is doing exactly the types of interviews you are suggesting for a forthcoming book. In general, you're quite right about the time / cost trade-off of interviews over survey data, but we may be dealing with a special case here with the media due simply to their time constraints <shrug>.

Marc

[RTK]

Okay, first, if someone can backchannel me how to do the thing where you make it obvious you're quoting someone, I'd really appreciate it.

That said, as I've backchanneled Marc, I think that were we to proceed with a survey of newsies, it would be critical that our criteria for who to survey be set completely aside from any results coming from the military survey. They need to be based on something like self-definitions of "beat" ("do you consider yourself primarily a Pentagon or national security correspondent?") or by empirical criteria, like number of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, or total time in those bureaus.

If you're looking for reporters to ask here's a good list:

George Packer, New Yorker
Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal
Tom Ricks, Washington Post
Joe Galloway, Retired (Reuters)
Anne Scott Tyson, Washington Post

Arguably the 5 most current and constant reporters with varying views. I'm sure there are a host of others, but those 5 names immediately came to mind thinking of this.

[SWJED]

If you're looking for reporters to ask here's a good list:

George Packer, New Yorker
Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal
Tom Ricks, Washington Post
Joe Galloway, Retired (Reuters)
Anne Scott Tyson, Washington Post

Arguably the 5 most current and constant reporters with varying views. I'm sure there are a host of others, but those 5 names immediately came to mind thinking of this.

I'd add:

Michael Gordon, New York Times
Rowan Scarborough, Washington Examiner
Bill Gertz, Washington Times
Stan Correy, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

[Cori]

Thank you for the suggested names of journalists, but I have a slightly different question. My sense is that there are two competing pressures pulling at outlets. On the one hand, b/c the price of covering the war is reaching astronomical heights, more and more outlets other than those at the very top tier (the nets, the newsweeklies, the very top dailies) are at least considering pulling the plug on bureaus.

At the same time, smaller reg'l dailies and local TV stations, even when they otherwise may not be very good, feel obligated to provide very high quality coverage of bases and units in their area as part of their mission. For ex, papers in North Carolina which might not be on your list of the top papers in the country routinely provide excellent military coverage b/c there are so many bases in the state, and despite the fact that our local television stations are simply excecreble, there are reporters here who have covered the military for twenty years and do a good job of it. My sense is that even though many of these outlets certainly don't have deep pockets, they will still periodically send reporters out to embed b/c that's part of how they define their mission of covering the units in their communities.

Here's my question: is that still true? If you've deployed in, let's say the last 24 months, have you seen reporters embedding with your unit from outlets other than the nationals? Local television outlets, daily papers from media markets, let's say smaller than the Boston Globe (yes, I know they've pulled the plug on foreign coverage entirely, but that's a recent move, and that's a good place to draw the line b/w "national" and "reg'l" daily.)

No need to name names here, a simple, "yes, it's happened," either regularly or periodically would be of great use.

[RTK]

Thank you for the suggested names of journalists, but I have a slightly different question. My sense is that there are two competing pressures pulling at outlets. On the one hand, b/c the price of covering the war is reaching astronomical heights, more and more outlets other than those at the very top tier (the nets, the newsweeklies, the very top dailies) are at least considering pulling the plug on bureaus.

At the same time, smaller reg'l dailies and local TV stations, even when they otherwise may not be very good, feel obligated to provide very high quality coverage of bases and units in their area as part of their mission. For ex, papers in North Carolina which might not be on your list of the top papers in the country routinely provide excellent military coverage b/c there are so many bases in the state, and despite the fact that our local television stations are simply excecreble, there are reporters here who have covered the military for twenty years and do a good job of it. My sense is that even though many of these outlets certainly don't have deep pockets, they will still periodically send reporters out to embed b/c that's part of how they define their mission of covering the units in their communities.

Here's my question: is that still true? If you've deployed in, let's say the last 24 months, have you seen reporters embedding with your unit from outlets other than the nationals? Local television outlets, daily papers from media markets, let's say smaller than the Boston Globe (yes, I know they've pulled the plug on foreign coverage entirely, but that's a recent move, and that's a good place to draw the line b/w "national" and "reg'l" daily.)

No need to name names here, a simple, "yes, it's happened," either regularly or periodically would be of great use.


Had the Colorado Springs Gazette for a few months in 2003. All those I listed I've seen in theater either in OIF I or III (Except I never met Ricks). For stateside news on Tal Afar now I look to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution since they've had a reporter with them for a few months. Other than that, there aren't many small town news agencies (IMO) that have the budget for such things, nor do they find them worthy ventures.

[marct]

Here's my question: is that still true? If you've deployed in, let's say the last 24 months, have you seen reporters embedding with your unit from outlets other than the nationals? Local television outlets, daily papers from media markets, let's say smaller than the Boston Globe (yes, I know they've pulled the plug on foreign coverage entirely, but that's a recent move, and that's a good place to draw the line b/w "national" and "reg'l" daily.)


Had the Colorado Springs Gazette for a few months in 2003. All those I listed I've seen in theater either in OIF I or III (Except I never met Ricks). For stateside news on Tal Afar now I look to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution since they've had a reporter with them for a few months. Other than that, there aren't many small town news agencies (IMO) that have the budget for such things, nor do they find them worthy ventures.

Hmmm, that's a really good question Cori. I would imagine that it should be possible to get a list of who embedded, when and where they were from. That should give us a statistical profile of agencies. It's another take on the glocalization argument....

Ryan, you mentioned the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Am I correct in assuming that's the online version? How did you find out about them covering Tal Afar? Is there a site that lists these "local" papers and the areas they cover? (Okay Dave and Bill, outside the SWJ's fantastic daily news briefing :D).

Marc

[RTK]

Hmmm, that's a really good question Cori. I would imagine that it should be possible to get a list of who embedded, when and where they were from. That should give us a statistical profile of agencies. It's another take on the glocalization argument....

Ryan, you mentioned the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Am I correct in assuming that's the online version? How did you find out about them covering Tal Afar? Is there a site that lists these "local" papers and the areas they cover? (Okay Dave and Bill, outside the SWJ's fantastic daily news briefing :D).

Marc

I searched for Tal Afar about 4 months ago and started seeing their names pop up all over the place. Google rocks.

[Cori]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood Marc's question initially to be a question about whether there was some centralized record of embeds. (I think the answer is no, but I'm double-checking.) If the question is whether there's a central data base of articles, the easiest way to search is probably Lexis-Nexis. It's comprehensive, it avoids the problem of newspapers that don't cache for more than a few weeks (a huge problem when researching on the broader web), and you don't have to sort through all the blogs etc. The problem is it's expensive as hell, so if you don't already have access through your institution, you probably aren't going to get access, and the Academic version is balky compared to the Cadillac version law firms (and schools) use.

What actually works best is to bounce back and forth b/w Google and Nexis, using the two in conjuntion with one another.

The other benefit to using L-N, of course, is that it includes non-American sources AND (critical) TV transcripts. Is it comprehensive on English-language foreign sources? Don't know, but there's a pretty hefty list of Canadian papers, good sized list from UK, and Australia. Only a few from Ireland but I don't know what baseline list to compare that one to.

[jcustis]

I cannot recall the outlet that he worked for, but I ran across an embed who had come into Anbar in early 2005. He made it to our neck on the woods because he was specifically covering one of the surge operations going on as the Marine Expeditionary Forces conducted a relief-in-place.

I've also noticed a surge of embed reporting during high-profile periods, like the elections, major operations like Fallujah 2.0, etc. They have come from big and small outlets, but typically when the prospect of a "juicy story" is high.

I can't recall if I've stated it elsewhere on the SWC before, but I had a heavy anti-media bias before my company picked up a team of Fox News guys (reporter, cameraman, and engineer). I had to have a come-to-Jesus meeting with them early on when we were in Kuwait (waiting for the word to kick off the invasion in 2003) about what they would and wouldn't do on the battlefield. The reporter talked a good game of course, and said all the right things, but he was just a little too slick.

I loosened up a little, and certainly took advantage of what they brought along (like a sat phone) to help out my Marines, but there was still this lingering tension. The reporter was always asking where we were going, and if I could take him to another zone where things we just a little bit hotter and more newsworthy. Even after careful scripting and discussions, he still made several errors in describing what he saw, which tends to be annoying when you are watching him give the story live. It can be exacerbated when your impression of what is news-worthy does not mesh with the embed's impression. The larger outlets are in competition with each other, and that can hold true for the different reporters within a single network. I don't like hanging my neck out there because the firefight across the river has the potential for good footage.

My more memorable moment of frustration came after my battalion had moved to Ad Diwaniyah to stage for the retrograde back to Kuwait. My company was the Division reactionary force at the time, and I had some reason or other to be at the Division command posts. Something caught my eye on one of the big-screen TVs pumping news in to the battle staff, and there he was in all his glory, my Fox News guy. He was already back in the states, clean, oiled, and neatly coiffed. I looked at myself, dirty and dischevelled, and shook my head.

My fellow company commanders from that time of the war would likely say that their embeds (photogs and print reporters) were less of a headache and high maintenance than our Fox News crew. We all have a healthy suspicion after Geraldo Rivera's antics with the 101st. No one supports a prima donna.

[Jimbo]

My experiences with journalists.

In 2003 my battalion had Trent Gegax of newsweek embedded with us. Trent showed up at Carson and waited outthe Turkey thing with us. We also had a photojournalist from the Rocky Mountain News. Trent rarely left the battalion TOC in April and early May of 2003. In fact he published a really unflattering article on us, that got him thrown out of the battalion. Trent wrote an article that used alot of humor that soldiers had been using since the Turky plan got screwed up. Trent took the comments said as humor, and wrote a story utilizing them as "straight talk". The article could have been great if he wrote it as a piece demonstarting the good sense of humor that soldiers have, but he didn't, and he got alot of things wrong in the article. In 2005 when I was an advisor, you couldn't get anybody other military journalists to go out with us. During the January 2005 election, I ended up on the CBS morning show without ever realizing that I had been interviewed by CBS. A couple of Arab journalists wandered into my Iraqi units AO, the Iraqis told them to leave, the journalists/camera crew said no, and my unit then said they were going to kill them (hence, why I stepped in). The Arab crew said they were from Reuters, asked the Iraqi commander for an interview, he said no, I said sure, and low and behold it ran on CBS. As 2005 went on, more and more advisors from the active componet started show up. We used to joke about having to de-CNN the newbies because they were convinced they were going to take an IED as soon as they went out the gate. In 2006, during the media panel we had for my CGSC class, we asked the journalists why didn't they have more people covering Iraq if it was such an important story (answer cost and risk). What was their process for vetting local stringers (ans: why would we need to do that). Why do we always see the footage of one of the few bad things that happened in Iraq as opposed to the many good things (ans: We have a limited amount of time in a broadcast, so we have to use stuff that will capture the viewers attention). Do you guys view yourselves as Americans first or journalists/where/what is your loyalty (ans: we are the fourth estate, providing truth to the people, we view ourselves as Americans, but our responsibility is to the truth, not the country). Why do you guys not go on more operations with us (too dangerous, look at Bob Woodruf). If the Iraqi Security Forces are such a big story why don't you guys go on any operations with them (ans: way too dangerous). Now, the military PAO memeber of the panel owned to up to some serious mistakes that military and CPA made in 2004. The other thing brought up by all with no good answer is that things said in speeches by major figures can and do wind up being broadcast worldwide, even though the speech might have only been intended for a small niche domestic political audience. The take away that we had was that if you really wanted good reporting, you had to read smaller local papers that covered units because of the local slant, especially when National Guard units get called up. National level stuff just isn't very effective, and has too many competing agendas for time/space and ratings/circulation and most importantly money.

[marct]

I searched for Tal Afar about 4 months ago and started seeing their names pop up all over the place. Google rocks.

I wonder how many other people have used google to track down which paper is covering AOs they used to be in? Hmmm. Ryan, what do you think about the AJCs coverage of Tal Afar? I think that Jimbo's right about the national level coverage having too many competing agendas, but I would be really inerested to find out what people think about some of the "local" papers.

Marc

[jcustis]

Marc,

Local papers give outstanding personal story coverage and are usually more than one-layer deep in their reporting. Some of the better writing has come out of small papers that have invested in putting an embed with a unit for a period of time, rather than touring the AO.

There are some flashes of brilliance, so to speak, from larger outlets every now and then. One of my best friends was killed in Iraq in 2005, and Tony Perry of the LA Times wrote an obituary of sorts about him, because he made the ffort to know him on a personal level. I haven't seen much of that.

[marct]

Hi JC,


Local papers give outstanding personal story coverage and are usually more than one-layer deep in their reporting. Some of the better writing has come out of small papers that have invested in putting an embed with a unit for a period of time, rather than touring the AO.

You know, that really does make a lot of sense. By "more than one-layer deep" am I right in assuming that you mean that these reporters are giving much more in-depth reporting? Things like better coverage, a better / more accurate description of events, etc.?


There are some flashes of brilliance, so to speak, from larger outlets every now and then. One of my best friends was killed in Iraq in 2005, and Tony Perry of the LA Times wrote an obituary of sorts about him, because he made the ffort to know him on a personal level. I haven't seen much of that.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I think you're quite right about the lack of decent coverage - all too often it just seems to come across on CNN as a number. How have you found most of the embeds in that regard? Did they try to get to know the people they were with on a personal level?

Marc

[RTK]

I wonder how many other people have used google to track down which paper is covering AOs they used to be in? Hmmm. Ryan, what do you think about the AJCs coverage of Tal Afar? I think that Jimbo's right about the national level coverage having too many competing agendas, but I would be really inerested to find out what people think about some of the "local" papers.

Marc

It's been focusing more on the unit and people within the unit than anything else. They did manage to interview the likes of GEN Petraeus and LTG Ordierno when they went north after the suicide bombing a couple weeks ago. With a place that far away from Baghdad, the fact that they have an embed up there means more information is coming from Tal Afar quicker than it would be.

[jcustis]

Hi JC,



You know, that really does make a lot of sense. By "more than one-layer deep" am I right in assuming that you mean that these reporters are giving much more in-depth reporting? Things like better coverage, a better / more accurate description of events, etc.?



I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I think you're quite right about the lack of decent coverage - all too often it just seems to come across on CNN as a number. How have you found most of the embeds in that regard? Did they try to get to know the people they were with on a personal level?

Marc


When a reporter goes further than one-layer, they typically do describe the events better and are more accurate. They also write about the personal struggles that the troops face, and from (what I have seen) are more responsible about printing what a servicemember says when they know it may be a ill-thought out reply to a question, or something that could discredit the unit.

I've found that most embeds are likely overwhelmed by deadlines and technical difficulties to be able to know anyone with any deep degree of familiarity. They are also under pressure to dig into the story, and find something that is fit to print (i.e. "big news"). I don't blame them for how they are wired, because they are a product of the environment that they come from.

At the end of the day, you have to always be on your toes with what you say to an embed, and it get's tiring to the point that you'd almost rather not have them around. I could talk to my Fox camera guy as though he was a college buddy, but the actual reporter had to be handled differently. Ever have the experience where you are having a discussion with someone, and you can see the wheels turning in their head, trying to find a way to fit what you say into their agenda? It can be unsettling.

Independent embeds who bankroll their visits seem to be a slightly different story, but I've never run across one of them in person.

[marct]

Hi JC,


When a reporter goes further than one-layer, they typically do describe the events better and are more accurate. They also write about the personal struggles that the troops face, and from (what I have seen) are more responsible about printing what a servicemember says when they know it may be a ill-thought out reply to a question, or something that could discredit the unit.

I wonder if that comes abut as a result of being in the field longer and getting a better "feel" for what's happening.


At the end of the day, you have to always be on your toes with what you say to an embed, and it get's tiring to the point that you'd almost rather not have them around. I could talk to my Fox camera guy as though he was a college buddy, but the actual reporter had to be handled differently. Ever have the experience where you are having a discussion with someone, and you can see the wheels turning in their head, trying to find a way to fit what you say into their agenda? It can be unsettling.

Oh, yeah, I've been there! Quite tiring over the long run, and it really meant that I had to keep a bunch of attention that should have been elsewhere on them <sigh>. I began to feel like a juggler wih too many balls in the air...


Independent embeds who bankroll their visits seem to be a slightly different story, but I've never run across one of them in person.

I wonder how many of them there are....

On a different note, I didn't checkout CBC yesterday. When I did, I came across the story of the 6 Canadians just killed in an IED attack in Afghanistan (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/08/nato-afghanistan.html). One thing that struck me about the coverage was that it was so "personalized" - 5 of the 6 named (the 6th soldiers family didn't want his name released at this time) and with photos and micro-bio's, reactions from politicians and Hillier, etc.

Marc

[selil]

Just a glimpse of madness but wasn't one of the Fort Carson embeds a former soldier from that unit working as a news paper reporter in Colorado Springs? Maybe that was gulf 1..... durn my old memory.

[RTK]

Just a glimpse of madness but wasn't one of the Fort Carson embeds a former soldier from that unit working as a news paper reporter in Colorado Springs? Maybe that was gulf 1..... durn my old memory.

Not that I remember. It's possible, but it wasn't any of the Gazette people I saw.

[Ski]

Sean Naylor is another journalist worth contacting. He has done some superb work with the Afghan campaign and SOF forces as well.

[jcustis]

I would agree that naylor has written some good pieces, and of course his book Not a Good Day to Die is a gem.

He is a culprit of one-layer reporting as well though, as evidenced by some of the articles he wrote on the shift of Marine forces to the Anah and Rawah area after Stryker elements had to be moved to support ops in Baghdad. He attributed casualties the battalion suffered to a lack of knowledge and familiarity with the area. Surprisingly enough, had he actually talked to more of the Marines involved, he would have realized that the unit in question certainly had veterans (some on their 3rd Iraq tour) of operations in those exact areas, and were not noobs to the Euphrates area of Anbar.

I'm kind of glad that you mentioned Naylor Ski, because I have one prejudice against reporters that I forgot to mention.

I think many of these folks, looking for the juicy story, do more than just exaggerate or drift from reporting to commentary. They also hide behind "un-named sources", or "certain anonymous members of the command", etc., when introducing lines of thought that are in fact the reporter's thoughts and bias alone. That skews the reporting to the level of irresponsibility, and I think it's shameful.

As another case in point, I read an article in the Marine Times the other day, which outlined the removal of a MARSOC company from the Afghan AO recently. This article went to new levels of silliness, and started to quote posters on internet forums who were supposedly, "veterans of years of SOF operations".

I think that is a line of crap to draw any reporting from an internet forum, without establishing the bonafides of any person interviewed, and then actually physically interviewing them. It's not something to be accomplished by private message, but it seems to be becoming more prevalent as topics of a military nature become a hot-button.

[Tom Odom]

My experience with the media is reflected in the title of this post. Some were good and listened carefully. Some were bad in their direct manipualtion of facts to meet preconceived ideas. Some were just ugly in their blatant staging of events to create news. In the latter category I would place the reporters in Goma who hired locals to shift bodies around like stage props just outside the press cage along the road as shown below. PIC is courtesy of Stan Reber)

[jcustis]

I'd offer up one more thing Marc, and it's that I love listening to National Public Radio. Not sure if you've ever heard it up north, but it can be an extremely balanced amount of radio programming that "gets off the beaten path" so to speak, and does a decent job of balancing things out.

I check it out every morning on the way in to work, depending on my car's crappy reception. Even my father, who is hyper-liberal on some matters and hyer-conservative on others, has come around to listening to it for most of the day.

[Ski]

Some good points in there - but off the record quotes have been part of journalism as a whole, well, since the creation of journalism. I'm sure a lot if not all of Naylor's SOF contacts would only speak to him on condition of anonymity. Is it irresponsable? Maybe, but there are also times when it can be used for a greater good.

Overall, the press needs better fact checking on military operations. How many times have you seen a Paladin or Bradley roll down the MSR and some commentator in the background stating, "American tanks have just begun movement..."

I'm surprised the major networks have hired some retired NCO's or just out of service CPT's to fact check for them. It would lend a great deal more credibility to what they say.



I would agree that naylor has written some good pieces, and of course his book Not a Good Day to Die is a gem.

He is a culprit of one-layer reporting as well though, as evidenced by some of the articles he wrote on the shift of Marine forces to the Anah and Rawah area after Stryker elements had to be moved to support ops in Baghdad. He attributed casualties the battalion suffered to a lack of knowledge and familiarity with the area. Surprisingly enough, had he actually talked to more of the Marines involved, he would have realized that the unit in question certainly had veterans (some on their 3rd Iraq tour) of operations in those exact areas, and were not noobs to the Euphrates area of Anbar.

I'm kind of glad that you mentioned Naylor Ski, because I have one prejudice against reporters that I forgot to mention.

I think many of these folks, looking for the juicy story, do more than just exaggerate or drift from reporting to commentary. They also hide behind "un-named sources", or "certain anonymous members of the command", etc., when introducing lines of thought that are in fact the reporter's thoughts and bias alone. That skews the reporting to the level of irresponsibility, and I think it's shameful.

As another case in point, I read an article in the Marine Times the other day, which outlined the removal of a MARSOC company from the Afghan AO recently. This article went to new levels of silliness, and started to quote posters on internet forums who were supposedly, "veterans of years of SOF operations".

I think that is a line of crap to draw any reporting from an internet forum, without establishing the bonafides of any person interviewed, and then actually physically interviewing them. It's not something to be accomplished by private message, but it seems to be becoming more prevalent as topics of a military nature become a hot-button.

[RTK]

I'd offer up one more thing Marc, and it's that I love listening to National Public Radio. Not sure if you've ever heard it up north, but it can be an extremely balanced amount of radio programming that "gets off the beaten path" so to speak, and does a decent job of balancing things out.

I check it out every morning on the way in to work, depending on my car's crappy reception. Even my father, who is hyper-liberal on some matters and hyer-conservative on others, has come around to listening to it for most of the day.

Even if he can't get it where he is they webcast on their site (www.npr.org)

[tequila]

+1 on NPR. Anne Garrels is one of the best out of Baghdad. She embeds often - her latest reports on the Baghdad security plan are outstanding.

[Steve Blair]

I'd offer up one more thing Marc, and it's that I love listening to National Public Radio. Not sure if you've ever heard it up north, but it can be an extremely balanced amount of radio programming that "gets off the beaten path" so to speak, and does a decent job of balancing things out.

I check it out every morning on the way in to work, depending on my car's crappy reception. Even my father, who is hyper-liberal on some matters and hyer-conservative on others, has come around to listening to it for most of the day.

There was a study done regarding media bias a couple of years back (don't remember the name offhand, but it was a California university team) that used a comparison between the positions of members of congress (do set baselines for conservative and liberal political viewpoints) and media coverage. The team went to great lengths to remain as impartial as possible (to the point of refusing some funding if memory serves), and came up with some interesting conclusions. Most of the media tested out as left of center (some well left of center), with PBS actually coming out as the most non-biased (NPR and I think the Lehr News Hour were the most balanced) coverage. Fox was right of center, but not as far as most critics seem convinced.

[SWJED]

Here is an UCLA press release (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664) concerning the study - provides a decent summary of the study's findings.

[Steve Blair]

Another group that might be worth examining in terms of the military's view of the media (although this might be extending the study past your borders, Marc) are military dependents. More and more these days I'm seeing cameras in the faces of wives, husbands, and children of deployed troops, and as a former dependent it really gets me steamed. There was so little attention paid to them before there was political gain involved, and now it seems like they're the centerpiece of many evening news stories. I could see such coverage impacting the view of the press held by many serving troops. Of course, this is something of a pet rock of mine, so ignore if I'm off-track here.

[SWJED]

A Measure of Media Bias (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm) - not sure but this may be the study Jon referenced.

[Steve Blair]

Here is an UCLA press release (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664) concerning the study - provides a decent summary of the study's findings.

Thanks! My Google skills (and most others) are quite fried this morning. With commissioning, field training, PDTs, a classroom exercise, and tons of other junk coming up I'm finding that I have precious little room to breathe these days.

[marct]

Thanks! My Google skills (and most others) are quite fried this morning. With commissioning, field training, PDTs, a classroom exercise, and tons of other junk coming up I'm finding that I have precious little room to breathe these days.

I'm feeling pretty much he same :wry:. Yesterday was a very long day but productive - I spent most of the day at RMC. Great people and a productive visit. What with a rehearsal after I got back to Ottawa, it was a long day and I'm slaving away on an online questionnaire right now for another project (with another rehearsal tonight - sigh).

Let me check out that study. Also, the folks at RMC suggested a couple of articles to go after as well. I have the feeling it's a good things I can read quickly...:D

Marc

[marct]

As a (semi-) postscript to my last message, I hope you folks know how much I appreciate all of the input and advice you are giving me. It's fantastic!

Marc