The Military’s Media Problem

The Military’s Media Problem by Max Boot at Contentions (Hat Tip Zenpundit).

Quote:

---

I’ve been traveling around Iraq for more than a week, spending time with U.S. forces. One constant is complaints about the news media. “Why doesn’t the press show the good we’re doing?,” soldiers ask. They wonder why the coverage seems so slanted.

Part of the answer is that the soldiers’ tactical successes may not be adding up to strategic success. Another part of the answer is undoubtedly the bias of the press—not only against the war but also in favor of negative news. But another important factor is the ham-handed reticence with which the military makes its own case.

The conventional military mindset sees the media as a potential enemy to be shunned at all costs. Officers who get quoted too much are derided behind their backs as “glory-seekers” or “self-promoters.” The focus is always supposed to be on the team, not the individual, and there is a general assumption that good deeds will speak for themselves. General George Casey, the former U.S. commander in Iraq (now about to become Army chief of staff), exemplified this point of view. He seldom spoke to the media and tightly limited who could speak on behalf of his command.

The result of such caution is to cede the “information battlespace” to critics of the war and even to outright enemies such as Osama bin Laden and Moqtada al Sadr, who have shrewdly manipulated press coverage. General David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, wants to engage more actively in what are known as “information operations,” and he’s off to a good start...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWJED

The Military’s Media Problem by Max Boot at Contentions (Hat Tip Zenpundit).

---

Some interesting suggestions in the article. I was intrigued by this one:

Quote:

---

Some officers I met with earlier this week at Task Force Justice in the Khadimiya neighborhood of northwest Baghdad offered useful suggestions for what should be done: (1) require all battalions to set up a secure, comfortable room where reporters can stay and file stories; (2) contact media organizations to invite them to send embeds; (3) distribute lists of media contacts down to battalion and even company level and encourage officers to contact the press directly, bypassing the ponderous public-affairs bureaucracy; (4) grade battalion, brigade, and division commanders on how well they engage the press.

---

Part of my reaction was to cheer - after all, this may well have some good effects on the main stream media's reporting. Anther part of me, however, was sitting back and shaking my head thinking - "Wow, new TTPs for cavalry to attack entrenched machine guns!".

I'm going to have to think about this one for a while.

Marc

Let me quickly respond only to the post, reserving time to go through the entire article when I'm not rushing off to grade -- this is excellent news. I've briefed about press critiques to military audiences on a number of occasions, and I've decided that I need to radically readjust the tone and outline of those briefings to make clear that while it's important to be able to critique press coverage (so as to be able to engage it critically) that is no excuse to avoid the press or to deal with them in a hostile way. The press is the military's conduit to the American people, period, end of story, and it is absolutely essential that the military find a way to create a good working relationship with as many members of the press as possible. It is, in that vein, also necessary that the military recognize that the relationship is a two way street and that some of the coverage problems lie with the military and can be fixed by the military.

I have heard the complaint over and over that the press, for ex, does not cover school openings. If they haven't covered the first hundred, why do you think they'll cover the hundred and first? At some pt the military needs to recognize that their are certain templates to the way the press operates and figure out how to work within those needs, procedures, routines, etc etc etc. What can you do to change the way the hundred and first opening is presented to the press? Or, in the alternative, since the story, realistically, is the way the fight is going, how can you work with the press to make sure that story is presented in a way which reflects your vision of "ground truth?"

Preliminary thoughts, but I find these suggestions tremendously encouraging.

I'm of the opinion that we in the military need to embrace the media, invite them to stay with you and your soldiers, and let them see it all, the good and the bad. Nothing upsets me more when officers set a standard of either "no comment" or "I hate the media". This quickly filters down to the troops who then possess the same disdain for reporters. I find that an open and honest policy to media members benefits both them and us. Should there be some rules for the media to protect OPSEC and the safety of our soldiers? Abosolutely. Is it necessary to hand hold media around your JSS/FOB/COB? I say no. Let them go out and talk to the soldiers. The soldiers, even if they complain, gripe, etc about the war/equipment/food/extensions are still putting an American face on the war and sending a message back to the folks at home: WE ARE HERE. DO NOT FORGET US.

All troops need to have a basic knowledge of how to work with the media and how to interact with them. We'll never get our message out or our side of the story to the American people back home without them. Officer especially need to practice dealing with the media, just like we train for combat operations. I personally have a great deal of respect for Max Boot, have met him several times and was interviewed by him about my time in Iraq. I think his article hits the nail on the head. We continue to lose the information battle as both a military and the government. Embracing reporters who actually leave the green zone to be out with the troops needs to be one of the first (and easiest) steps to winning back some of the important informational high ground.

Quote:

---

I have heard the complaint over and over that the press, for ex, does not cover school openings. If they haven't covered the first hundred, why do you think they'll cover the hundred and first? At some pt the military needs to recognize that their are certain templates to the way the press operates and figure out how to work within those needs, procedures, routines, etc etc etc. What can you do to change the way the hundred and first opening is presented to the press? Or, in the alternative, since the story, realistically, is the way the fight is going, how can you work with the press to make sure that story is presented in a way which reflects your vision of "ground truth?"

---

Excellent points all of which point to the central isse that you must learn to deal with the media as you do any other factor/element on the battlefield.

Tom

Sadly, part of the answer is to train all soldiers in marketing. Consider the media an IO weapons system, with messages as munitions. If any soldier might find him or herself servicing this tricky and powerful weapons system without notice under the most adverse situation, does it make sense to cultivate a culture of 'media aversion' within the services?

Like a kinetic weapons system, the primary IO weapons system has certain caveats for safe handling (OPSEC, for example), and misuse can have devastating collateral effects (PVT Englund....). All the more reason to train our people with this weapon.

The S/G/J3 should be developing and supervising the distribution of a 'key message', and the messages should nest up and down the chain of command. The 'key message' should be an underlying theme or themes for the media, so snuffy doesn't have to waste time trying to think one up on the fly, and so commanders shouldn't be scared of the thought of a journalist talking to one of their privates.

You know, Van, that's not a bad idea in a COIN fight. I know that when I'm thinking about COIN I draw on both my Anthropology and my Marketing background. Still and all, Sully is spot on - if for no other reason that we have to avoid the image of the military being composed of Herb Tarlich clones :eek:!!!

Marc

Cautionary note: you can take the idea of "marketing," and of "talking pts" too far. The troops are always the best good news story the services have, and you just don't need to be that worried about what they're going to say. Coaching, to be sure, always -- you don't put anyone, much less a nineteen year old, in front a microphone without some coaching -- but you don't want ever to give the impression that a reporter is dealing with automatons, or kids who are scripted. Let the troops be the troops.

I may have told this story before, but I pulled some strings a few years ago and arranged for a tour of a submarine for some faculty colleagues. The absolute best thing that happened was when the Cdr. was pulled away unexpectedly just as he was about to explain the sonar room. On no notice he grabbed the one junior petty officer in view and yelled, "SULLIVAN -- TAKE OVER FOR ME!" and this young kid had to quickly jump in and present his area to a group of DVs -- and all they could talk about the whole way home was how impressive that kid was and could you believe how little this country was paying our junior enlisted?

Cori is right to caution folks about marketing. In the army and government generally. marketing falls under the Psychological operations rubric. Military PSYOP correctly operates under a never lie rule - but there is no requirement to tell the whole truth. Public Affairs, by definition, tells the whole truth - good, bad, and ugly. Although there is a distinction between these fields, that doesn't meant they shouldn't talk to each other and try to help the cause in their respective areas. A complete divorce is not only unhelpful but downright counterproductive.

This is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I'm a master's student in journalism and I am also a reporter. I have specialized in covering military affairs. Media-military relations can be improved on both sides.

I have been stunned by the access the military has provided me with in the past. Almost always the military will do everything possible to get me the access and information I need to write my stories. Also, the military personnel I have interviewed have been extremely polite and professional.

I see a change in attitude of field grade officers. They have moved beyond the post-Vietnam blame the media attitude that was pervasive in the past. They understand the media are like the weather-they must be factored into operational considerations. I would advise military leaders to trust their enlisted ranks. When I was with CJTF HOA last summer, even the specialists I interviewed did an excellent job in reiterating the command message.

We as the media have many problems. One is the business model of journalism. All media outlets are cutting staff and cutting costs. Those journalists who are left are supposed to perform more work, while somehow maintaining the quality of our work. Often times there is no time for fact checking that should happen. Many reporters who cover military issues are military illiterate and this broadens the rift between the military and the media instead of bridging it.

We do damage to the relationship between ourselves and the military. I remember one officer at Ft. Leavenworth telling me how a national media somebody came through the Command and General Staff College and observed an exercise that was war-gaming for Iran. This person then wrote an article about how the military was preparing to invade Iran. Utter idiocy that stemmed from being ignorant about what goes on at CGSC. My comment, yeah right, a bunch of Majors at a generally open access school are planning for the invasion of Iran. Needless to say, this sensationalism and inaccuracy damaged the relationship between the military and the media.

All too often many reporters aren't balancing their stories. I know I carry my own bias to every story, so I try to show balance in my stories to mitigate my personal bias. Even today, Iraq is not all bad news.

Building relationships enhances trust. My advice to reporters and members of the military is to cultivate a relationship with each other. When you have a relationship, every reporter has the ability to influence editors and push stories. Maybe the reporter can squeeze a few positive stories through when it otherwise would not happen without the personal relationship.

Finally, I agree with Max Boot's points.

Menning, I am really glad you posted that. I'm a Field Grade Reservist and I carry two very large scars on my posterior region that were put there as the result of Media Malfeasance. In both cases, media types with an axe to grind managed to lie their collective asses off in order to present the story the way they wanted, and then lied their asses off again to cover them when their "facts" turned out to be in error.

The Jessica Lynch media circus still burns my butt, and the largely media- propagated myth that the military lied about it has caused me not to trust the media. I started OIF I very pro-media, but now if a media type told me the sky was blue, I'd call them a liar and go outside to check, first.

The Jessica Lynch example is particularly interesting. For information on the specifics, I checked Phillip Knightley's The First Casualty. Before telling Lynch's story, he prefaces his statement with, "both stories [the toppling of Saddam's statue and Jessica Lynch] were manipulated by propagandists, and the war correspondents must accept some responsibility for colluding in that manipulation."

Although Lynch was actually quite safe at her location in an Iraqi hospital and receiving excellent care, her dramatic "rescue" was an excellent feel good story about never leaving a comrade behind. In reality, the Iraqi doctors had tried to return her to U.S. forces several days earlier but were fired on by coalition forces when they approached a roadblock.

Knightley maintains the slickly edited video showing her rescue was a propaganda tool of the U.S. military. I'm sure there was some truth to this. The media's blame in the incident is two-fold. One, they should have independenly verified the story before they ran with it, hook line and sinker. Two, according to several sources, Jessica Lynch was not the story of the day. Although her rescue was nice, other battlefield events eclipsed her individual story.

As the media are so good at doing, they created a media storm around her which detracted from their coverage of other events. I'm not sure what to write about this phenomena. I'm sickened by the 24-hour news coverage of Anna Nicole's death, but as a media outlet, what choice do you have if you're competition is covering the event? I would suspect the only thing a company could do would be to have a more compelling story to air, changing the dynamic with your competition.

The other thing I always keep in mind is that television is closer to hollywood than journalism. Video lends itself to dramatics in a way print does not. The other thing I try to keep in mind is the intense pressure a correspondent is under when in the field to produce compelling stories. The correspondent's employer is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions to keep them in the field and the expect return on their investment.

The sad thing is newspapers generally make 20-25% profit annually. Television stations perform even better, making 40-45% profit. If Wall Street's shareholders weren't so greedy, profit margins could be reduced, supplying additional funding for editorial staff, increasing the number and quality of stories. Generally, the economic model of today's news should bear the blame for a majority of faults within journalism.

The Jessica Lynch "story" was not fed to the media by the military. The "media" fabricated the "story" and then blamed the "military" for trying to invent "propaganda". Except for one highly excitable medical corps Captain, who was later slapped down hard by the military, the ONLY official word by military sources was "we don't know the status of Lynch, and that she isn't the only POW we are concerned about".

The media propagated myth that they were somehow misled by the military is part of the problem. When the media gets caught in a lie (my impression is that reporters played a version of the game "telephone" where they kept doing a "did you hear?" until they had completely distorted what had happened. Then, when it became obvious that they had been caught in a lie, they blamed the military, knowing that the military couldn't effectively defend themselves.

I don't know where Knightly got his information vis-a-vis Lynch, but I got mine by being the guy who briefed the V Corps Deputy Commander and the V Corps PAO on the subject. I vividly remember getting my ass chewed (along with the PAO) for not having the detailed information that the media was reporting. Of course, I didn't have the luxury of being able to make #### up like the media did. And to make things even better, I got the honor of being the dog that got kicked when Grandma farts when the media accused the military of misrepresenting the Lynch case. It mattered not a whit that we had NEVER asserted the alleged "facts" as misreported by the media.

So, until the media quits being able to excuse themselves of their own mistakes, I will consider them to be the "real" enemy and not trust them. I am a huge fan of conducting operations without publicity, instituting media black-outs, and considering media on the battlefield as spies. As long as we have an ignorant and apathetic American public, I think domestic I/O is a hugely over-rated field.

Hi Guys,

Interesting debate - I suspect that both of you are, actually, fairly close in your positions vis-a-vis the professionalism of the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Menning

....As the media are so good at doing, they created a media storm around her which detracted from their coverage of other events. I'm not sure what to write about this phenomena. I'm sickened by the 24-hour news coverage of Anna Nicole's death, but as a media outlet, what choice do you have if you're competition is covering the event? I would suspect the only thing a company could do would be to have a more compelling story to air, changing the dynamic with your competition.

The other thing I always keep in mind is that television is closer to hollywood than journalism. Video lends itself to dramatics in a way print does not. The other thing I try to keep in mind is the intense pressure a correspondent is under when in the field to produce compelling stories.

---

I think you've raised a really accurate picture of the environment the media operates in. I think that the environment has also deteriorated as a result of so many new channels appearing, so you end up with a form of hyper-specialization going on - we certainly saw that in the case of certain genres of news reporting (e.g. Shock News).

This raise some interesting issues about the profession as a profession. For example, are all reporters "journalists" since many appear to abrogate the accepted codes of ethics of the profession? Does the profession have a way of disciplining members who contravene professional ethics?

Another point that needs to be made is that the argument about "compelling stories" relies on a particular model of the audience - one that assumes the audience is a) passive and b) stupid (not ignorant). "Compelling" relies on the use of emotional arguments / imagery rather than rational argument or descriptive reporting and I think you are quite right to point out that this type of presentation ("dramatics") is more likely to appear in television. Compare it, for example, with the Australian Broadcasting radio report on COIN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Menning

The sad thing is newspapers generally make 20-25% profit annually. Television stations perform even better, making 40-45% profit. If Wall Street's shareholders weren't so greedy, profit margins could be reduced, supplying additional funding for editorial staff, increasing the number and quality of stories. Generally, the economic model of today's news should bear the blame for a majority of faults within journalism.

---

Honestly, I don't accept that. It is certainly true that the profit motive is one of the reasons for why the industry is in its current form, but that does not abrogate the responsibility of individual journalists to act unethically. In effect, it is a "I was just following orders" excuse that no self respecting journalist would accept from any person they were interviewing, so why should we accept it from journalists? I suspect that this is one of the things that leads 120 to say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

So, until the media quits being able to excuse themselves of their own mistakes, I will consider them to be the "real" enemy and not trust them. I am a huge fan of conducting operations without publicity, instituting media black-outs, and considering media on the battlefield as spies. As long as we have an ignorant and apathetic American public, I think domestic I/O is a hugely over-rated field.

---

Marc

To 120mm: Thank you for commenting. This site has allowed me to check facts with people who had boots on the ground several times and I am thankful. I cannot speak for other journalists, only for myself. The only thing I want is the truth, whatever it happens to be. Why would a person go into this profession otherwise? We don't get paid worth a damn, when you do your job correctly, you never hear anything, most people dislike us for one reason or another. Perhaps I am a bit naive, thinking that journalists aren't out for glory and fame. In my view it is inexcuseable to make up a story, lie or distort facts. We are the public's conduit for information--we must tell the story as accurately as possible. It is our duty, our calling, the raison d'etre a journalist.

I'm sickened when I think about the damage interaction with the media has cost both the military and the media. As journalists, we're not all alike. If I came into your AO, I would have to fight the perceptions of us all being a bunch of creeps and it would hinder my ability to tell the story.

I will disagree with your statement concerning domestic IO being unimportant. Dwight Eisenhower said, "Public opinion wins wars." Marshalling support for or against a war in a democracy is absolutely vital.

As for journalists and ethics, that's a good one. There are professional ethics standards for journalists. Professional journalism societies all have codes of ethics. If I lose my credibility, I have nothing and I should change careers. Discipline for journalists who stray the path usually comes from their peers. Media organizations will shun them and they will not be taken seriously. As in the case with the military, perhaps access will not be granted in the future.

It is my belief we're in a long war the military is not fighting alone. Therefore journalists need to forge working relationships with the military. Period.

Interesting piece on Petraeus looking to reduce "barriers" between IO and PAO. My take is they somehwat miss the point; the real friction is between PAO and PSYOP. Most IO types I deal with look at PAO and IO as a linked subject--as do I.

Tom

Quote:

---

Los Angeles Times
April 18, 2007

Pentagon Weighing News And Spin

The top general in Iraq seeks to pierce the wall between public affairs and efforts that attempt to sway foreign populations.

By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Since the end of the Vietnam war, the military's public affairs officials have tried to rebuild the Defense Department's credibility by putting distance between themselves and Pentagon efforts that use deception, propaganda and other methods to influence foreign populations.

A 2004 memo by Gen. Richard B. Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, codified the separation between public affairs, which communicates with the press and public, and "information operations," which attempts to sway people in other countries.

But Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has asked for changes that would allow the two branches to work more closely. His request has unleashed a debate inside the Pentagon between those who say the separation has made the Defense Department less agile and those who believe that restructuring the relationship would threaten to turn military spokesmen into propaganda tools.

A senior military officer close to Petraeus said the memo now in place prevents coordination between the information operations officers and public affairs officers.

"The way it is written it puts a firewall between information operations and public affairs," the officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the internal debate. "You shut down things that need to be done."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Interesting piece on Petraeus looking to reduce "barriers" between IO and PAO. My take is they somehwat miss the point; the real friction is between PAO and PSYOP. Most IO types I deal with look at PAO and IO as a linked subject--as do I.

---

This seems to be a rather limited view of IO. The following is lifted from JPub 3-13 (www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_13.pdf)

"Information operations (IO) are described as the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to
influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own." (emphasis added)

IO is a combat multiplier under the purview of -3 shops. The last time I checked, PAO was a special staff officer of the commander's, like the Chaplain, the IG, and the JAG. Seems to me that any friction between the two stands squarely in the directions given to the two staff sections by that commander. If the PAO story and the IO plan are at odds, someone is not synchronized and requires operator head space and timing realignment by the appropriate commander. PAO work falls under "specified supporting and related capabilities" IMO.

The funny thing about that LA Times piece is that it refers to a 2004 CJCS memo while the JPub I quoted from is from 2006. Who's reading the doctrine and where does it stand as authorizing action vis-a-vis a memo from an ex-Chairman?

All good questions and I have the answers for none.

I also agree it (it being what the LA Times calls IO) is a very limited definition.

And that is why I found this article and the supposed debate to be curious; I am somewhat sceptical that Petraeus' IO staff--including his 3--would take the connection between what a PAO does and part of what IO does as verboten.

That aside the Joint definition itself is inadequate in describing IO at the operational and certainly the tactical levels. Commanders look to their PAO and their IOs for assistance in developing and delivering the correct message.

Best

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

That aside the Joint definition itself is inadequate in describing IO at the operational and certainly the tactical levels. Commanders look to their PAO and their IOs for assistance in developing and delivering the correct message.

---

Concur that the JPub definition is only the tip of the iceberg for those guys at the pointy end of the spear. But Petraeus HQ is more at the strategic end of the spectrum where the JPub is very germane, is it not?

Decades ago when I tok the Psyops Officer correspondence course, the coursework made the point that PAO and Psyops probably had a lot in common and ought to work closely together.

Quote:

---

Concur that the JPub definition is only the tip of the iceberg for those guys at the pointy end of the spear. But Petraeus HQ is more at the strategic end of the spectrum where the JPub is very germane, is it not?

---

Agreed and that is why I find this supposed intiative rather strange.

And also agree on the logical connection between PAO and PSYOP--the disconnection/prohibition is emotional/political. FDrankly if you look at the Hollywood supported news machine in WWII as well as that of the Brits that connection was open because it was important get the message out. That was then, however, and I stronly doubt we will ever go back to that era.

Best

Tom