All true. We need to spend more time educating our
Troops than we now do. It would also help if DoD could develop a concise Pamphlet to assist in the education of the media types so they can use the terminology a little more accurately and understand to whom they were talking. No easy fixes on this one, regrettably...
I had a couple that would...
That was a few years ago. Today's Dogs are also kinder and gentler and just harass the Cats to distraction, they make no attempt to kill 'em.
I think that bullet on the slide alludes to the desire to become a really big name no matter what the cost to competitors or even one's own institution or organization (or, apparently from today's world, ones own ethics). Much as the 'dog eat dog' implies that seniority is not only not respected, it is to one's credit to trump a nominal senior or elder of the pack. It's the Columbia University School of Journalism's apparent answer to everything -- "me, me, me..."
Discussion now carried over to Foreign Policy...
... in our SWJ column This Week at War by Robert Haddick (Westhawk).
The military and the media - two scorpions in a bottle?
Quote:
An anonymous journalist who covers the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ventured onto the Small Wars Journal discussion board to ask the question, "How well have we incorporated the media into COIN [counter-insurgency] efforts?" The anonymous journalist went on:
I'm intrigued at how the media, especially our own Western media, seems to be treated differently than other players in the COIN fight. Many who are adept at co-opting former enemy fighters into their COIN strategy are quick to malign, insult or disparage media organizations who, like it or not, will be the ones telling the story to the local populace or those back home.
The media is clearly a part of COIN strategy at higher levels, but for some reason this view does not seem to have trickled down to lower levels to the extent that other COIN strategies have. I've heard many soldiers in Iraq tell reporters that they don't like the media in general or the reporter's paper in particular. I've never heard soldiers tell Iraqis that they just don't like that person's neighborhood, party or sect - even if they might feel that way privately. I think you can see this on these very boards: Many complaints about the media, very few complaints about the local populace or their organizations. This seems counterproductive.
This reporter's reasonable question was met with some impassioned responses from the Small Wars Council's combat veterans. The soldiers expressed their frustration with what they saw as the media's preconceived conclusions and propensity for distortion. One soldier noted the differences he personally witnessed in the media's behavior covering Bosnia (supportive of the policy) compared to Afghanistan and Iraq (not supportive).
The tempestuous relationship between the military and the media is both ancient and enduring. But it is also an issue that the U.S. military, and especially the Army, is now addressing in a thorough manner. Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, the commander of the Army's Combined Arms Center (a sprawling system of schools and training programs), has had his staff study the issue and prepare "how-to" manuals on media relations, written for soldiers in the field (see here and here). Chapter titles include such topics as, "Arab Media Interviews and the American Commander," "Breaking Through the National Media Filter," and "The Al-Qaeda Media Machine."
It remains to be seen how long it will take General Caldwell's efforts to reach down to the captains and sergeants now on patrol in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
The only achievable accomodation between the media and the military
is in competence. The media is not ever going to be really competent due to commercial pressure. That's life...
The media (and the politicians) will look for stories, bad news sells (and garners votes. Maybe...). The Armed Forces can be more competent than they now are by a fair degree without a great deal of effort and at small cost. Such competence will attract far less adverse media (and political) attention and that will likely offset the slight cost increase.
much as I always try to agree with Ken..
...I don't think the media is quite as incompetent as he does.
Certainly, there are a great number of poor media outlets, lazy reporters, and a lot of playing to the entertainment demands of the market rather than informing and analyzing. Those sorts of weaknesses apply in any industry or organization.
That having been said, as someone who works with both open source/media information (in my usual academic capacity) and top-end classified stuff (when sometimes wearing an intel analysis hat), I have to say that not only is the former sometimes/often more nuanced and informative than the latter, but that above and beyond this 1) the latter would often make little no sense without the broader contextualization offered by the former, and 2) the fact that so damn much of value now appears open source allows collection to be focused on confirming OS information, or examining the known (and potential) unknown unknowns.
Of course, it depends on what particular issues you're working on. I do political assessment. If, on the other hand, I wanted detailed analysis of military deployments or combat operations, I wouldn't look to the media for particularly informed or nuanced material.
Well, when you don't, I tend to relook my position -- or statement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
...I don't think the media is quite as incompetent as he does.
(He probably doesn't either but he does have fun slinging mud at them...) :D
Quote:
That having been said, as someone who works with both open source/media information ... and top-end classified stuff... I have to say that not only is the former sometimes/often more nuanced and informative than the latter...
Agreed
Quote:
If, on the other hand, I wanted detailed analysis of military deployments or combat operations, I wouldn't look to the media for particularly informed or nuanced material.
True -- and, the generic reason for my less than nuanced shotgun blasts. That's where their ignorance and thus inadvertant incompetence show.. :wry:
Thus my comments and my belief that we have a problem of almost mutually repellent objects that can have a non problematic relationship only if one object changes; it is IMO to the advantage of the military for them to change as insistence on media change is unlikely to be heeded.
There is no news in jobs well done; dog bites man is not a story...;)
I bow to your superior wisdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
I have to disagree with you, Ken. The media is very competent. The real question is: competent at what...
1. Advocacy journalism....
2. The media is involved in COIN - for the other side...
3. Using soldiers as pawns to advance their narrative. Haditha. Enough said?
I appreciate that the media should have a role. But I come from a period in time when the ideal of that role was to present all the facts and let people decide. The media of today sees itself as an active participant in affairs, one with special privileges, having no accountability to anyone, and acts accordingly.
Not only do I bow but I will also present corroborative evidence of your brilliance:
LINK.
With an attitude like that, who needs enemies. An award for advocacy journalism, COIN involvement and the tossing of a Pawn or two on the fire... :rolleyes:
That causes me to restate something I said earlier: "...it is IMO to the advantage of the military for them to change as insistence on media change is unlikely to be heeded."
Sad. Really.