The Military’s Media Problem

[120mm]

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.

[Menning]

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.

[120mm]

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.

[marct]

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.

....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.

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

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

[Menning]

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.

[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.

Tom

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."

[wm]

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?

[120mm]

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.

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.

Sorry for "snapping" at you. I had a bad day yesterday, and mention of the J. Lynch thing is a red flag I have to learn to quit charging. But you bring up some good points.

I've mentioned the idea that domestic I/O and public support of a "small war" is overrated before, and I think it might merit further examination without me going "over the top" in my argument. Frankly, DDE was correct, in his place and time. But in an America where barely 25% of the people can be bothered to vote, just how important is public opinion?

If, for example, in the cases of the COIN conducted in S. America during the 80s, or the current conflict in the Horn of Africa, public apathy allows the polity to conduct any policy they could possibly wish, with the entire net result being a handful of smelly hippies beating a drum outside the White House. And as the US populous correctly despises hippies, even that works in the favor of the polity.

I submit that public support of a "total war" is crucial, while public apathy is much more important than public support in the case of "small wars." Public support implies engagement by the populous, and that engagement means that the enemy's I/O campaign can be used to much greater effect, especially with a neutral or "enemy" domestic press.

The first time there is an "operational pause" or a military setback, a popular war becomes a "morass". In the case of a long war, it is impossible to sustain public support, without big, flashy operations and managed success. I know it is slaying a sacred cow to suggest that public apathy is much more important to a "long war" than public support, but the more I read and see, the more I believe this to be true.

I'm sorry for not being able to put it forward more succinctly.

[RTK]

The most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq will appear next Wednesday, a 90-minute PBS broadcast called "Buying the War," which marks the return of "Bill Moyers Journal." E&P was sent a preview DVD and a draft transcript for the program this week.

While much of the evidence of the media's role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.

Review here