Military as ... marketing?
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!!!
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Marketing?
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?
Marketing, PSYOP, & PAO
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.
While I agree that collaboration should - and does- happen, PSYOP does not operate under a "never lie rule," rather an always be credible rule. While collaboration does occur, it has always been a very cautious relationship for a variety of reasons ranging from their distinct objectives, to the before mentioned "rule," to associated legalities (Smith-Mundt Act, etc).Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
Cori - Overall, great points! Although I would ammend your comment to read "PSYOP folks will barely answers questions regarding anything with interviewers."
Last edited by ilots; 04-24-2007 at 03:22 AM.
Lynch story
>>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".<<
Hello. I'm new to this forum, having just found it through a link via MountainRunner. I've had several careers -- soldier, journalist and, most recently, am in communications with the U.S. goverment. In 2003, I was a Pentagon reporter for Army Times and the other Military Times newspapers.
The Lynch story grew the way many modern news stories grow. I recall seeing a story in the Washington Post shortly after her capture, showing her Basic Training picture, and not thinking much of it. My wife, more in tune to pop culture than I've ever been, immediately grew fascinated and said something to the effect, "she's got such a girl-next-door look, this will be a big story."
The Defense Department played a strong and pro-active role in feeding the media hunger that grew over Lynch. Late on April 1, 2003, General Vince Brooks put out a terse news release saying she had been captured, followed by more in-depth information. The next day, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke aired the video in the Pentagon news briefing. Here is a quote from the transcript:
Presenter: Victoria Clarke, ASD PA April 02, 2003 1:00 PM EST
DoD News Briefing - ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. McChrystal
(Also participating was Maj. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, vice director for Operations, J-3, Joint Staff. Slides from today's briefing are available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...2-D-6570C.html
Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. Progress continues in the war to end the Iraqi regime. As we close in on Baghdad, U.S. forces continue their attacks on enemy forces near Karbala, Al Kut, and An Najaf. Our forces air and ground are performing superbly and continue to degrade the Republican Guard significantly. While we're moving forward we want to underscore again that some of the toughest fighting may well lie ahead.
Yesterday, as you know, coalition Special Forces rescued Army Private Jessica Lynch from captivity by the Iraqi regime. PFC Lynch was taken from a hospital where she was being guarded near Nasiriyah in southern Iraq. She's in good spirits and being treated for injuries. I think we have a video clip. (Pause .. Clip show.)
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=2236
Here are links to official Defense Department releases by the American Forces Press Service related to the Lynch rescue, which depict how it was being officially portrayed, to include inuendo that some of Lynch's companions may have been tortured to death. AFIS is the Pentagon's in-house news and informaton service, co-located with Pentagon Public Affairs. Please also note the links to DoD-produced television programs related to Lynch.
American POW Rescued From Iraqis (April 1, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29181
More Details on Lynch Rescue, 11 Bodies Found (April 2, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29178
Lynch Family Overjoyed by Rescue (April 2, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29173
Lynch Recovering From Captivity in Landstuhl Hospital (April 4, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29162
Iraqi Family Risks it all to Save American POW (April 4, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29160
Lynch to Rescuers: "I'm an American Soldier, Too" (April 5, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29157
Lynch Gets Family Visit in Germany (April 8, 2003)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=29143
Finally, here is an interesting article by the British newspaper The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956255,00.html
An excerpt says:
In the early hours of April 2, correspondents in Doha were summoned from their beds to Centcom, the military and media nerve centre for the war. Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top figure there, had stayed up all night. "We had a situation where there was a lot of hot news," he recalls. "The president had been briefed, as had the secretary of defence."
The journalists rushed in, thinking Saddam had been captured. The story they were told instead has entered American folklore. Private Lynch, a 19-year-old clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was a member of the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed. Nine of her US comrades were killed. Iraqi soldiers took Lynch to the local hospital, which was swarming with fedayeen, where he was held for eight days. That much is uncontested.
Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.
And...
A military cameraman had shot footage of the rescue. It was a race against time for the video to be edited. The video presentation was ready a few hours after the first brief announcement. When it was shown, General Vincent Brooks, the US spokesman in Doha, declared: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."
Nothing in the above post even remotely contradicts what I have been saying, and know to be accurate. As precise and meticulous as journalists claim to be, there are a lot of vagueness over who said what, where and when. The "Guardian" article in particular makes some tremendous leaps in incomplete reporting.
Don't forget that the military was reacting also, to what they were seeing on TV, vis-a-vis these events. The E-5 reporter who reported the "insinuated torture" appears to be accurately quoting the Iraqi Lawyer. If he did not, I think it is up to "The Press" to prove that the EEEEVIL Karl Rove and G.W. Bush were telling that young marine what to write in his article.
Which is what journalists and political types are "insinuating". So, why is it "okay" for the press to insinuate and dissemble, but not for military PAO types?
Hmmmm????
Last edited by 120mm; 05-02-2007 at 05:43 AM.
Lynch
Still, it's worth noting that the "Lynch as Rambo" scenerio was not reported until overnight April 2-3 for the Washington Post morning paper.
So the Defense Department's pro-active participation in reporting Lynch's rescue preceded the erroneous Rambo report, when she was still accurately understood to be a "girl-next-door" Army private. Yes, there was a television media frenzy surrounding her capture and repatriation. Public affairs professionals could have served the public interest by reminding people, in these early days as the story was taking shape, that Lynch was among several soldiers in the 507th Maintenance Company and that another female soldier, Pfc. Lori Piestewa has also been wounded, captured (and later died of wounds). Public affairs is less credible when it joins in media frenzies. It is more credible when it seeks to place "hot" stories in context, for example, by reminding people that the 507th reflected the modern Army and therefore modern American society.'She Was Fighting to the Death'
Details Emerging of W. Va. Soldier's Capture and Rescue
By Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 3, 2003; Page A01
Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday.
Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23, one official said. The ambush took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.
"She was fighting to the death," the official said. "She did not want to be taken alive." Lynch was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in on her position, the official said, noting that initial intelligence reports indicated that she had been stabbed to death. No official gave any indication yesterday, however, that Lynch's wounds had been life-threatening
The media and military
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.
Jessica Lynch
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.
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.
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
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks