The Military’s Media Problem

[SWJED]

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

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...

[marct]

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:

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

[Cori]

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.

[sullygoarmy]

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.

[Tom Odom]

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

[Van]

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.

[skiguy]

Hi everyone. This is my first post here and I'm very impressed at what I see. I'm not in the military, although I would be interested in being a part of a PRT if I get some experience or the education necessary.
You guys are very intelligent and interesting. If any of you are or have served, thank you.

With that said, I'd like to comment here because the media and propaganda is such a huge aspect of this GWOT. As a civilian, I'm not happy about what I'm seeing reported. I'm not a professional in the media field.

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.

Is that all that's expected from the media? To let the public know "we are here"? I'd like to see more "support our mission" which is severely lacking in most MSM outlets.

I agree they should go out and speak with or interview the Soldiers, even if they do complain. But so many reporters will only print the complaints. What about the others who don't complain or what about the accomplishments they are proud of?
In the US, reality is, a majority of the public watches the big 3, CBS, NBC, or ABC. There is no denying they are one-sided "Iraq the quagmire" "Iraq the civil war", etc.
How could the military counter the obvious Leftist agenda of MSM?

This is my first post, so I should say before anyone misunderstands me, I like President Bush, I support the GWOT completely, and the mission in Iraq (which is part of the GWOT), but, IMO, the Bush administration and the Pentagon are failing in getting the story out there. Some of the Generals are poor public speakers. MG Caldwell is one they should use more. He's matter-of-fact, right to the point, and he doesn't stumble when asked difficult questions.
He wrote an excellent article in the WaPo a few months back, but I haven't seen other articless from him and I think there should be. He has good writing and public speaking abilities. Caldwell is just one example. Petreaus does well wth that too.

I'm writing this strictly from a civilian POV. I have to dig somewhat to find reports of schools built, sanitation facilities, and electricity or anything about the new hydrocarbon law. Why is that? Why is this not getting out there?

[SWJED]

30 April National Review commentary - The News Stew in Iraq by W. Thomas Smith Jr.

... I can’t speak for Petraeus, but from my own experience, none of this begins to suggest that there is not a very bloody guerrilla war taking place in Iraq: There is, to be sure. And as I mentioned in “The Tank,” there are good and bad things happening “that don’t make the nightly cut.” Let me add, there are also skewed things that are making the cut...

No media company can accurately or completely report a war this way. But it is the way the Iraq war is being reported by most of the major newspapers, wire services, and television network; the threat of being captured by terrorists has quashed nearly all freedom of movement for Westerners.

The good news is: There is indeed infrastructural progress being made. It’s strange but true, which is a testament to both the resiliency of the Iraq people and the performance of American troops. Much of the country is relatively secure. And no one knows this better than the soldiers on the ground in Iraq, which is why the vast majority of them are willing to see the war through to its completion (though many are understandably less than pleased with the rate of progress)...