When the two institutions meet during a conflict, clashes are inevitable. The press wants to tell the story, and the military wants to win the war and keep casualties to a minimum. The press wants freedom, and the military wants control. Those are fundamental differences that will never change. Yet the military and the media also have worked together in harmony, particularly in situations where individuals in both institutions had the time to get to know and respect one another.
Despite the disputes of the past, leaders in each institution understand the importance of the other. Top military officials acknowledge their responsibility to the First amendment guarantee of the people's right to know, and the vast majority of military officers (83%) believe the news media are just as necessary to maintaining American freedom as the military according to a poll taken for this study. This attitude exists even though members of the armed forces, who swear to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, give up many personal liberties that news people and other citizens take for granted.
Similarly, leaders of the nation's news media appreciate that, without the protection of America's military forces, precious constitutional freedoms would not have been preserved for more than 200 years. The poll shows that 93% of the news media disagree with the proposition that members of the military are more interested in their own image than in the good of the country. News leaders understand the need for mutual support and cooperation, especially given the fact that there is no legal way to force the military to cooperate in news coverage.
Yet animosity has tarnished the relationship, particularly during the last dozen years. Some military officers, including some who never served there, still blame the news media for the loss of the Vietnam War. Although top defense and military officials interviewed for this study do not subscribe to that belief, 64% of the military officers surveyed in the opinion poll believe strongly, or at least somewhat, that news media coverage of events in Vietnam harmed the war effort. On the media side, 70% disagreed with that characterization.
One positive development in the relationship is that stereotypes seem to have broken down. Only 23% of the military officers surveyed strongly agreed or agreed somewhat with the statement that "the news media are mainly left-wing doves," and just 5% of the media representatives in the survey agreed or strongly agreed that military personnel are "mainly right-wing hawks."
Return to top of document
Although a perfect cooperative union of the media and the military is likely impossible, given the differences in missions and personalities, there are wise men and women in both institutions who recognize that their ultimate goal-the preservation of American freedoms--is the same. They also have learned that cooperation serves the interests of each as well as serving the American people.
This study focuses on the military-media relationship in conflict situations, based on the conviction that if the two institutions can work together during the tension and fog of war, they likely can get along in peacetime. We do, however, recognize that there are disputes and issues related to news media coverage of the defense establishment in peacetime. Similarly, the study recognizes, but does not address, the coverage by the foreign news media of American forces in military operations. Those relationships are not covered by the First Amendment and are best left to the military's judgment.
We have organized the materials gathered in our nine months of research into three distinct sections. The"Overview" begins with an executive summary and includes a look at the it most recent large-scale U.S. conflict, the Persian Gulf War; the results from the First Amendment Center study of the military and the media; an examination of wartime security issues from the military's point of view; and the history of the media/military relationship on the battlefield and in the courts. Part II, "For the Future," comprises a detailed list of recommendations for both the media and the military; an explanation of the Independent Coverage Tier System, our proposed system for media deployment in wars of the future; a discussion of trust; and an examination of educational issues affecting both military and media personnel. The final section, "Other Views," includes key excerpts from a number of interviews conducted over the course of our tenure at The First Amendment Center.
This study truly has been a joint effort. Although a small number of the more than 60 interviews were conducted individually, the vast majority involved both authors. Similarly, for the first time in these joint scholarly efforts at The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, both members of the team fully participated in writing the report, which is why careful readers will note some variations in style in different sections.
WILLIAM P. LAWRENCE
FRANK A. AUKOFER
MAY 1995
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As always, the over riding issues between the news media and the military involve access, censorship and the timely reporting of news from the battlefield. News people, not surprisingly, want total access, no, censorship, and the capability to get their stories out to their audiences quickly. Military people, not surprisingly, want the option to exercise some control for operational security purposes.
Return to top of document
The greatest fear of a military commander in a pre-invasion scenario is that something might leak that would tip off an enemy.
News executives understand that concern and have agreed in specific circumstances to delay or modify coverage in the interests of security. Their biggest fear is that military leaders-or their civilian superiors-might stifle news coverage by stretching the security blanket for political purposes or to enhance their public image, cover up mistakes or influence public attitudes about a war.
The Findings
After carefully studying the areas of contention between the news media and the military, we have found that:
1 Censorship--or security review, as it is called in military language--is a phenomenon of the past.
In every, modern conflict, security breaches by news people have been rare. The best insurance against harmful disclosures is to send reporters to live with troops in the field, where they soon develop understanding and even friendships. American reporters exhibit as much patriotism as members of the armed forces.
Moreover, with communications networks now blanketing the globe and news organizations developing the capability to report from almost anywhere with new technology such as satellite telephones, there is a conviction--even among military and civilian-defense leaders-that censorship will be neither practical nor desirable in the future. Censorship was not employed in the Haiti and Somalia operations.
2 Many news executives and reporters see no difficulty with a limited degree of censorship in extraordinary circumstances, even in the field, as long as the guidelines are developed in advance and are understood and strictly obeyed by both sides.
Some practitioners of the journalistic craft-Walter Cronkite is a prominent example-advocate censorship of the sort that was practiced in World War I, aimed strictly at the security of troops on the battlefield and handled by professionals who are receptive to appeals by correspondents. However, as this report shows, the military no longer is equipped to engage in that sort of security review.
Return to top of document
Access to the battlefield and to military units has been the paramount concern in the news community, a concern that takes on even more importance because it is the military's only means of control if censorship can no longer be practiced. The denial of access means that the story can never be told or, if it is told, the authors will be the participants themselves, who might be inclined to forsake objectivity to make themselves look good.
3 The military leadership is willing to take news organizations into their confidence in some pre-operational situations, as they did prior to the aborted Haiti invasion.
This is true except for the most secret of operations.
There also is a willingness among news media leaders in such circumstances to abide by temporary restrictions on coverage, as long as the restrictions are mutually agreed upon.
4 There is a fundamental commitment in the nation's military leadership to provide America's news media with as much access as possible to future military operations, as long as this can be made compatible with security concerns.
The aborted invasion of Haiti and the withdrawal of United Nations troops from Somalia, two situations in which the news media participated fully and without interference, demonstrated the new attitude toward news coverage of military operations. However, because neither situation involved combat, the commitment has not-as of this writing-been fully tested.
5 Many military leaders have become aware that news media coverage of their operations can be a force multiplier.
Impressed by Gen. Walt Boomer's example of- encouraging favorable news media coverage of the U.S. Marines in the Persian Gulf War-to the point where most observers agree that the Marines received more credit than they deserved, mostly at the expense of the U.S. Army-many military leaders have come to the conclusion that media coverage not only develops public awareness and support of military units, it has the side benefit of enhancing morale by informing families and friends of the activities of their troops.
Return to top of document
However, the new message of openness has not yet percolated through the ranks. Many military officers still see no reason to cooperate with the media. Some are openly hostile.
6 Top leaders of both the military and the news media understand that detailed planning must be done well in advance of any operation, so that neither group is faced with uncertainties and ad hoc solutions that lead to disputes.
Plans must have the weight of authority so that they cannot be abrogated after the operation begins or the battle starts. However, both military and news leaders are aware that the best of plans can be shredded in the field by rogues or incompetents on either side.
7 The competitive and independent nature of the news media is such that, with rare exceptions, they cannot organize and plan in a way that represents all of their constituent parts.
While public affairs specialists in the military have continually worked on issues related to news media coverage of combat, there has been no similar organized effort on the news media side beyond meetings and other requirements of the Pentagon pool system.
8 The Pentagon pool system, which represents the only ongoing area of cooperation between the news media and the military, lacks institutional memory, particularly on the media side.
Because of regular turnover in personnel among both the news organizations and the military, time is wasted bringing both sides up to speed in a pre-invasion situation.
9 There is a declining interest in military-affairs coverage among American news organizations.
That, in addition to the end of the draft in 1972, means that reporters with an understanding of military culture and operations are an endangered species.
The increased media attention to so-called social issues, including gays in the military, sexual harassment and women in combat, has come at the expense of stories analyzing the wisdom of expenditures of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Although defense spending is on the decline, the 1995 budget authority of $263.5 billion still represented about 18% of the federal budget.
Return to top of document
10 The vast majority of problems experienced by the news media at the hands of the military in conflicts over the last dozen years have happened primarily because of poor planning, a lack of effective top-down communication, overreaction in the field to perceived press hostility in the leadership, and plain old incompetence.
There is no evidence that military leaders engage in organized efforts to thwart news coverage.
11 Although the nation's armed forces collectively have the best public affairs apparatus in the U.S. government, the specially still has not achieved the status it deserves among members of the military.
12 Future military leaders do not receive adequate news media education and training as they move up through the ranks.
America's armed forces are the best in the history of the world. Military men and women are professionals with a proud heritage and, with rare exceptions, nothing to hide. Having their stories told by knowledgeable practitioners of the news craft, especially in wartime, can only enhance the already popular public view of the military. Yet there still are many military officers who see nothing but career setbacks if they have contact with news media representatives.
Some of the concern is justified. There will be times when reporters screw up, and others when military organizations have difficulties or scandals that they would prefer to keep quiet. But experience has shown that the best approach is to face the situations squarely and get the story out quickly. Headlines are always bigger if the press believes there has been an attempt to stonewall or cover up.
The American news community is a many-faceted entity, and some of the facets are crazed-as we are seeing in the rise of so-called tabloid journalism. Because of the First Amendment and the tendency of some news organizations to appeal to the lowest common denominator in their audiences, that situation is unlikely to change. Some in the news media, however, are justifiably concerned that journalistic abuses could lead to popular demands for restrictions. Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future the news media will continue to have sensation-mongers as well as disinterested professionals.
Return to top of document
Despite that, the military has an overriding self-interest in getting its overwhelmingly positive story out. To do so, it must communicate the leadership's views from the top down, and improve public affairs education at all levels, but especially among the young officers who will become the next generation of leaders. Fortunately, the military command structure makes such improvements possible.
Unfortunately, such is not the case with the unstructured news media. It has no overall way to enforce responsibility or enhance education and knowledge among its practitioners. Unlike the military, which constantly analyzes its operations to learn lessons, the tendency of individual news organizations is to move on to the next story. With some exceptions, little planning is done until the next military operation is imminent.
The Recommendations
With all of that in mind, we recommend that:
1 The Department of Defense should consider adopting an overall policy, which already is informally in effect in many ways, of "security at the source."
That would mean an end to field censorship, which today's military is ill-equipped to do in any case. It also would mean that escort officers would be used only to facilitate access for reporters and photographers.
2 News media representatives should recognize that there may be extraordinary circumstances in the future when civilian or military defense leaders might want to exercise some temporary censorship in the interest of operational security or saving lives.
Guidelines for invoking that limited censorship should be developed in advance.
3 Because of rapid advances in communications technology, news media and military leaders should jointly engage in a study of the security issues posed by real-time reporting from the battlefield.
4 Building on the concept of the Department of Defense National Media Pool, which should be continued and improved upon for temporary use in secret operations, the news media and the military should jointly establish the Independent Coverage Tier System described in this report.
Return to top of document
The tier system's chief advantage is that it would allow military commanders to determine how many members of the news media they could accommodate with units on the battlefield. For the news media, it would provide guaranteed access, with proper support and protection, and without censorship.
Nothing in the tier concept would prevent independent coverage by news organizations, domestic or foreign, outside the tier system. However, the military would have no obligation to accommodate outsiders.
5 In major conflicts, such as Desert Storm, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should consider assigning an officer of flag or general rank in the combat theater to coordinate the news media aspects of the operation under the commander of U.S. military forces.
In the field, an officer of sufficient rank is needed as the liaison between the news media, the Pentagon and the commander in the theater. In Desert Storm, the top media relations officer was a colonel, despite repeated admonitions over the years by news media representatives that an officer of at least one-star rank needed to be assigned.
6 Foundations, including but not limited to such news-oriented organizations as The Freedom Forum, the McCormick Tribune Foundation and the Knight Foundation, should jointly establish an Office of Military-Media Relations.
The office would function in a variety of ways described in this report, including maintaining the institutional memory for the combat pool and tier systems, facilitating discussions of real-time battlefield reporting, and developing education and training programs for journalists and military men and women.
As an early project, the office should produce a military source book for news organizations, as described in this report. It should be distributed to all newsrooms in the United States and be periodically updated.
7 News organizations must make better effort to cover military affairs, beginning at the local level with coverage of National Guard, Reserve and ROTC units.
At the national level, more attention needs to be paid to coverage of the Defense Department and the military services.
Return to top of document
8 Where journalism schools and ROTC programs share campuses or geographic locations, they should seek each other out for class visits or joint programs aimed at increasing their knowledge and understanding of each other.
9 News media education provided by the Professional Military Education System needs to be improved through an integrated, building-block approach throughout the five levels of the system.
The precommissioning and primary levels should focus on shaping realistic and healthy attitudes toward the news media. Instruction at the intermediate, senior and capstone levels should provide more detailed information concerning interaction with the media.
10 The Secretary of Defense should consider expanding to other service colleges the program which allows news media personnel to attend courses at the National War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
11 The Armed Forces should continue efforts to expand news media training as part of field-training exercises and war games, affording the press the maximum opportunity to participate.
The foundation-supported Office of Military-Media Affairs could be used to facilitate such efforts.
12 The military services should continue efforts to enhance the effectiveness, prestige and career attractiveness of public affairs officers.
The PAOs should always be included in operational planning.
13 The Department of Defense should abandon efforts to establish regulations defining the qualifications of news media representatives.
Relations between the military and the news media should be based on informal, common-sense and mutually agreed-upon guidelines, with the possibility of quick changes if circumstances dictate.
Despite well-publicized difficulties, the relationship between the military and the news media has progressively improved. As Haiti and Somalia demonstrated, the military can accommodate the news media, and journalists can fit into military operations without jeopardizing the success of these operations.
Return to top of document
Mostly what it takes is good will and common sense on both sides. Though that is a truism, it is the only way to approach a relationship with so many unpredictable variables. It is unlikely that the working relationship between the military and the news media will ever totally satisfy either side. However, it can be improved to the point where aggravations are few and short-lived. As the process continues-as it must-the beneficiaries will be the military, the news media and the American people.
CONCLUSION: TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE?
Despite the animosity that has existed between the news media and the military throughout history, and the differences in the culture, attitudes and outlooks of the professionals in both institutions, they also mirror each other in many respects.
"The irony, at least in the print world-I'm not as familiar with the TV world-is that military officers and military troops, and civilian editors and civilian reporters, have a lot more in common than they are willing to admit," says George Wilson, an author and military affairs reporter who spent many years covering the Pentagon for The Washington Post. "Both sides want a front-row seat on the action. That's why you're a reporter. You want to see the human comedy up close. It's fun.
"And the military guy wants to fly an F-14, or whatever he does, to get out there and see something, do something. Also, they have this kind of day-at-a-time attitude.
"To most reporters and editors, it is today that is important. They don't have these long, corporate cash-flow plans. So when military and press people get together in a relaxed environment, they find a lot in common. They have strong feelings. They are very opinionated. Reporters are opinionated as hell. And officers are opinionated as hell. Yet they can argue very constructively, especially outside of Washington.
"I was on an aircraft carrier for seven and a half months. The first two weeks, every time I would sit down, someone would come up and give me hell about some story, or what Time magazine had done, or how lousy TV was.
Return to top of document
"But at the end of two weeks, when the novelty wore off and they knew that I wasn't going to go anywhere-that they had this real, live reporter captured-they started to get beneath the bromides. We discovered we had hell of a lot in common. The next thing I knew, I was being invited to their parties, the bad boys' room that had the alcohol, and the whole thing.
"That's the great irony. There's this kind of popular conception that the military and the press are direct opposites. But in the field, they get to realize how much alike they are - in their philosophy, in trying to live on the edge."1
Professionalism and common sense
There will always be those in the media-news executives, reporters, editors and journalism students-who are suspicious and believe the military will do anything to hide its faults and problems. Similarly, there are individuals in the military-of all ranks-who have great animosity toward the news media. But there also are journalists who work with and understand the military and who feel a great kinship with military people, as well as many in the top military leadership who believe in the First Amendment and the role of the Fourth Estate in American democracy.
Given their differences in purpose, no one should ever expect journalists and military men and women to march together in close-order drill-and certainly never to look like the Tweedledum and Tweedledee character, in Alice in Wonderland. But in the course of this study, it has become apparent that the two groups come to cross-purposes only when there is something seriously wrong in either camp-whether an unscrupulous journalist who bends the facts or a military commander who tries to hide an embarrassment.
On the other hand, when both groups perform professionally, consistent with the ideals and principles of their respective institutions, when they exercise old-fashioned common sense to handle the inevitable disputes, they get along just fine.
Endnotes
1 George Wilson, interview by Frank Aukofer, Washington, D.C.,
Nov. 28, 1994.
RETURN TO TABLE ON CONTENTS
Get your own Free Home Page