The Military's Media Problem

**Shek** · 04-16-2007, 20:20 PM

Max Boot has put together a string of solid op-ed's, to include his most recent one here. In all of the blame game, I think we miss out on making some real changes, especially given the importance of information operations in the current fight.

Quote:

contentions » archive

The Military’s Media Problem
Max Boot - 4.12.2007 - 10:23AM

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. He is, for instance, taking reporters with him on tours of the battlefield. On Saturday he had a correspondent from the San Antonio newspaper along when he traveled to Baqubah. (I also accompanied him, as did Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute.) But to be successful, Petraeus will have to get more officers to follow his example.

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.

To this I would add one other idea: troops on the ground who see inaccurate reports about their operations should contact the media outlets in question and demand corrections—or take other steps to publicize the facts as they know them. In short: stop griping about the press in private and start doing something about it in public. That’s just what some military bloggers are already doing, but their activities are often frowned upon.

What the armed forces have to realize is that in today’s world engaging in information ops can no longer be a peripheral part of a military campaign. In a sense, the kinetic operations have come to be peripheral to the core struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq—and back home. If the armed forces don’t do a better job of waging this part of the struggle, they can lose the war, no matter what happens on the battlefield.

Swift Sword · 04-17-2007, 08:41 AM

Morning, Sir,

Ironically, part of the problem just might be that the best people are not military material, so to speak.

More than a few of the best and the brightest in advertising, media journalism, filmaking, etc. are (or are some combination of) outspoken, individualists, eclectic, artists, homosexuals, etc. and sometimes amongst the political "outs".

If the soldiers want access to the better end of the market, they are most likely going to have to outsource which means they are going to have to work with a most unsoldierly bunch. We could have corporate culture problems.

A bigger part of the problem is repairing the damage caused by previous, inept propaganda efforts: a great deal of the information put out by CINC and various Hawks since 9-11 has not exactly stood up to rational scrutiny which has undoubtedly innoculated a portion of the media consuming public against pro war spin.

How are people supposed to beleive Senator McCain's televised statements of how good things are going in Iraq since the surge began when he is under heavy security, the bad guys bomb the Parliment, bridges and kill forty American soldiers in a week when slightly more than twice that is heralded as "a bad month"?

It is popular among the pro war crowd blame some sort of Leftist, mainstream media conspiracy for presenting their war in a poor light but could it be more of a failure of their own efforts rather than the success of the anti war spin doctors?

It is really a simple proposition: some metric for success has to be devised and presented to the public which demonstrates significant gains while accounting for continued, high profile violence and it would be foolish to think that the anti-war and/or bad-news-sells crowd is going to be the source.

If you want to win on the front page, you cannot talk success as long as spectacular bombings are in color and above the fold with the frequency that they are.

To paraphrase Sam Clemens "body counts run halfway around the World before the good news of local successes in Iraq even gets its shoes on".

Finally, I would like to point out that Mr. Boot's concluding paragraph is reminiscent of the advice of a long dead Chinese general who has been the topic of conversation around here on occassion

.

Regards,

William

Dreadnought · 04-17-2007, 11:51 AM

The problem for the military is the media itself and nothing else.

**Shek** · 04-17-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The problem for the military is the media itself and nothing else.

Dreadnought,

That is not true. Take a look at this self-inflicted wound. Michael Yon is an independent who isn't afraid to report the bad news, but also reports the good and places everything into context. As such, he carries a lot of credibility since he can't just be written off as a cheerleader.

Instead of embracing him as someone who is fair, the powers that be have erected numerous roadblocks against his reporting, as if they have a personal vendetta against him. There is no other way to characterize his situation as anything other than an internal problem to the MNF-I PAO staff.

Michael Yon's latest dispatches

If, as a military, we don't embrace the media as a necessary function, then we'll only suffer the consequences of a media-military divide. This isn't to say that there won't be some that will publish an agenda ridden story as opposed to just the news, but that is definitely not the whole of the media in that category.

Ray · 04-17-2007, 13:35 PM

The media feels that they are sole arbiters of world's problems. To ensure that position is not usurped they behave in the same way as the clergy of all religions - the last word!

They are as useful to the solution as the clergy in making Peace with the Maker!

That is the problem.

Outsourcing won't help. The people handling the issue for projection would not know the intricate issues involved and they will be using their skills as they know. That won't work.

In India, we ran an expensive programme of ads for attracting better talent. it was a fiasco. All gloss and no go! And a waste of good money!

It is for the army to get media savvy.

Even the embedded stuff was bogus since the pressman had no idea why what was being done and why. He only was sniffing a controversy so that he could 'sell'!

And anyway since such embedded people was enjoying the hospitality of the forces, their reports were taken with all the salt in the Pacific Ocean!

Ideal is the reporter who has seen battle as a soldier/ officer. He will understand the problems as also the requirement of the news selling and drawing in the ads which is the revenue that guarantees his pay and perks!

cato · 04-17-2007, 13:52 PM

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Max Boot has indeed hit the nail on the head. It seems that the Coalition is set on "managing the message" rather than opting for an approach that favors transparancy and access. Mr. Boot, along with Michael Yon, rightly excoriate this mindset. William, I believe, is correct in pointing out the lack of trust that has been engendered by rose-tinted declarations confronting a dichotomous reality where the rubber meets the proverbial road.

I am personally of the belief that it is not the coffins returnig to Andrews that are souring the public at large to our Mesopotamian trevails, but rather the afforementioned dichotomy between official pronouncement and stories-images coming out of theatre. In short, it isn't war fatigue, but rather Five-O'clock Funny fatigue. The antidote to this fatigue, I believe, is Mr. Boot's suggestion of radically increasing the number of journalists on the ground. Disheartening stories are going to make their way out of Iraq, irrespective of the number of jouralists embeded with American troops. The Coalition media folks simply cannot control news that is escaping the country.

Mr. Boot also brings up a point that shouldn't be overlooked. The notion of troops criticizing reportage could be a valuable tool, in gaining control of the media high ground. I would much rather have an American soldier providing on the ground insight, than an Iraqi stringer of unknown provenance. I guess the American public can't make an informed decision about Iraq, unless it gets information, warts and all. Having CENTCOM radically limiting access to its soldiers does just the opposite. Just my $.02.
Cato

Ray · 04-17-2007, 14:13 PM

Transparency and letting all know is good in theory.

What is the guarantee that the media is publishing the truth?

How come the NYT and Al Jazeera are poles apart from perception when reporting the same news?

Who is right?

cato · 04-17-2007, 16:55 PM

Ray,
You bring up a good point. I would say, however, that Al Jazeera was allowed to embed with the U.S. Military, during the "Mission Accomplished" portion of the war, and I don't remember any reports of abberant behavior on their part. Journalists who embed with the U.S. military tend to have positive things to say. To whit, I remember a BBC (hardly a bastion of goodwill to the U.S. military) reporter during Fallujah II, gushing about the heroism of the Marines with which he was embedded. As to who is telling the truth, I think that is something only an informed populace can discern. A populace that believes that the truth is being held from it, for whatever reason, will naturally believe the worst. Just a few thoughts.
Thanks,
Cato

**Parihaka** · 04-17-2007, 16:58 PM

There's nothing wrong with the media that a long lunch, a couple of good bottles of wine per journalist, and a cap with a badge on it to take away won't fix.

cato · 04-17-2007, 17:03 PM

Ah, Parihaka,
Unfortunately, it seems, the Earnest Hemmingway school of combat journalism has fallen out of favor!
Cato

**Shek** · 04-18-2007, 14:05 PM

This addresses an issue that is slightly different than Max Boot's oped, but related to the overall issue of how to remain credible, while still being able to direct messages at audiences outside the domestic one.

Quote:

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."

Petraeus, who is considered adept at handling the American media, asked in mid-March that the 2004 memo be rescinded or revised. A Defense official said Tuesday that Myers' memo would not be revoked, but that the Pentagon would begin work on a new policy outlining the relationship and interaction between information operations and public affairs.

Pentagon officials have told Petraeus' aides that while the new policy is being developed, they should not interpret Myers' memo as a prohibition against coordination between public affairs and information operations.

Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon's top military planning group, considered a new version of the memo that would have stripped much of Myers' language on the need to keep the two functions separate. Instead, the proposed rules would have stressed the need for coordination.

"Conflicting efforts could impede operational success," the proposed new wording warned, emphasizing the need for the two branches to "be aware of each other's activities."

Although the proposed guidelines will not take the place of the 2004 memo, they could form the basis of a new policy. However, such policies typically take months to develop because they must be widely reviewed and vetted within the military.

During the Vietnam war, military press conferences were derided as the "5 o'clock follies" because of misleading or irrelevant information provided to the press. Since then, Army public affairs officers adopted new practices that disavowed the use of misleading or deceptive information.

The military instituted its formal information operations effort in the 1990s, bringing together an array of activities, including deception, psychological operations and electronic warfare.

The changes proposed by Petraeus have reignited a wider debate within the Pentagon over the use of information during the Iraq war.

In one highly controversial information operations undertaking, the U.S. military used the Lincoln Group, a Washington defense contractor, to pay Iraqi editors to publish articles casting the American military in a favorable light. Although the articles, written by American troops, were truthful, some public affairs officers criticized the practice after it was revealed in the Los Angeles Times in 2005 because it appeared as though the military was peddling propaganda to journalists.

Nonetheless, some officers believe the Iraq war has demonstrated the problems of failing to aggressively manage information. They note that during World War II, nearly all information from the war theater was censored. Other officers believe that any substantive changes would erode the military's credibility and consider it naïve to think the U.S. public would tolerate 1940s-style censorship.

Advocates of lowering the wall between public affairs and information operations point to one missed opportunity last month. Army Major Gen. Michael D. Barbero revealed at a Pentagon news conference that insurgents had placed two children in the backseat of a car laden with bombs as a decoy to get past a military checkpoint. Once through, the bombers tripped the explosives, killing the children and three bystanders.

The grisly incident was widely reported. But some officers believe the story would have had greater impact if released in a more dramatized way to underscore the insurgents' barbarism.

Those who favor more aggressive information management believe public affairs officials should work for information operations offices.

Military officials in Baghdad say Petraeus does not want to try to manage the news; they insist he is not interested in extreme changes. Under the Petraeus plan, public affairs officials would continue to work directly for unit commanders, but would coordinate extensively with information officers.

Many brigades in Iraq already have placed public affairs and information officers in adjoining offices. The senior military official close to Petraeus said public affairs and information operations officers should work out of the same planning cell. That would ensure that messages spread by information operations officers and public affairs do not conflict and "work at cross purposes," the official said.

Although many public affairs officials trust Petraeus, some fear that other commanders, who may care less about the military's credibility with the press, could use Petraeus' policy request to subordinate public affairs officials to information operations officers.

Information operations may encompass what the military calls psychological operations — a range of persuasion techniques to influence local populations in foreign countries. Operations can be as simple as spreading truthful information via a loudspeaker truck or giving deliberately false information on a televised broadcast.

In 2004, for instance, a Marine public affairs officer announced the start of a U.S.-led effort in Fallouja on CNN; the assault did not begin until three weeks later. The false announcement was intended to gauge the reaction of insurgents. However, Pentagon officials said the use of a military spokesman also deceived American and Iraqi citizens.

The senior officer close to Petraeus said that information operations officers in Baghdad are not engaging in deception, so there was little risk to military credibility.

"Public affairs officers will not be involved in deception operations," the officer said. "There are red lines public affairs will not cross. They will not jeopardize their credibility."

Others are more skeptical of Petraeus' request, believing that the information operations officers engage in deception at times and that military spokespeople must steer well clear.

"They will tell you" psychological operations "is always truthful. But you know how the game works," said a senior defense official.

Those who favor rescinding or altering the Myers memo argue that it is better for public affairs officers to know what information officers are up to, so as to better prevent misleading information from filtering back to the U.S.But other Pentagon officials say that as soon as information operations and public affairs start working together regularly, reporters will start questioning the information they are getting.

"You will start asking constantly, 'Am I being spun?' " the senior official said. "The audience will lose trust and confidence in the commander's message."

Ray · 04-18-2007, 16:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

There's nothing wrong with the media that a long lunch, a couple of good bottles of wine per journalist, and a cap with a badge on it to take away won't fix.

Parihaka,

The Indian journalists will have all that and then write their usual crap!

Ungrateful wretches.

I was the Vice Patron of a Golf Club (Army managed) and we had this all India Inter Club Championship. Beer was not served to them. And the blokes wrote more about poor hospitality than on the Championship the were covering!

That's journalism for you.

04-17-2007, 08:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
Swift Sword *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-23-05 Location: Carl Perkins' Cadillac Posts: 767	Morning, Sir, Ironically, part of the problem just might be that the best people are not military material, so to speak. More than a few of the best and the brightest in advertising, media journalism, filmaking, etc. are (or are some combination of) outspoken, individualists, eclectic, artists, homosexuals, etc. and sometimes amongst the political "outs". If the soldiers want access to the better end of the market, they are most likely going to have to outsource which means they are going to have to work with a most unsoldierly bunch. We could have corporate culture problems. A bigger part of the problem is repairing the damage caused by previous, inept propaganda efforts: a great deal of the information put out by CINC and various Hawks since 9-11 has not exactly stood up to rational scrutiny which has undoubtedly innoculated a portion of the media consuming public against pro war spin. How are people supposed to beleive Senator McCain's televised statements of how good things are going in Iraq since the surge began when he is under heavy security, the bad guys bomb the Parliment, bridges and kill forty American soldiers in a week when slightly more than twice that is heralded as "a bad month"? It is popular among the pro war crowd blame some sort of Leftist, mainstream media conspiracy for presenting their war in a poor light but could it be more of a failure of their own efforts rather than the success of the anti war spin doctors? It is really a simple proposition: some metric for success has to be devised and presented to the public which demonstrates significant gains while accounting for continued, high profile violence and it would be foolish to think that the anti-war and/or bad-news-sells crowd is going to be the source. If you want to win on the front page, you cannot talk success as long as spectacular bombings are in color and above the fold with the frequency that they are. To paraphrase Sam Clemens "body counts run halfway around the World before the good news of local successes in Iraq even gets its shoes on". Finally, I would like to point out that Mr. Boot's concluding paragraph is reminiscent of the advice of a long dead Chinese general who has been the topic of conversation around here on occassion . Regards, William __________________ Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

04-17-2007, 11:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 5,326 Country:	The problem for the military is the media itself and nothing else. __________________ Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

04-17-2007, 13:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,144 Country:	The media feels that they are sole arbiters of world's problems. To ensure that position is not usurped they behave in the same way as the clergy of all religions - the last word! They are as useful to the solution as the clergy in making Peace with the Maker! That is the problem. Outsourcing won't help. The people handling the issue for projection would not know the intricate issues involved and they will be using their skills as they know. That won't work. In India, we ran an expensive programme of ads for attracting better talent. it was a fiasco. All gloss and no go! And a waste of good money! It is for the army to get media savvy. Even the embedded stuff was bogus since the pressman had no idea why what was being done and why. He only was sniffing a controversy so that he could 'sell'! And anyway since such embedded people was enjoying the hospitality of the forces, their reports were taken with all the salt in the Pacific Ocean! Ideal is the reporter who has seen battle as a soldier/ officer. He will understand the problems as also the requirement of the news selling and drawing in the ads which is the revenue that guarantees his pay and perks! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA Last edited by Ray : 04-17-2007 at 13:41 PM.

04-17-2007, 16:58 PM	#9 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,465 Country:	There's nothing wrong with the media that a long lunch, a couple of good bottles of wine per journalist, and a cap with a badge on it to take away won't fix. __________________ In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

04-17-2007, 13:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
cato Regular Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 129	The Truth Shall Set You Free Max Boot has indeed hit the nail on the head. It seems that the Coalition is set on "managing the message" rather than opting for an approach that favors transparancy and access. Mr. Boot, along with Michael Yon, rightly excoriate this mindset. William, I believe, is correct in pointing out the lack of trust that has been engendered by rose-tinted declarations confronting a dichotomous reality where the rubber meets the proverbial road. I am personally of the belief that it is not the coffins returnig to Andrews that are souring the public at large to our Mesopotamian trevails, but rather the afforementioned dichotomy between official pronouncement and stories-images coming out of theatre. In short, it isn't war fatigue, but rather Five-O'clock Funny fatigue. The antidote to this fatigue, I believe, is Mr. Boot's suggestion of radically increasing the number of journalists on the ground. Disheartening stories are going to make their way out of Iraq, irrespective of the number of jouralists embeded with American troops. The Coalition media folks simply cannot control news that is escaping the country. Mr. Boot also brings up a point that shouldn't be overlooked. The notion of troops criticizing reportage could be a valuable tool, in gaining control of the media high ground. I would much rather have an American soldier providing on the ground insight, than an Iraqi stringer of unknown provenance. I guess the American public can't make an informed decision about Iraq, unless it gets information, warts and all. Having CENTCOM radically limiting access to its soldiers does just the opposite. Just my $.02. Cato

04-17-2007, 14:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,144 Country:	Transparency and letting all know is good in theory. What is the guarantee that the media is publishing the truth? How come the NYT and Al Jazeera are poles apart from perception when reporting the same news? Who is right?

04-17-2007, 16:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
cato Regular Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 129	Ray, You bring up a good point. I would say, however, that Al Jazeera was allowed to embed with the U.S. Military, during the "Mission Accomplished" portion of the war, and I don't remember any reports of abberant behavior on their part. Journalists who embed with the U.S. military tend to have positive things to say. To whit, I remember a BBC (hardly a bastion of goodwill to the U.S. military) reporter during Fallujah II, gushing about the heroism of the Marines with which he was embedded. As to who is telling the truth, I think that is something only an informed populace can discern. A populace that believes that the truth is being held from it, for whatever reason, will naturally believe the worst. Just a few thoughts. Thanks, Cato

04-17-2007, 17:03 PM	#10 (permalink)
cato Regular Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 129	Ah, Parihaka, Unfortunately, it seems, the Earnest Hemmingway school of combat journalism has fallen out of favor! Cato

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Goa - new paedophile's paradise?	Neo	Political Discussions	33	01-19-2007 08:49 AM
Mercenaries, media now subject to UCMJ	Horrido	Political Discussions	7	01-06-2007 23:43 PM
Indian Media on a Propaganda Path Against Kashmiries	BurningKashmir	Political Discussions	67	05-30-2005 05:08 AM
The problem with the Arab world is not Israel or the US. It lies within itself.	Leader	Current Affairs	3	06-22-2004 14:56 PM
The Media is spinning the 9/11 commission's report	Leader	International Defense Topics	10	06-20-2004 09:20 AM