The Military 1
Running head: THE MILITARY AND THE MEDIA
The Military and the Media
Haines Group 1
SGM Kenneth D. Carmickle
SGM Timothy J. Lamb
SGM Barrington Ricketts
SGM Joseph J. Alexander
MSG Boris Saavedra
MSG Angie Blanchette
United States Army Sergeants Major Academy
Class # 58
SGM Scott A. Landy
27 November 2007
The Military 2
Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….4
Civil War…………………………………………………………………………………………..5
World War I ………………………………………………………………………………………6
World War II ……………………………………………………………………………………...7
Transition from World War II to Vietnam.………………………………………………………..8
Vietnam……………………………………………………………………………………………9
Desert Shield-Desert Storm……………………………………………………………………...10
Somalia…………………………………………………………………………………………..10
Pre-911 Summary………………………………………………………………………………..11
The Realationship Between The Media and The Military...……………………………………..12
First Amendment………………………...………………………………………………………12
Guidelines for Media Relations…...……………………………………………………………..13
Military and Media Proposal…………………………………………………………………….14
Operation Anaconda…………………………………………………………………………….15
Media and Fallujah…………………………………………………………………………...... 16
The Media’s Impact on Current Operations and Human Rights………………………………..18
Jessica Lynch.……………………………………………………………………………………18
Pat Tillman.………………………………………………………………………………………19
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..21
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….24
References……………………………………………………………………………………26-27
The Military 3
Abstract
Even though the 1st Amendment gives the media the right to broadcast news without regard to
military opinions, the Media must consider the impact it has on the public’s perception of the
military when they portray an incomplete or sided story. Reporting of this nature has and will
have negative impacts on the military’s ability to win wars. After looking at the relationship
between the Military and the media, it’s clear that over time their roles and relationships have
changed. This paper examines the relationship between these two groups starting with the Civil
War and finishing with the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The paper also addresses possible
solutions to problems presented.
The Military 4
The Relationship Between The Media and The Military
Introduction
Throughout the history of the United States, the mutual dependence of the military and
media has created a complex relationship. The founding fathers understood the need for a free
and independent press to keep the nation on a straight and true path. The writers of the
Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights felt that free press was so important that the
issue of free speech is first in the Bill of Rights. While understanding the importance of free
speech, the original members of the Constitutional Convention were aware of the impact positive
press could play in public perceptions of the government. It’s no coincidence that Benjamin
Franklin, who has been considered one of the smartest men of his time, published his own
newspaper. Benjamin Franklin used his newspaper to influence the opinions of others.
After the establishment of the United States of America, local newspapers played a
critical role in keeping the citizens informed about their government. The government would
develop a relationship with the press that allowed almost unlimited access to those in the upper
levels of power. These political figures used and trusted the press to present an honest and
unbiased view of the workings of the country’s government (Longacre, 2006). However, the relationship between the media and government has not always been stable; it has evolved and changed overtime. The evolution of the relationship between government and the media has been influenced by various world events that have occurred in American history. This paper will discuss how the media’s coverage of different wars has shaped public opinion and in some case even influenced military decisions. Over time the relationship between the media and the military has changed from supportive, to dependent, to hostile, back to supportive, and finally to friendly. Over time these changes have shaped and influenced America’s support of the military
The Military 5
and the conflicts they were fighting. As the average American’s beliefs and values have changed
so has the media’s view of their role in society. The changes in society have in many cases left
military leaders unsure of their ground when dealing with the media, since a free press and operational security in wartime will be in conflict at times, some sort of common ground between the two must be established. Even though the 1st Amendment gives the media the right
to broadcast the news without regard to military opinions, the media should consider the impact
it has on the public’s perception of the military when they only portray a portion of the story.
Also, the military has a responsibility to do a better job with the exchange of information to
assist the media in creating a positive perception.
Civil War
The close relationship between the media and the military can be traced back to the
American Civil War (Anon, 2007). By this time in history most Americans had become used to
and possibly even dependent upon the media of their time supplying them with local and national
news. The workings of the government and political elections were covered in great detail and
closely followed by newspaper readers. Technological advances had produced the ability to take
still photographs allowing Americans to see and visualize news stories in ways never imagined.
Because of the use of photography and other new inventions some historians consider The Civil
War to be the first modern war (Anon, 2007). But what was the relationship between the press,
the military, and the American public? In the “beginning of the Civil War” many newspapers felt
that “all ideas deserved First Amendment protection and fair-handed treatment,” but not all newspapers followed this trend as the war progressed (Dickens-Garcia, 2007). Reviewing newspaper articles from that time will show once the war begins many newspapers began to have a more biased slant. Depending on which side of the war the readers came from (either North or
The Military 6
South) the paper’s reporting was designed to constantly re-enforce the views of their readers.
Most newspapers weren’t trying to make breaking news but rather report news they felt was relevant, honest, and supportive to their reader’s views. Sometimes newspaper reporters even played an active role in shaping the public’s view of certain military generals. President Lincoln had newspaper reporters communicate with him directly on the personal affairs of General Grant
(Longacre, 2006). Overall, during the Civil War the relationship between the military and the media could be called one of mutual support and admiration, with shared goals and views. Very few times did the media and the military come in direct conflict with each other.
World War I
The media’s relationship with the military during their coverage of World War I and
World War II would reflect the changing landscape of American society and showcase new
advancements in technology. At the time of World War I (WW I), newsreels and movies were
becoming common across America. The media and government would use the new art of movie
making to show Soldiers in the trenches of the front lines. However, great care was taken not to
show scenes of dead American Soldiers to the American public. From the Civil War to WW I the
American media had become more involved in using their power to begin shaping events their
publishers felt were important. One example of this is how the Hurst Newspapers chain help lead
the cry for America’s involvement in the Spanish American War. While these changes were
occurring the military began to realize and appreciate how the media could be used as an
instrument in support of their goals. The relationship between the media and the military was still
one of mutual support and admiration. Most media personnel thought of themselves as patriots
first and reporters second. This isn’t to say their reporting wasn’t accurate or embarrassing at
The Military 7 times. Rather the military and media had a mutual trust that both sides would exploit for their own purpose.
World War II
One example of this trust is when two days prior to the invasion of Sicily; General
Eisenhower told the media about the plans and the time of the invasion. The media gave their word not to disclose it prematurely and they didn’t (Atkinson, 2007). Another example is the incident where General George Patton slapped an American Soldier in the head and accused him of malingering, General Eisenhower asked the media not to report on the incident and they agreed to his request for the good of the war effort (Atkinson, 2007). There are several reasons the media agreed to these and many other requests. First and foremost the reporters felt it would be unpatriotic to report on issues that could hurt morale at home. Also they didn’t want to give
America’s enemies ammunition to use in the world press against the American Soldier. Most importantly there was a level of trust between the military establishment and America’s media.
This level of trust resulted in the media trusting American commanders to take care of business
(and punish those that crossed the line like Patton) (Atkinson, 2007). Additionally, this level of trust allowed the military to give the media unrestricted access to Soldiers and the military operations that were taking place. This isn’t to say that the media would not report bad news, they could and did, but in most cases the media would talk to the military first and try to look to the greater good. This greater good can be described as a conflict between the public’s right to know and support for the American war effort. It’s safe to say that relations between the military and media were better during WW II than any other time in history. The American public would be the beneficiary of this relationship by receiving outstanding news coverage of the war. This coverage would also result in many media personnel becoming household names to the
The Military 8
American public. By sharing the dangers of the combat zone the military and media formed close ties.
Transition From World War II to Vietnam
So the question must be asked, if relationships between the media and the military were at an all time high after World War II, what affected their relationship during Korea and
Vietnam? The war in Korea would cause many issues for the American public. Where as WW II was considered a unified effort on behave of America this wasn’t true in Korea. During WW II
America had a large draft, rationing was in effect, and the American industrial complex was completely geared to the war. By comparison Korea has been called the Forgotten War. Unless a family member was drafted to fight (and these numbers were low compared to WW II), for many
Americans the war was something they saw on a news reel once a week at the theater. Life went on as normal for the American public. This perceived lack of interest would cause many in the military to acquire an us against them attitude concerning the war and the American public. Also during WW II, America’s trust in the military was at an all time high. We were fighting the good fight against an easily identifiable enemy. In Korea we fought against a public enemy (the North
Koreans) but we also began fighting against an idea (Communism). Fighting against a concept was hard for many Americans to identify with. During this time Americans would see a military legend (General McArthur) publicly disobey the president resulting in his dismissal from command. Of course the media had a front row seat at all these events and it would begin to alter the confidence and trust they placed in the military as well. Additionally, military commanders begin to see how the media’s reporting on their transgression could and would result in their dismissal or failure. However at this point the military still didn’t fully realize the power and impact the media had on the American public.
The Military 9
Vietnam
During the Vietnam War the relationship between the media and America’s military would reach an all time low. This decline was the result of many issues and events occurring both at home and in Vietnam. During the period of the Vietnam War major upheavals in the status quo of American culture were taking place. Starting with the Civil Rights March and moving into protest against war, the American public was changing their views on many issues regarding day to day life. Large numbers of Americans were also beginning to develop distrust for their own government. This problem was exaggerated by several public officials lying to the public on a number of issues. During this time the military and the government were seen as one entity by many people. It’s true that the military is a large part of the government, but many people would not or could not separate the American Soldier from the politician. The line
between those who make policy and those who enforce it was blurred in most Americans minds.
This would cause a deep split between the military and the public they were suppose to support
and defend. Some would say it caused the military to circle their wagons and fully develop the us
against them attitude which started during Korea. This problem was made worst by the fact that
many military leaders didn’t understand the nature of the conflict in Vietnam. This failure would
result in them over stating the progress being made by their commanders on the battlefield.
When these exaggerations or lies were brought to light, many reporters would develop a loss of
confidence in the truthfulness of the military. Overtime this lack of trust would result in the press
losing some of their unbiased and actively doubting the military statements on the air. An
outstanding example of this can be seen on the reporting during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam.
History has shown us that this offensive resulted in a huge loss to the North Vietnamese, but
since the military leadership had lied so many times in the past reporters refused to accept the
The Military 10 claim of victory made by the U.S. military. The media’s and public distrust of the military would result in the military claiming that the media didn’t support them during the war. However this claim is untrue. The hard facts are that the military lost the medias trust by their mishandling of ethical issues that arose. As stated earlier in the paper, during previous conflicts the media trusted the military commanders to do the right thing and punish the guilty. But examples like the My Lai massacre would show that the military was unable or unwilling to enforce standards
(Bilton, 1992). Changes in technology would also result in the media being able to report to the public directly from the battlefield. This would cause Vietnam to be considered our first television war. Once again the military failure to understand the impact of nightly television newscast would cause problems (Online News Hour, 2000).
Desert Shield-Desert Storm
The next major conflict that resulted in daily interaction for the military and the media was Desert Shield and Desert Storm. During this war median access to the Soldiers was tightly controlled by higher authority. The common reasons given for limiting this access was the very real problems of operational security and the lesser problem of lack of trust in reporters. One of the lessons the military learned from the Desert Storm conflict was that by controlling the media’s access to the war the military could help influence America’s support for the conflict
(Media Report, 2001). However the military did receive some criticism for their heavy handed tactics in denying media complete access. This criticism would result in changes to the military’s media policy during the next conflict.
Somalia
Both the media and the military realized the need for change after Desert Storm/Shield.
The military had re-learned an appreciation of the positive role the media could play in military
The Military 11
operations. Furthermore the media pools also realized that the military had enormous power to
limit access to the war zone. By limiting this access the military could cause news media groups
to lose market share by making their coverage weak or irrelevant. By the time of the Somalia
conflict the military was allowing the press more access to daily operations and information.
However this trust was violated by the press setting up cameras on the beaches of Somalia and
spotlighting Navy Frogmen as they cleared the benches for the incoming Marines. Another
lesson that the military and the American government learned from media coverage in Somalia
was that positive coverage could win over public opinion for military operations on the home
front. The pictures and live coverage of young children starving to death would leave a lasting
impression on America’s public conscious (Minear/Scott/Weiss, 1996). The lesson was also
driven home that pictures of dead Soldiers could also cause the public to demand changes by
their government. In retrospect both the media and the military came out of Somalia with a
newfound respect for each other’s power to influence events. This respect would result in a new
business relationship being developed for use during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pre-911 Summary
Over the course of our nation’s history the relationship between the media and the military has undergone many changes. The changes have been influenced and reflected by the changes our society has undergone. New technology and the demands of the public for more current and immediate gratification for their news needs have resulted in major changes in the media industry. The military also realized their need for public support, but was slow to realize the role media played in this support. Over the last 15 years both groups have developed lessons learned and explored new ground. The challenges leading up to current military and media
The Military 12 relationships was for them to develop the respect and mutual cooperation’s they both enjoined prior to Vietnam. The Military and the Media
It would probably be best to state the first amendment which is sometimes miss quoted but is still the core directive for military and media relationships. 1ST Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances (United States Constitution On-line, 2007).
The military and the media are like two infant babies who are attached to their mother by an umbilical-cord, both need each other to satisfy their survival needs. The military needs the media to tell the story and to gain the public trust and confidence; because without the media who is going to hear about the great things the US Forces are doing? On the other hand the media needs the military because they need ratings and war has always been a front page story from the beginning of time. Then of course, rating pays salaries and provides front page stories which later turns into documentaries and books. Ultimately in the end they both need each other.
President Richard Nixon declared, “Our worst enemy seems to be the press” (Hammond,
1998, p.81). This conflict between the military and the media is nothing new. Since the Civil war, media correspondent have been covering stories and the military has been trying to protect its operations. The media calls it: censorship; military calls it: operation security. So, where lays the problem? The military has to be concerned with the security of classified information and when the information is compromised then lives could be lost and missions failed. In return, the military needs the media on site to be able to tell the story to the American people but not before
The Military 13 the mission is accomplished or before the operation has begun. The critical part for the media is that they need the most up-to-date and timely information to be able to make the front page stories, so they have their hand hovering over the send button on the computer and sometimes it gets sent before the mission is accomplished. This creates a major problem!
Today’s media has the ability from modern technology to provide real time news by using satellite imaging, internet and cell phones that can send the information back to their headquarters in a moment’s notice. In a moment’s notice, the entire world and this includes our enemies can see the report. Excluding military censorship, many news reporters could unknowingly concede that presents a “clear and present danger" that could endanger the country.
Today’s public is looking for the most accurate and timely information they can find from the
TV, the radio or the internet. This drives the media to find ways to get this information back as fast as possible before other competitors find a faster, better way (Snyder, 2003). The love-hate relationship is massage by the media when there is no major operations to report by finding a story they think would be news worthy. The reporters find idle Soldiers who are waiting for the next mission and by interviewing them the information is sent back to their home town where they usually become the Home Town Hero. Sadly, these types of stories wouldn’t be possible if the media wasn’t there looking for stories because the military wouldn’t have time.
Unfortunately, this sometimes backfires when Soldiers don’t do the right thing or possibly the information wasn’t accurate and they become the Home Town War Criminals. It has always been feast or famine with the media.
In recent Wars the media has been used against the US forces by providing on the scene coverage and showing only their political agenda. So, the US Military started using the embedded media to help the world get the whole story. It is crucial that our military wins the war
The Military 14
of the media by endearing with the media relations to get the right perceptions to the public eye
to have the true success. Why the military should engage the media is probably best stated by
General (Ret) Dennis J. Reimer in a 1997 memorandum to his senior Army leaders. “Our
success, as an institution, depends on the degree to which all senior leaders communicate clearly
to the American people. It is in fact part of your METL [Mission Essential Task List],” said
Reimer (Reimer, 1997).
There are several publications that govern the guidance and directions of media operation
in and around combat missions. Department of Defense has DOD Directive 5410.8 which covers
Public Relations and Community Relations Policy. Public Affairs Office (PAO) is used to
monitor and manage media operations. PAO establishes relation with the media personnel by
providing them with interviews with combatant commanders and informing them of the
guidelines in which they must follow. They are also responsible for training and equipping US
forces for media operations and interviews.
There have been many petitions to the court for review of the operations of media in
wartime situation or military censorship. This caused the Pentagon's to direct some type of
collection of the news media into a pool system, but many news/television companies’ felt it was censorship and so they filed a lawsuit accusing the military of violation of the First Amendment which we know guarantees the right of “freedom of the press.” The media felt that a country that has its democracy should allow free press access to any military operation or war zone, because they feel that the American people should have the right to know what their military is doing. As of to date, the courts have never decided on the rights of access to a war zone (Combelles-Siegel
1996).
The Military 15
There have been many proposals presented to the higher courts, congress and other
agency by both the military and the media. Each proposal has its biases. These proposals benefit
the one who is proposing their grievances: the military declaring operational security and the press declaring Freedom of Press. Presently no courts, congress or any other agency rulings has
denied or restricted the military or media relationship. They are still attached to the umbilical-
cord.
Operation Anaconda
The United States television and media maintains that quick ear agenda. The television
and media in the United States is given the charge of reporting the news impartially and
factually. Given the natural state of human nature and how the U.S. public enjoys drama and
emotion, this is difficult to impossible at best.
Operation Anaconda involved about 1,000 U.S. Soldiers including Special Operations,
U.S. Army Rangers, 200 commandos from allies forces including Canada and Australia, and a
couple of thousand Afghanistan interim government. It took place 50 Kilometers from the
Pakistani border, and the fighting was 150 Kilometers south of Kabul.
A week into the battle, on March 8, U.S. President George W Bush admitted, “These people
evidently don’t want to give up. That is their attitude, we’ll just have to adjust, and they’ll have
had made a mistake”. The news broadcasted that comment and the American people knew it was
much more serious than first spoke of.
The American people with the news highlighting eight U.S. fatalities, two MH-47
Chinook helicopters disabled, and no “enemy” Soldiers captured since they have spoke words of
no surrender. The Media did a great job throwing out information about our Soldiers downs and
lost, but not information about the numerous of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters getting smoked.
The Military 16
The Media broadcasted the numbers of 40 have been wounded, but none were to have life-
threatening injuries. Again, the media always wants to put their spin on things. Once Soldiers
become casualties the Media uses that as a quick drama as money maker.
During Operation Anaconda no senior al-Qaeda leaders were killed. U.S. forces killed or captured a large number of Chechen and Uzbek fighters. (Robertson 2002) They have been fighting these Islamic insurgencies for years.
The Media have rarely spoken of these terrorist and radicals during Anaconda. If the
American people knew the facts, it would really have a big impact on the outlook of this war.
The owners of the television news media in the United States lend their own twist on how the
media presents the news to the public. Ratings for television in the United States comprise the
entire purpose of the networks. This system is sad when it comes out to speak and fill the
American people’s views with half the information. The Media can really throw emotional and
psychological story that the U.S. media presents to drive their broadcasting. Viewing a half hour news program will take a person through multiply emotions. After conducting research I have noticed the Media will normally start a broadcast with a feel good story. Once the viewing is
psychologically depressed, the next story will be negative towards the military and the
government. Through the years of conditioning, the United States public is gradually becoming a
puppet of the U.S. news Media.
Media and Fallujah
The American Media was all for Fallujah. It was weird to hear the positives coming from
the news on television that the Armed Forces were doing good things. This city of 300,000
people was getting leveled and the Media had only few bad broadcasts to be out on the air. For a
week on the ground combat Marines supported by tanks and attack helicopters conducted combat
The Military 17
operations in the city. The city population was 300,000. There were dead insurgents all over the
streets and remained there for days. The Media didn’t know if they should put this story in
perspective as invasion and occupation of the much of the European continent since the Nazi’s.
In none of the U.S. Media commentaries is there a single expression of concern about not merely
the moral, but the legal issues involved in the attack on Fallujah. The American military
operations in the city of Fallujah are an illegal act of aggression in an illegal, aggressive war
(David Walsh 2004).
The battle of Fallujah will go down in the books as a unique urban assault. In the long run
Fallujah had to be occupied by U.S Force’s, if the scheduled January elections had any
credibility. As we all remember the Media was using this as a tool in their broadcasts. The
elections seem to take the light in broadcasts when 18 troops and 5 Iraqi’s soldiers were killed,
along 600 insurgent fighters. The Americans and Media knew there was no way we could not
take Fallujah. The U.S. Media demonstrated to the public that Fallujah was the center, or at least
a center, of the armed opposition to Iraq’s efforts to establish a democratic regime (David Walsh
2004).
The Media always want to put a ragged spin on stories to keep everyone interested.
Broadcasting the firefights and showing the fight right in someone’s living room is ideal. The story sells and they will keep the public’s interest as long as there is action. Fallujah was full of
action and the Media ate that for lunch.
The fight in Fallujah was a fight for Iraqi Freedom. The fight never completed business
for such a long duration of time. Fallujah was a nest of terrorist cowards; once we weeded these snakes out then we can help the Iraqi’s. The Media broadcasted this story to its fullest and kept the public abreast to the real deal. The Media knew this was a true bad guy city. Fallujah was
The Military 18 boiling with terrorist, insurgents and fundamentalist anarchists. Knowing there was planned election could be compromised, that means Fallujah must be deleted of any type of terrorist activity. The Media’s Impact on Current Operations and Human Rights
The media’s report of PFC Jessica Lynch and CPL Pat Tillman had both a positive and negative impact on America’s view of the military. In military reports both Soldier’s were portray to be war heroes. However, through media reporting we later found out the true story about PFC Lynch’s heroic effort before she was capture and the infamous rescue from an Iraqi hospital by Army Rangers and Navy Seals. The true story about the death of CPL Tillman was also brought to light by media reports. CPL Tillman was not quite the hero the military portrayed him to be by posthumously awarding him the Silver Star.
PFC Jessica Lynch
The media reports focused mainly on the rescue of PFC Lynch from the Iraqi hospital instead of providing a complete report about the convoy of 507th Maintenance Company and the other Soldiers who were killed and/or captured also. Her rescue will go down as one of the most dramatic piece of news management yet conceived. America was able to see the Military was not going to leave their young Caucasian, blond, and blue eye female (Americas Barbie doll) behind.
She was given a million dollar book deal and a movie was also made about her story. As a result of the reporting, Jessica Lynch also became a poster child for military recruiting.
There were other Soldiers who were part of the convoy that were killed or capture during the confrontation with the Iraqi Soldiers. However, they did not receive the same media attention as PFC Jessica Lynch, such as SPC Shoshana Johnson, SPC Joseph Hudson, and SPC Edgar
The Military 19
Hernandez, just to name a few. These are among the forgotten Soldiers whose life and well being
is as important as PFC Jessica Lynch (Kempfner, 2003).
Once the media found out the true story about PFC Lynch’s rescue they should have informed the American public rather than making a Hollywood movie which further distorted the people’s insight about the events leading up to the rescue and the rescue.
CPL Pat Tillman
The story of CPL Pat Tillman on the other hand, caught America’s public attention
quickly. CPL Tillman a young Caucasian professional football player who rejected a contract of
over $3 million dollars to join the Military. Pat Tillman was like (Americas Ken doll) and no
stranger to the media prior to his death. In the Military, he was assigned to the 75th Infantry
Regiment, one of the most elite forces in the Military, the Army Rangers. His unit was deployed
to Afghanistan to assist with the tracking of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. Pat Tillman was killed
on 22 Apr 04, while on a mission to search for Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the village of
Manah. According to a media report from the Pentagon, Pat Tillman died heroically in combat
with the enemy. His killing was widely reported by the media calling him an American original.
His memorial was viewed nationwide and an estimate of over 3,000 personnel attended the
memorial service. Even President Bush commented about Pat Tillman’s death by saying that Pat
was “an inspiration on and off the football field who had made the ultimate sacrifice in the war
on terrorisms” (Collier, 2005). After the first investigation on the cause of his death, it was gritty
that Soldiers caught up in the confrontation had stanched uncivilized negligence and should be
disciplined accordingly. However, that inquiry was quickly assumed by someone of more rank,
who then called for a less cruel punishment for the Soldiers concerned. Pat’s parents, Mary who
is a teacher in a San Jose public junior high school and Patrick a San Jose lawyer were left with
The Military 20
many questions unanswered and asked McCain to help them get to find truth about what really
happened during the confrontation. The media claims that the military is saying very little about
the Tillman case and the personnel who were also involved declined to comment when contacted
by The Chronicle (Collier, 2005). However, thanks to the media, it was later found that there was
conflicting testimony and that Soldiers were allowed to change key details about the incident in
order to protect one another and avoid being chosen for reprimand. Why did the Military hide facts from the family and the media about the true story of the incident? It was not until 28 May
04, over a month after the incident that the Army admitted to the Tillman’s family that CPL
Tillman was killed by friendly fired Collier, 2005). The media is doing an outstanding job of keeping up with the story that keeps changing over time. However, Pat Tillman is not the first person in the Military who is accidentally killed by friendly fire. Why is the media so concerned about his story? Does it have anything to do with the fact that he came from a wealthy and educated family? The media should express the same concern when reporting incidents of friendly fire about service members who are not as well known as Pat Tillman and whose family may not have the resources to hire a lawyer to conduct further investigations about the incident.
As for the Military, they should report the truth from the beginning about any accident and/or incident to avoid further embarrassment to the Military when the truth finally comes out (Collier,
2005).
In both of these cases the Military caused an ethical dilemma by providing false information to the media and the American public. The military portrayed PFC Lynch as fighting until the last bullet was fired before being captured and was later found that her injuries were caused by her vehicle crashing and her becoming unconscious. PFC Lynch never fired her weapon because it was full of sand. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were white, blonde, decent
The Military 21 looking and provided an optimum opportunity for the military to use them for their benefit which cause the media to portray them in a heroic light.
Media Recommendations
With the ongoing war on terror and the media having more and more unlimited access to interview individual Soldiers and their units, an occasion which not long ago was an event unheard of. With this phenomena unfolding right before our own eyes as leaders we have to and must ensure that the media Rules of Engagements are clearly set and understood by not only the
Soldiers who serve this great nation honorably but also the media which plays a vital yet critical role in the release of such gathered information and how it will indelibly impart on the people of this great nation and the perception that will formulate in their hearts and mind of the afore mention heroes of this land.
With the guarding stroke and penning of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gave the media the inalienable right to report any and everything they wish without regards to its impact on the interviewee or the Army as an organization. With the media’s need for information, they will resort to whatever means available to them in getting their story-completed weather it is by filling in the blank with misguided information or information gathered from Soldiers. With this need for information by the media it’s important that all Soldiers is encourage to engaged with the media within certain guidelines and become a great spokesperson for the greatest Army that has ever been formed in the history of mankind. The guidelines and rules that govern the conduct of individual Soldiers while feeding the media beast with the desired information to complete that great story are clearly laid out in Army Regulations 360-1. Although this regulation provide the individual Soldier with the necessary information and guidelines to govern that heart stopping interview that any Soldier will conduct while in uniform there has to be other
The Military 22 formulated guidelines that leaders will have to provide to these Soldiers to ensure they do not suffer the wrath of the feared beast called the media. The following recommendations are intended to better prepare the individual Soldier who at any moment, with the constant presence of the media on the battlefield and the weather it be physical or electronic, can be subject to their greatest fear of having a microphone place in their face or their electronic Blog been dissected by someone from a major news corporation. This is not the time to think of what should I do but rather how do I react in a fruitful manner that will not bring disgrace or discredit to myself. The objective in conducting any interview is to make the interview you own a not the reporter. Once you lose that ability to make the interview you own reporters will seize the moment and make it their own thus reporting the conversation how they see fit to make their news organization much more profitable. In this occasion Soldiers need to tell their story and not attempt to focus on answering the reporter’s question prior to the questions been asked.
Recommendations
Media interaction must and will continue to be a vital training event for all Soldiers weather directly or indirectly engaged in the Global War on Terror. This constant media training will ensure that all Service member are fully aware and prepared to interact with the media and thus eliminating the ideology of the past that the media is the ever fearful dragon that will devour any and all who dear to stand up to a microphone been placed in their face.
Second and most importantly all Soldiers must remember and constantly be reminded that nothing that is said in the presence of a reporter is “off the records”. Once said it can be quoted as news that will have an impact on the American public. If there is something you wish for the media not to print, we must ensure that it’s not discuss loosely. To ensure that unwanted information get into the hands of the media one safe guard is to be constantly aware of your
The Military 23 surrounding and ensure that before you speak loudly of any topic you ensure that it’s something you don’t mind see repeated on paper or over the air wave.
Another recommendation that can safe guard the contact with the media is for commanders to make an agreement with the media that release of any information gathered from
Soldiers in the GWOT is subject to a release time within a reasonable period. Understanding that timely release of information is the bread and butter of news cooperation, the Public Affairs
Office and Army leaders will have to come to a release time that is beneficial to both the Army and the news company. This delay time should be no more than ten days and no less than three days. With this measure in place the command will have the opportunity to review the information up for release and have some reaction time to discuss the content with the media prior to its release. The Army fully understands that censoring of information granted to the media, if not detrimental to the security or accomplishment of mission is a violation. However, with the Army at war this timely release can be cloaked under the banner of mission essential and thus be given a delay in the release of information by the media.
A fourth recommendation that is proposed to the media in the coverage of the military is one of Editorial Corporation between the Army editorial staff and that of the private media. This mutual understanding between the two editorial staffs would grant the Army PAO the opportunity to see or hear what is been said about the Army and its Soldiers prior to it been handed over to the public. With this exchange one would hope that the Army’s editorial staff would be afforded the opportunity to have some media influence on what and how unclassified information is been released for the American public to see.
The final recommendation for media interaction in the Army would be to implement some form of punitive action on Soldiers that feels it’s their inalienable right to release
The Military 24 information they have gathered, under the pretence of personal use that is detrimental to the
Army and the command. Example of this release of information is the Abu Ghurab scandal which came about after one Soldier within the command decided to send home the negative pictures gathered to the media. Once this information is release it’s hard for the individual
Soldier or the military to retract such information or punish the individual involved due to the fact by the time the command is aware of the information been released the Soldier or Soldiers responsible for the release is then under the Whistle Blower Protection Act. What the command needs to implement is a rule that whatever information is collected under the pretence and protection of individual usage if released to the media is grounds for punitive action to be take against the involved individual or individuals this recommendation would not only terminate the idea of individuals becoming renegades and releasing information intended for individual usage to harm the very Organization that gave them that right.
With the alienation of the media and the individual Soldier becoming more and more a thing of the past the Army leadership is obligated to ensure that the individual Soldier is prepared to deal with the terrifying event of having a microphone placed in their face and being asked questions where the outcome of their answers could have far reaching impact than could ever be imagined by any one at the time of release. With this possibility and the halo of the Freedom of
Information Act there has to be several recommended guidelines that are put in place to aid in this interaction of media and Soldiers that does not create a negative impact but rather aid in getting the Army’s story out to the American people.
Bottom line is that through the years the military and the media have used each other to help gain the opinion of the American public. For better or worst this relationship has been manipulated by each other biases (military/media), by political agenda and by personal gain
The Military 25
The media needs the military to provide them with news stories. The military needs the media to tell its stories and be sure it gets recorded in our History books. The military and the media are just like any other relationship because there is the good, the bad and the ugly. One can’t survive without the other.
The Military 26
References
Anon. (2007). The US Civil War, the First Modern War. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from
Aeragon website: http://www.aeragon.com/03/ .
Atkinson, Rick. (2007). The Day of Battle, The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944. New York:
Henry Holt and Company.
Bilton, M. and Sim, K. (1992). Four Hours In My Lai. London: Penguin Group.
Collier, R. (2005, September 25,). San Francisco Chronicle: Family Demands the Truth.
Retrieved October 15, 2007. from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin
Combelles-Siegel, Pascale. (1996, May 15). The Troubled Path to the Pentagon’s Rules on
Media Access to the Battlefield: Grenda to Today. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12816/00314.pdf.
Dickens-Garcia, H. & Ortho, G. (2007). Hated Ideas and The American Civil War Press.
Retrieved October 25, 2007, from Marquette Books LLC website:
http://www.MarquetteBooks.com. University of Minnesota.
Flynt, Larry (2002) Reporting from Afghanistan. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from Larry
Flynt website: http://www.larryflynt.com/afghanistan
Funnel, Antony. (2001, October 4). Truth in Wartime Reporting, Culture Jamming. Media
Reports. Retrieved November 2, 2007 from ABC Radio National web site:
http://www/abc.net.au/rn/medialreport/stories/2001/401589.htm
Hammond, William M., (1998), Public Affairs: The Military and the Media 1968-1973.
Kampfner, J., Smith, S. (2003, May 15), Guardian Unlimited: The truth about Jessica.
Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story
Kaplan,Robert (2004) The Media and the Military. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from
The Military 27
Atlantic website: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc
Katovsky, Bill & Carlson, Timothy (2003). Embedded: The Media At War in Iraq - an oral
history. Guilford: The Lyons Press .
Leher, Jim. (2007,April 20). A News Hour with Jim Lehrer Transcript: Covering the War.
Retrieved October 18, 2007 from PBS Online News Hour web site:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june00/vietnam_4-20.htm1
Longacre, Edward. (2006). General Ulysses S. Grant, The Soldier and The Man. Cambridge
Center: Da Capo Press.
Minear, L., Scott, C., and Weiss, T. (1996). The News Media, Civil War, & Humanitarian
Action. Lynne Rienner Publisher, 9.
Mushahid, Hussain (2002) Operation Anaconda: win-win, lose lose. Retrieved November 9,
2007, from Asia times website: https://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DC22Ag01.html
Nordman, Warren (2004).Be Careful What you say because you are the news. The NCO Journal . 13(3), 18-19.
Reimer, Dennis J., General (1997) Army-Media Relations. Memorandum for Army leaders,
Washington, D.C., 26 September 1997.
Robertson, Nic (2002). Operation Anaconda kills 800 in Afghanistan. Retrieved November 10,
2007, from CCN website: https://www.CNN.COM
Snyder, John B., LTC, (2003) Seeing Through the Conflict: Military-Media Relations. Retrieved
29 October 2007, from www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awcmedia.htm.
The United States Constitution On-Line. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Walsh, David. (2004) US media applauds destruction of Fallujah. Retrieved November 10,
2007, from Worlds Socialists website: https://www.wsws.org/articles/2004