Know Your “Frenemy”
Back in 2007, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared, “the press is not the enemy” in a speech to the U.S. Naval Academy, I framed those words and hung them outside my Pentagon office, right next to a poster of Osama bin Laden. When civilian officials or military officers stopped by, I would jokingly point out the contrast.
“Enemy,” I would say, pointing to bin Laden’s grim visage. “Not the enemy,” I would say pointing to my office.
It was all in the good fun, and while the sagacity of Gate’s public endorsement of the fourth estate is indisputable, the reality is it’s a polite bit of fiction.
Because in many ways we in the media ARE the enemy, or at least adversaries of those in government or the military who would seek to put the best face on failing policies. That’s our job.
Which brings me to all the handwringing about the revelations that some in the military were doing “opposition research” on reporters, trying to determine if they were hostile, friendly, or neutral when it comes to covering ongoing military operations. (See: Files prove Pentagon is profiling reporters — Stars and Stripes, also Military Prepares Profiles on Reporters Visiting War Zones — Washington Post)
To which I say, “Bring it on.”
I’m a big believer in accountability. That is to say, a reporter files a story, and afterward, often very soon afterward, it becomes clear how accurate and incisive the reporting is. If there were a penalty for being demonstrably wrong, there would be a lot fewer demonstrably bad reports. I always welcomed any review of my reporting. In fact, when I look back at it myself, I’m often amazed at how my stories hold up, since the first account of any event is often incomplete, and subject to inadvertent inaccuracies.
So if a reporter wants to embed with U.S. troops, or interview a top commander, why wouldn’t the staff want to get feel for the reporter’s reputation for integrity, fairness, and accuracy?
Now if you start granting access based on which reporters write positive stories, well, that’s a big problem. It undermines everyone’s credibility. (The Pentagon insists, by the way, that is NOT the case, that no reporter has been denied access because of negative ratings by the Rendon group, or anyone else.) In fact, if the Pentagon wanted to smear a reporter, the most damaging thing it could do is rate them as “friendly”. That’s the kiss of death on the defense beat. As soon as your editors think you’re gone native you are outta there.
The fact is when you engage with the media, there is always a risk the story won’t meet your expectations. And that’s where good public affairs can help. It comes down to building credibility and having a success story to tell. And PAOs admit if a reporter gets a reputation of being unfair, or sloppy, or pursuing an agenda, it’s hard to get senior officials to talk to them.
In my 16 years of covering the Pentagon I found that most commanders aren’t expecting laudatory puff pieces, they just want a fair shake. And most know that success breeds good coverage, not the other way around. As I told one general who once was lamenting the negative stories about the Iraq war, “If want better coverage, conduct a better war.”
Still, it never hurts to know your “Frenemy”, and that goes for both sides.
Tags: Embed, Media, Military, Rendon, Stars and Stripes
