Warier Warriors

Warier Warriors

You might as well call it “The Anonymous Sources Full Employment Policy”.

As predicted the other combat boot has dropped as the Defense Secretary Gates has issued new rules of engagement with the news media, according to my colleague Thom Shanker reporting this morning in The New York Times.

[“Gates Tightens Rules for Military and the Media,” New York Times, July 2, 2010]


The Pentagon says it’s not related to the Rolling Stone article that brought down Gen. McChrystal.  Nevertheless it requires all on the record interviews to be cleared by the Pentagon.  Which means if reporters want get any quotes or insights that go beyond the official Pentagon-sanctioned message, they will have to talk to anonymous sources on background, or heaven forbid, off the record.

It was Gates who famously declared, “the press is not the enemy” shortly six months after he took over back in 2007.

“The same is true with the press, in my view a critically important guarantor of our freedom. When it identifies a problem, as at Walter Reed, the response of senior leaders should be to find out if the allegations are true – as they were at Walter Reed – and if so, say so, and then act to remedy the problem. If untrue, then be able to document that fact. The press is not the enemy, and to treat it as such is self-defeating.“
– Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Annapolis, Maryland, May 25, 2007

The now infamous Rolling Stone article so clearly shows, treating the press as your friend can be self-defeating, too.  Or at least career-limiting.

By the way: There is a lot of grumbling among career military PAOs [Public Affairs Officers] that this massive screw-up with McChrystal was a the fault of a politically-appointed civilian who was “too clever by half” in pursuing the trendy goal of “strategic communications.”  No one quite knows what “strategic communications” is, but the general idea is to do a better job winning people over to your way of thinking, and so the idea of getting a story in Rolling Stone was perhaps aimed at reaching a different audience, which up to now has not been all that supportive of the war effort.  Not only did the effort backfire in spectacular fashion, it has also helped to discredit the whole notion of “strategic communications,” which many see as a gussied-up euphemism for plain old media manipulation and propaganda.

There will be a lot of handwringing inside and outside media circles about how all this is going to make the missions of both the military and the media more difficult.  But the truth is it will change very little.  Commanders will be more wary. There will be a short term cutback on embed opportunities with senior officers, but in the end experienced reporters with a track record of integrity and independence, will use their hard-earned trust to get the access they need.  That’s never easy.

Meanwhile the whole episode serves as reminder to both sides of the military/media divide just where their loyalties should lie.

One footnote:

Traveling with Secretary Gates to Singapore shortly after his 2007 speech, I made up a bunch of buttons with his “not the enemy” quote, and passed them out to the traveling press, as a joke to gently chide the secretary to live by his words.

I wore one on my lapel to one of those off the record after-hours social events that have now come under renewed scrutiny.

(You can see it in this picture I have posted here, if you click on it to see the image full size.)

It was a typical off the record affair, just a chance for the traveling party to mix share some lighthearted banter, and yes there was drinking going on.  I can’t tell you what was in the secretary’s glass but I think it was club soda.  As you can see I was drinking what appears to be lemonade in a wine glass.  What did we discuss that night?  In all honesty I have no idea.  I didn’t take notes, and I don’t remember.   But I can assure you no one was dissing the President.  And there were no hijinks that the press corps was covering up.

Tags: , , , ,

Join the Conversation

Note the Shanker story says officials now must “notify” OSD (not clear) future interviews. It also says this needs to be done for media activity “… with possible national or international implications.”

Therein lies a loophole for the courageous. Although the effect and most likely the intent will be to dissuade the adventuresome.

Sounds like an entirely predictable — and feckless exercise to me. Do they expect some commander in the field is going to ring up ASD(PA) and say…“we plan to give an interview to Rolling Stone and trash talk about the civilian leadership”?

Don’t want to get involved in the debate over Gates’ new rules, but will certainly challenge the attempt by backward-looking PAOs to exploit this straightforward public affairs cock-up as anything to do with Strategic Communications(StratCom). Boothby was one of two people (the other a military PAO) who dealt with McC’s personal media handling.

The guys who actually deal with StratCom in ISAF were nowhere near this mess, and what Boothby did does not fit within ANY definition of what StratCom is about. I’ve been a journalist, a Chief PAO, and now a Chief StratCom. This whole affair is plain, old-fashioned bad media handling.

StratCom is mostly about the common sense pulling together of all aspects of information-handling. It’s not mysterious, or propaganda, but neither is it just public affairs under a new name.

I think there is a certain amount of special pleading going on here by conservative PAOs who see an opportunity to undermine StratCom, but we all need to be a lot more honest about what happened, which is all about relations with the media, which is but one aspect of StratCom.

Equally the attack on Boothby, implying that it happened because he was civilian and a contractor. Certainly he screwed up, but does that make all civilians bad? Are all military good?

And what is so ‘StratCom’ about the attempt to apply to wider media audiences? So no Military PAO has ever recommended broadening the audience? As it happens I would have recommended not bothering with Rolling Stone on the basis that with the limited time at his disposal and the number of other bigger and more important audiences, this was not a cost-effective use of his time. I’d also have warned the whole of his staff that when a journalist is embedded he’s working 24/7, so think before you speak. But then, what do I know — I’m StratCom.

Jamie, I’m afraid what this will do in the short to mid-term is give enterprising staff officers more opportunities to curtail press access. The new mantram will be “well, ASD PA has to approve this interview.” Which is staff-officer speak for “no.” There is already a paucity of good, credible information flowing out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we really need even less of it now?
The answer, as I have maintained for years, isn’t more centralized control. That’s a form of censorship, in my opinion. The answer is in decentralizing execution in accordance with good, common-sense ground rules: be honest and as transparent as practicable in accordance with operational security, provide good training to both media and commanders/staff officers, provide maximum and unrestricted access to responsible journalists, don’t engage in “off the record” commentary (EVERYTHING is on the record).…and cut the cards.

If we want to have a less effective military, keep on giving the press access where they are not needed.

A story breaking in to-day’s Washington post of Richard Nixon ‘selling out’ the Cambodia invasion by some misguided attempt to ‘warn’ the North Vietnamese into doing what he wanted, is an indicator that no matter how ‘hush-hush’, there comes a point in time when the truth will out.

Just like the recently announced trials of IDF personnel for ‘irregularities’ during operation Cast Lead might be giving truth to the much-derided Goldstone report on the same subject, the military ‘take’ is not sacrosanct. If anything the more it is aired and evaluated, the less myopic it is. If the military doesn’t want to be embarrassed then smarter would be a good place to start.

The freakin news media is not our friend past present or future

I believe that Secretary Gates has made it clear in his interviews that this “new” policy is primarily directed at those working at the Pentagon. The majority of the material in the memo is not new or unique. Similar language about official statements can be found in policy memoranda all over the military landscape. The problem is that the folks in the field don’t have the time to parse the Secretary’s media interviews to inform local policy. They do have time to consider the example that has been made of a certain former commander of our efforts in Afghanistan.

The idea that any (or even all) public affairs office in Washington can field all requests for interviews by the media for the entire military is too unrealistic to be entertained. That is why things are about to change. In an era where it is everyday practice to embed reporters with combat units the perceived risk to unit commanders, and their superiors all the way up the chain of command, has just increased exponentially.

As a military we have institutionalized the concept of the “strategic corporal” over the past several years. It even made it’s way into the Army and Marine Corps doctrine for Counterinsurgency. So if the actions of a corporal can have dramatic effects on strategy can they not also attract the attention of the international media?

We can all see where this can lead; all communication has the possibility of being strategic level communication thus requiring approval at the level of the theater commander, at a minimum.

Without further direct and specific guidance from the Secretary and some attempt to explain the specifics to the troops, and not just the media, how could we expect our troops to respond differently?

Forgot to sign out!

MAJ℗ Scott Gamble
U.S. Army

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement