Executive Summary: Day Three CSI Symposium

Featured speaker, Mr. Andrew Lubin, independent correspondent and author

Mr. Lubin spoke on his personal experiences from embedding with the US Marines in Afghanistan and his views on the nature of “New Media.” Mr. Lubin discussed the various difficulties involved in providing media coverage in the austere environment of Afghanistan. He claimed that the process of embedding is now more cumbersome than in previous years, due to new levels of military regulation and bureaucracy. In addition, Mr. Lubin discussed the questionable value of popular internet media coverage (blogs, YouTube.com) of the war. “The internet gives a voice to those who shouldn’t report news – the uniformed and the biased,” he claimed. While admitting that social media is important, Mr. Lubin warned against the “consensus reality” that it can create. He recommended sites such as Military.com and smallwarsjournal.com that, he claimed, maintain a level of traditional reporting and editorial process. Another point made by Mr. Lubin was that reporting on counterinsurgency is a bit more complex than providing analysis on conventional operations. He shared with the audience the things that he expects, as an embedded reporter, from the military as well as the things the military expects from reporters, based on answers provided by commanders in the field. A lively question and answer session centered on fairness of reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan. From the audience, Mr. John Burns of the New York Times suggested that the new generation of media reporters might not understand the difference between being “neutral” and being “fair.”

Panel Session 6: Current Operations

Moderated by LTC(R) Kevin Kennedy, (formerly of CSI) the panel consisted of two papers entitled; “Historical Roots and Explanations for “Embedding” Journalists” by Dr. Philip Fraund, historian, and “Beyond Doctrine: A Historical Perspective on the Information Operations Debate in Media-Military Operations” by Dr. Stephen Badsey, University of Wolverhampton, UK. Fraund provided a straight-forward historical overview of media coverage of military events since 1960 to include the Falklands, the Persian Gulf, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fraund highlighted the frustrations of the press pool system utilized in the Falklands and the Persian Gulf, and the relative improvement in relations that came on the heels of embedding. Fraund pointed out the little-known fact that reporters were embedded during the U.S. Army’s involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the mid 1990s. Dr. Badsey presented an in-depth examination of the development of media-military relations, with a focus on the current operating environment. He proposed that the military-media relationship “is not a problem to be solved,” but rather, an enduring situation within a democracy and one that should focus on cooperation. Badsey described the relationship between the military and the media as a “power relationship.” In an effort to highlight what he viewed as a sustained effort on the part of the U.S. military to separate its sphere from the journalistic sphere, Badsey provided examples from WWII. In conclusion, Dr. Badsey suggested that the American military must alter its perception of the media in order to realize the potential for information operations in future conflicts. Questions were directed primarily at Dr. Badsey’s conclusions, with a number of attendees expressing disagreement with his position.

Featured Speaker, LTC(R) Ralph Peters, an independent journalist and military analyst

Mr. Peters delivered an energetic and scathing rebuke of the state of media affairs today to a large audience in Marshall Hall. His stated intent was to “provide some balance” to the symposium conversation that, he felt, had been too lenient toward the media in previous discussions. According to Peters, his frustration with the contemporary media is largely centered on the fact that the media does not police itself; it is not a self-correcting institution. In his words, the modern media are “herd animals who think they are individualists.” Peters then offered a brief overview of media in wartime from the American Civil War to Vietnam, adding, “The media did not defeat the U.S. in Vietnam, the draft did.” Peters sought to refute poor reporting about detainee abuses at Guantanamo, claiming that reports of abuse were greatly exaggerated. He suggested that “The downfall of Western journalism” occurred with Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate. Ultimately, Peters concluded that a good number of journalists “are lazy and don’t do their homework.” He implored the media to report the acts of heroism in war as much as mistakes and errors. “Without a free press, democracy doesn’t work,” he added. Peters concluded his presentation with his belief that a journalist should be fair, responsible, and “on the side” of the American Armed Forces. Questions for Mr. Peters varied from his thoughts on an oath for the media, the role of patriotism in journalism, and the best way to deal with the media. One point Mr. Peters offered repeatedly was the need for both military leaders and journalists to read history extensively.

Closing Remarks: Dr. William G. Robertson (CSI)

Dr. Robertson delivered the closing remarks, which focused on the various aspects of the military-media relationship that have changed and those that have endured, such as the inherent tension that exists in wartime. He offered thanks to the many participants and the various Ft. Leavenworth agencies and personnel that helped make this year’s symposium a great success.