Executive Summary: Day Two CSI Symposium

Featured speaker, Mr. John Burns, London Bureau Chief for the New York Times

Mr. Burns delivered an enlightening and well-received talk on his personal experiences covering the war in Iraq as a correspondent for the New York Times to a large audience at Marshall Hall. Mr. Burns shared his harrowing experience during the attack on Baghdad in 2003 and discussed at length his interaction with commanders in the field. He was very candid in his discussion, to include his regret for not having been completely up-front with commanders during an incident in which he relied on US Soldiers to help convey him to the site of Saddam Hussein’s grave. Mr. Burns stressed the relationship of dependence that the media and the military share during war, stating that “Ours is not a relationship made in heaven, it is not a marriage,” adding that “We’re not enemies, but we’re not exactly allies either.” He offered advice to the military for dealing with the press, stating that candor was paramount to ensure that you make an assessment of the “reputation, fairness, and intent,” of any figure of the press prior to engaging them. Questions for Mr. Burns were centered on the contradictions sometimes seen between the editorial and reporting sides of the New York Times (which Mr. Burns acknowledged and said was by design) and the ethics of reporting, which he believes can be obtained through open communication with the military.

Panel Session 4: The Cold War

Moderated by Mr. John McGrath (CSI), the panel consisted of one presentation entitled; “Professionalism’s Impact on Public Affairs Education at the Army War College, 1950-1989”by LTC(R) Paul Gardner (CGSC), Gardner discussed the post-WWII education system for Army officers as it related to public relations. He stressed the fact that during this time period, the Army was keenly aware of the need to get its message out to the American public, and viewed educating its officers in public relations as a means of doing so. Gardner described how, as the definition of the Army profession evolved over the years, so too did the need to communicate with the public. He offered his opinion on the necessity of professional military education, to include public and media relations training, for US Army officers, stating, “If we don’t train our officers to do this, how can we be surprised when they have difficulty dealing with the public?” The questions for LTC(R) Gardner focused on the Army’s current efforts to train CGSC and Army War College attendees on public relations. It was clear from the questions offered that there remains some ambiguity in the phrase public affairs as it pertains to the Army. Gardner emphasized his view that public and media relations is a command requirement, and not just the realm of public affairs officers. If relegated to just the PAO, he argued, then the Army will not be able to achieve the necessary breadth of information distribution in the modern age.

Panel Session 5: Experiences beyond the US Army

Moderated by Dr. Curtis King (CSI), the panel consisted of two papers, “The Soviet Media during the War in Afghanistan,” by Dr. Robert Baumann, CGSC, and “The ICRC’s Approach in Terms of Philosophy, Planning, and Execution of a Media Plan” by Mr. Bernard Barrett, spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Dr. Baumann aimed his talk at contrasting the Soviet media operations during the Soviet –Afghan War with the American media operations in current operations, with an emphasis on the government-controlled nature of Soviet communications. He noted, “They [Soviets] never acknowledged domestic critics” ad noted that there were “no substantive references to combat” by the press until 1984, creating a true information vacuum, which Dr. Baumann pointed out, tended to get “filled” through other international media outlets. Mr. Barrett’s talk introduced the audience to the International Red Cross’s mission and mandate as well as organization. Mr. Barrett outlined the ICRC’s approach to communications as such: “We insist on total neutrality,” reminding the audience that it was critical for the ICRC to maintain the perception of neutrality from all nations. For this reason, Barrett noted, the ICRC seldom resorts to public denunciation or criticism, but does so only as a last resort. The question and answer session raised issues such as the controversy over the Red Cross symbol and the Soviet message during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. As a point of interest, Dr. Baumann pointed out that the Soviet government did not release an official report on casualties in Afghanistan until 1987, when the war was almost at its end.