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.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Final Speaker
Ralph Peters, former Army officer and accomplished author, is giving the final address of the Symposium. Feel free to follow along and ask questions.
Panel Six: Current Operations
Panel Six: Current Operations
Historical Roots and Explanations for “Embedding” Journalists—Dr. Phillip Fraund
Beyond Doctrine: A Historical Perspective on the Information Operations Debate in Military-Media Relations—Dr. Stephen Badsey
Panel six is just starting. Please feel free to pose questions to the panelists through this blog
Historical Roots and Explanations for “Embedding” Journalists—Dr. Phillip Fraund
Beyond Doctrine: A Historical Perspective on the Information Operations Debate in Military-Media Relations—Dr. Stephen Badsey
Panel six is just starting. Please feel free to pose questions to the panelists through this blog
Day Three: CSI Symposium
Mr. Andrew Lubin, an independent war correspondent, is just beginning his address. Although Lubin is relatively new to his profession, he has already made a mark on Fox, CNN and ABC. His book, Charlie Battery: A Marine Artillery Unit in Iraq, earned critical acclaim.
This blog will be updated during Lubin's speech. Feel free to pose any questions to Mr. Lubin through this blog.
This blog will be updated during Lubin's speech. Feel free to pose any questions to Mr. Lubin through this blog.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
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.
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.
Panel Five: Experiences Beyond the U.S. Army
Panel Five: Experiences Beyond the U.S. Army
The Soviet Media During the War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989—Dr. Robert Baumann
The ICRC’s Approach in Terms of Philosophy, Planning and Execution of a Media Plan—Mr. Bernard Barrett
Please feel free to pose questions to the panelists. This post will be updated with content from the presentations.
The Soviet Media During the War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989—Dr. Robert Baumann
The ICRC’s Approach in Terms of Philosophy, Planning and Execution of a Media Plan—Mr. Bernard Barrett
Please feel free to pose questions to the panelists. This post will be updated with content from the presentations.
Panel Four: The Cold War
This panel details the post WW II period until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Panel presentations are as follows:
Professionalism's Impact on Public Affairs Education at the Army War College, 1950-1989--Mr. Paul Gardner
Media and the U.S. Army in Warfare: A Roadmap for Success--Ms. Rhonda Quillin
Please feel free to submit questions for the panelists to this blog.
Professionalism's Impact on Public Affairs Education at the Army War College, 1950-1989--Mr. Paul Gardner
Media and the U.S. Army in Warfare: A Roadmap for Success--Ms. Rhonda Quillin
Please feel free to submit questions for the panelists to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
