|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CNN executives: Let reporters cover war
By Walter Isaacson and Eason Jordan
(CNN) -- In planning for a possible war with Iraq, the Pentagon is considering something quite old-fashioned: letting reporters actually cover the fighting. This would be a good thing, for the military as well as the press and public. Both war-fighting and journalism have changed since the days when reporters like Ernie Pyle donned American uniforms to move with the troops and cover World War II. Even back then, there were occasional conflicts between the press and the military. The Chicago Tribune under Col. Robert McCormick, for example, infuriated Franklin D. Roosevelt by publishing war plans and a report indicating that Japanese naval codes had been broken. But that adversarial relationship was intensified and then institutionalized during Vietnam, when the Pentagon and the press both seemed to lose respect for the mission, veracity and honor of the other side. The military has many causes for concern, especially in an age of real-time transmission technology. Reports from the front lines could compromise the security of ongoing operations. In addition, scenes of casualties and carnage, such as those that came out of Somalia in 1993, can sap public support for a war. The so-called "CNN effect," which arises when the public can watch a war unfold as it happens, can cause generals to feel pressured to prosecute it too quickly. And finally, the military, like any other institution, has a natural inclination to avoid having its inevitable lapses and failures publicized, which leads it to want to control coverage as tightly as possible. That sometimes has led the U.S. government, both during the 1991 Gulf War and the Afghanistan conflict a year ago, to try to confine coverage to centralized briefings and carefully corralled pool reporters. As a result, much went unreported. That has not always served the military well. "We made a huge mistake trying to restrict press coverage in the first Gulf War because of our Vietnam mentality," says retired Gen. Wesley Clark. "We had a 1st Armored Division tank battle that was just incredible, perhaps the biggest armored battle ever, but not a single image was reported or documented for history by the press. I hope we don't make that mistake again." Nor has that process always served the public well. When U.S. special forces raided the compound of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar in October 2001, reporters were kept in the dark. Instead, the military covered the operation itself using its Joint Combat Camera Center and then released a highlights reel for the networks to show. It made for good TV, but not for good journalism. Weeks later, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker wrote a scathing account of the mission, alleging that it was bungled. The Pentagon heatedly denied his assertions, but there was little independent reporting to inform the debate. Later in the Afghan conflict, the military began to appreciate more fully the value and the practicality of allowing coverage. When Operation Anaconda was launched in the Shah-e-kot Valley in March, CNN's Martin Savidge was secretly briefed in advance and then embedded with U.S. forces so he and a cameraman could cover it as pool reporters servicing all the networks. Operational security was not compromised, and both the public and the military benefited from a full and independent chronicle of the largest U.S. ground operation in a decade. As the military prepares for a possible new engagement in Iraq, it is experimenting with ways to embed reporters with troops, and American correspondents in Kuwait have already gone on training exercises with tank units. Victoria Clarke, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, has raised the possibility that coverage decisions might be left mainly to the commanders in the field, an approach those officers heartily support. They are, after all, the ones who best know the security risks involved, the coverage rules that make the most sense for each mission, and the benefits that could come from allowing the public to see how their troops performed. They are proud of these men and women, know them to be professional and honorable, and want their exploits to be documented and told. Indeed, they made it very clear to us, when we visited the Camp Doha Army base in Kuwait and the aircraft carrier USS Constellation in the Persian Gulf, that they believe the best representatives to convey America's intentions and capabilities are the sailors and soldiers in the field. Some journalists worry that being embedded with the military might be tantamount to being in bed with the military. And yes, such coziness is probably more likely than the contrary fear of some in the military that letting journalists into their tent, literally and figuratively, will lead to a barrage of negative stories. Embedded reporters might be tempted to stay on friendly terms with their unit in order to ensure continued access. Some might even be prone, for the sake of a good story or because they have been swept up by the camaraderie, to play up acts of heroism and play down any lapses. But that is just as true on presidential campaigns, which can have the same elements of camaraderie plus the enticement of a White House assignment if it succeeds. It's even true for other reporting beats, from police to sports. Good journalists know how to keep their independence by reporting honestly, and bad ones don't. That is why it helps to have multiple sources of news, and why it is proper that the Pentagon seems inclined to let the embedded reporters compete rather than to require that all their coverage be pooled. For the system to work, both sides will have to agree on which of the military's concerns are legitimate and which are not. First among the former is that there should be no reporting that compromises the security of a mission. Embedding reporters on those missions is, of course, one sure way to make sure they share that interest fully. On the other hand, it is not legitimate for the military or government to try to shield the public from truthful and independent coverage of the realities of war, even its failures and the embarrassments. Disquieting scenes like the ones that were shown from Somalia could indeed cause some of the public to question whether the war is worth the cost, but it is the duty of the government to make a case that it is. These days, when the cause is compelling, the American public's tolerance for body bags is probably higher than its tolerance for secrecy or deception. American military commanders in the region say independent journalism will serve them well when it comes to two crucial issues that are likely to arise from a war. The first involves the sensitive site explorations that the special forces will undertake. The world needs to be assured, through honest and reliable reporting, of the veracity of any discoveries of banned chemical and biological weapons. Secondly, the U.S. military feels that there is a possibility, perhaps even a probability, that Saddam Hussein will perpetrate atrocities against Shiite civilians and try to make it look as if they were committed by coalition forces. The American commanders thus want to ensure that the world sees firsthand the professionalism and honor that they know they can expect from their troops. In Kuwait during a raucous parliamentary debate last month over the alleged malfeasance of a minister, one committee chairman told us, "We have learned from you that openness strengthens rather than weakens us, even as we prepare for a possible war." The United States, likewise, could learn from itself. If journalists had not been allowed to cover the front lines during World War II, there would have been no Ernie Pyle dispatches about the exploits of GIs that touched a chord in their hometowns and provided a sustaining link to America's heartland. Nor would there have been the picture of Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima that has provided a sustaining icon for future generations of American fighters. Walter Isaacson is chairman and chief executive of CNN. Eason Jordan is CNN's president of newsgathering. This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
