![[P]](/web/20030401125047im_/http://www.kuro5hin.org/images/print3.gif)
|
War coverage: Timely or Amateur? (Media)
By jubal3
Thu Mar 27th, 2003 at 03:44:55 AM EST
|
|
|
During operations in Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm, the press howled about being cut off from the troops and the action. They seemed to have learned that sitting in a press briefing put on by the military does not make for accurate reporting. In Desert Storm, for example, the accuracy of US Precision Guided Munitions was greatly exaggerated by the military. This was almost entirely ignored until after the war, as was the fact that PGMs accounted for only a tiny percentage of ordnance used in the air campaign.
|
|
|
For Gulf War 2, the embedding of reporters with units, with large freedom of reporting from the front lines was an enormous change for the military and a great opportunity for the press. Unfortunately, inaccuracy and lack of perspective from the reporters and their anchors may make the military regret that decision, and not repeat it in the future. The result is that we will not get good information from the front, nor have the ability to do "fact-checking" on military press releases.
One of the Press' most important duties is to keep a steady eye on government in order to keep them at least relatively honest. Losing eyes on the ground would be a heavy blow to this role of the press. This is not to say the inaccurate coverage is the result of "liberal" media bias. It seems a lack of experience and perspective. Whatever the reason, the bottom line is that the coverage isn't accurate.
Based on reports from BBC World Service, NPR (National Public Radio) and the web, including Reuters, AP, CNN, BBC, The Boston Globe, Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post war coverage seems wildly inaccurate.
Reporters seem to routinely miss details. Examples: Navy personnel, (grade O3; Lieutenant) referred to as "captain," an army rank. FA-18s referred to as "Tomcats" which are totally different aircraft with vastly different roles and capabilities. Small firefights called "Heavy resistance." The list goes on and on.
Now calling a plane by the wrong nickname may seem pretty trivial, but in fact, it's sloppy reporting. Reporters are usually expected to become something of an expert on their beat. The fact that the embedded reporters and worse yet "analysts" and news producers don't know this stuff really is important. As a reporter, knowing as much as possible about your beat serves as a "BS filter." Part of the job is to know when you're being snowed. If you don't know a damned thing about what you're covering, you are totally dependent upon your sources. If they lie to you, the lies get reported. Even if they are merely incorrect, you have no way to make a decision that the information is suspect and needs to wait for confirmation or development. With no way in the field to "second source," you wind up reporting inaccuracies, (sometimes big ones). So knowing the details about the ranks, the weapons systems and standard tactics is important. In government affairs reporting for instance, not knowing what a conference committee was would be considered outrageously incompetent. This very reasonable standard is being ignored with military reporting.
First: many of the embedded reporters and their editors seem to know nothing about the subject they are covering. No one who knew the subject matter would call the F-18, a Navy plane an Air Force plane. Second: they report impressions, not facts and do it on live television/radio. While it is very frightening to come under mortar fire, it does not necessarily denote "stiff" resistance." It indicates at least two guys with a mortar . (A cheap, easy to use indirect-fire weapon.) While there may be a company of soldiers supporting that mortar team, you don't know that just from the fact that you're having mortar rounds dropping around you. How many troops are shooting at you is important information to your story. Not knowing it when the feed is live is no sin. reporting a wild ass guess about the opposition as fact, is.
From the coverage I've heard/read, a lot of it seems to fall into this category. A reporter's unit comes under fire, and there frequently seems no accurate description of the nature of the fight. Was it 5 guys with AKs, or was it an infantry battalion? The first is trivial, the second is substantial. Other than mentions of the Republican Guards, I've heard only one mention of the strength of units which have offered opposition to US/UK forces until long after the fact. Yet we've all seen the Al Jazeera pictures and seen photos of reporters hunkered down under some type of fire.
Without characterization, there is simply no way for the average person to make an accurate assessment of what is going on. Are we winning or losing? What towns do we control if any? If not, why not? These are all important questions, the answers to which do not appear anywhere obvious. I've found some of the answers after digging, but the bottom line is, I shouldn't HAVE to dig. This is front page stuff. What comes across is dead Coalition troops, firefights and sandstorms. Add to that, so-called "Analysts" (Mostly pundits who wouldn't know an AK-47 from an M-16) making statements like "This is much more fierce than we were led to believe." And "This is going to be a tough fight." Based on what? I want to scream.
The "you are there" coverage recently in Um Qasr is a good case in point. The Marines secured the port, which was the primary mission, and reporters fed back "Um Qasr is under control of the Marines" which was only partially true. Next, when there was some minor resistance in the town, not the port, (I've seen figures denoting approximately 24 militia members running around with AKs and RPGs) it was reported as "Fierce resistance." What happened is that the reporter was caught, along with a patrol, in an ambush by irregular forces. Sensitive to both friendly casualties and civilian accidental deaths, the troops wisely pulled back, awaited reinforcements and very cautiously went about killing the resisting forces. Listening to the news, you would have thought a large battle was going on. In fact, it was a completely trivial bit of resistance, and caused not the slightest delay in operations there, because mines had to be removed from the harbor anyway. From the coverage, it was a "setback." Setback? Where? Based on what? What was delayed? Where? The answer is: nothing, and nowhere. Yet the impression remained.
The press and the military have had an adversarial relationship since Viet-Nam. There, the press sat on their asses all day waiting for the "5 `O-Clock Follies" in Saigon where they were spoon fed information from MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam), which they reported unfiltered. The other reporters seemed hell-bent on showing the US public how awful the war was. Neither approach was entirely accurate. And the military still blames the press for the decline of popular support for that ill-fated adventure. While there was some exceptional reporting in that war, it was the rare exception, not the rule. The impressions conveyed were largely inaccurate. Either pro or anti is not the point. The inaccuracy was the cardinal sin committed.
The Tet Offensive is a good example of the criticized press coverage of that war. Tet was such a surprise only because the press had been buying the "we have them on the ropes" stuff fed to them by the military, when casualty reports and good sniffing around would have showed a very different picture. Many reporters had been calling bullshit on the military for a couple of years. The mainstream press was so busy being shocked and outraged over having been lied to (Only possible due to their own poor reporting) that they forgot to mention that the Viet-Cong and North Vietnamese army were absolutely slaughtered in the ensuing fighting. Tet was exactly what Westy and the rest of the WW2 Airborne types had been praying for since 1965. A set-piece battle where US firepower could be brought to bear on an exposed enemy. Instead of coverage of the complete rout and wholesale destruction of the enemy, we got Walter Cronkite saying there was no hope of victory. Perhaps an accurate statement overall, but certainly not accurate in relation to Tet.
I don't want my war data fed to me by the Pentagon. But neither do I want to get "amateur hour" coverage by reporters who seem to know nothing. Hopefully the press will learn on the job and start getting out better quality news from the front. If it does not, the press will have only itself to blame when the military pulls the plug next time. And we will all be the worse for that.
Jubal has published numerous freelance magazine and newspaper articles since 1990 and worked as a newspaper reporter in Washington State. He has won several journalism awards. He is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. |
|
|
![]](/web/20030401125047im_/http://www.kuro5hin.org/images/header/rt_edge3.gif){kind=small}
