I want to talk about something that Christian Lowe said during the final panel discussion - The New Cadre of War Reporters at the 2008 Milblog Conference. He stated that every journalist in the world wants to get to Iraq, because it’s the biggest story of the generation, and that he was mad he couldn’t get there until he could.
I can understand that sentiment, but when the talk turned towards the lack of embeds and the use of stringers by news agencies instead of actually sending their journalists there, not only because of the danger but also because of the cost, I became very interested. I would like to offer up another possible alternative for this phenomenon that wasn’t put forth by me but by one of those journalists.
A while ago I took to task a longtime Washington Post journalist that had retired to the quite suburbia that is Frederick County, Maryland. He kept himself busy writing about local politics, but it wasn’t until he took on a local Marine hero and the Surge Plan that I really took notice. He wrote a column titled “Senseless War” in which he stated that: “since some retired military officers are disagreeing with the prosecution of the war, that the war is somehow senseless in its outcome.”
Mr. Volz read that post of mine and we had to come to the conclusion that we would always disagree on this topic. As it turns out, history was on my side and the Surge is now considered a great success. Mr. Volz still though believes that it was the wrong strategy at the wrong time, and a year ago he was adamant that it would be another Bush Failure.
So what does this have to do with Christian’s assertion that every journalist is chomping at the bit to get to Iraq? Well as it turns out, Mr. Volz and I live in the same neighborhood. One summer day, I had the boys at the community pool, expelling their extra energy while I sat down to re-read my copy of Blogs of War. I was sitting there wearing my Military.com hat from the inaugural Milblog Conference (Thanks Ward, I love that hat) reading my book when who should sit down in the chaise next to me, but Mr. Volz. I of course recognized him right away, after all; his picture is right there in the byline of all of his columns, he of course didn’t have a clue who I was, until that is he noticed my hat…and then the book.
I can understand that sentiment, but when the talk turned towards the lack of embeds and the use of stringers by news agencies instead of actually sending their journalists there, not only because of the danger but also because of the cost, I became very interested. I would like to offer up another possible alternative for this phenomenon that wasn’t put forth by me but by one of those journalists.
A while ago I took to task a longtime Washington Post journalist that had retired to the quite suburbia that is Frederick County, Maryland. He kept himself busy writing about local politics, but it wasn’t until he took on a local Marine hero and the Surge Plan that I really took notice. He wrote a column titled “Senseless War” in which he stated that: “since some retired military officers are disagreeing with the prosecution of the war, that the war is somehow senseless in its outcome.”
Mr. Volz read that post of mine and we had to come to the conclusion that we would always disagree on this topic. As it turns out, history was on my side and the Surge is now considered a great success. Mr. Volz still though believes that it was the wrong strategy at the wrong time, and a year ago he was adamant that it would be another Bush Failure.
So what does this have to do with Christian’s assertion that every journalist is chomping at the bit to get to Iraq? Well as it turns out, Mr. Volz and I live in the same neighborhood. One summer day, I had the boys at the community pool, expelling their extra energy while I sat down to re-read my copy of Blogs of War. I was sitting there wearing my Military.com hat from the inaugural Milblog Conference (Thanks Ward, I love that hat) reading my book when who should sit down in the chaise next to me, but Mr. Volz. I of course recognized him right away, after all; his picture is right there in the byline of all of his columns, he of course didn’t have a clue who I was, until that is he noticed my hat…and then the book.
After introducing myself to him, we had a long conversation about the state of reporting as it relates to Iraq. He felt that the reporting was right on target, it was in his words, “the purpose of the media to report on what is happening.” He was surprised when I agreed with him, where I took him to task was what they were actually reporting, no where in the media’s narrative about Iraq was mention of any success of US forces on the ground, and when they did mention the success they always added on to the report, usually in the first couple of paragraphs a mention of the current US body count or some other grievous point about the war. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here: “Why do you only want to hear the rosy side of the story, what is it about death that you don’t like?”
I replied, “I don’t want to hear just the good stuff, I expect that in war time there will be death and injuries, what I don’t approve of is the wholesale ignoring of the good things that are being done, the successes that US forces are accomplishing for simply another story that trots out the body count of US dead.”
The conversation went on like this for a good half-hour until the topic of imbeds came up, it was there that he said something that cemented in my mind the role the media felt they had to play in the current state of war reporting. When asked if he thought we should have more imbedded reporters he thought for a moment and then replied, “No.”
I was shocked that a long-time journalist would suggest that we shouldn’t be sending our future Pulitzer Prize winners to Iraq and Afghanistan to report on the war as it unfolded. Hs reply was both stunning and revealing. “Reporters should not imbed because then they might become sympathetic to the troops they are with, and with that sympathy so goes their objectiveness.”
Now think about what he is saying there for a minute. He is'nt saying that the journalist has to stay objective, detached, from what he is reporting otherwise if something bad happens they may not be able to report it. At the time I thought he simply meant that if one of the troopers with which he was imbedded was killed it may be too difficult to report the details of it, but now I think he meant something else entirely.
Now before I come out and say what it is that I think Mr. Volz really meant by his statement, let me preface this by saying that I hope that I am completely wrong about what I am about to reveal, but the actions and course of action by the media all points to the same conclusion.
Let us review an incident that happened recently in Afghanistan that provides us some insight into what I think Mr. Volz really meant. By now we are all aware that US Forces in Afghanistan were tricked into bombing a party of a rival warlord on the intelligence that they were Taliban. At the time of the incident thought the world media jumped on the false story that they intentionally bombed civilians completely ignoring the reports of Col. Oliver North USMC (Ret) who happened to be on the scene of the incident with his Fox News crew. Col North filmed the entire incident after the US forces he was imbedded with took fire from the village; during the engagement, US Forces asked for and received permission to call in an airstrike on the village. Col North continued to film as they bombed the village and was there when US forces went through the village later documenting the damage. No where in that video did they see evidence that would lead them to believe that they hit only civilians. Yes, civilian’s were present but not in the numbers suggested by the initial media reports. Of course, some of us expect this to happen since our enemy cares not for the local population and regularly hides among the populace, knowing that US Forces will hesitate to attack them there for fear of civilian casualties.
The story was reporting in the media with graphic and defaming headlines, along the lines of: US Forces Kill 90 civilians, etc. (If you are interested The Long War Journal has a long series on this event.) The Afghan government even got in on the story demanding that the Rules of Engagement (ROE) be re-written. Within days the US Military Command refuted the events as reported in the media and released their data on the event which completely contradicted the events in the paper, and launched a secondary investigation. It was this investigation that revealed that the intelligence that led Coalition Forces to the village in question was, well questionable. Despite the fact that the tribal leader and his men attacked coalition forces as they approached the village only helped paint the intelligence as valid. The end result was still the same. Coalition Forces crushed those who fired upon them.
But how the media reacted to the story is what we should be talking about. They didn’t as so many are wont to say, checked all their facts and verified the story; they simply ran it as is. No questions asked. Was there some other nefarious plot at play here?
I think so.
You see, it’s my opinion that the mainstream media is directly at odds with the US Military. The US Military they reason is full of misfits and murderers and to embed as Christian Lowe has done would cloud this belief in what we know as America’s Greatest. The media isn’t afraid of getting close to the troopers they embed with because they fear getting attached to them and then losing them. They fear embedding with the military and learning the truth about what it is they actually do, because to do so would shatter their belief that it’s not a matter of “If” they will do something wrong, al a Abu Ghraib but rather a matter of “When.”
Haditha, proven to be nothing more than propaganda by the enemy which was accepted whole cloth by the media, not because they were concerned about the supposed war crime being committed but rather because they expected that it was true from the start. They expect that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are really nothing more than government sanctioned criminals. Hired killers, who are more than willing to murder, loot and rape the populace at large, not because they are told to so, but because they can’t help but not to. To them; those who serve are nothing more then mental cases being given an outlet to act out on a grand scale. And it is there job as journalists to prove this to the American people, and the world.
This, in my opinion is what Mr. Volz meant when he stated: “Reporters should not embed because then they might become sympathetic to the troops they are with, and with that sympathy so goes their objectiveness.” He wasn’t saying he feared losing a friend with whom he had became brothers with during a firefight, but rather he was saying he feared being forced to challenge his belief structure as it related to the US Military.
For an institution whom has charged itself with uncovering the truth at any cost, they are fearful of uncovering their own hidden truth; they hate the US Military and only wish to, at a minimum, neuter it. The media, at some point in time, ceased to be the 4th estate and became a 5th column, working with whomever and whatever forces out there sought to destroy the US military. The sad part of this change is that today’s media members consider themselves patriots and protectors of our freedoms, when in fact the policies they seek to promote do nothing more than eat away at our freedoms and seek to cripple the one force we have to protect them.
The media fears embedding, because to do so would force them to accept that the US Military is not the evil force they present them as, but rather would alert the world that the media is really the force that needs to be watched. They had at one time been the defenders of freedom, speaking out against injustices and inequities around the world. They helped usher in a new form of government, one that gave them special powers to be free from political or royal influence. They uncovered government waste and corruption, and helped the common man know that he had not been forgotten, but somewhere along the line they became that which they were sworn to defend against.
Today’s journalists may be chomping at the bit to get to Iraq and Afghanistan and hot spots around the world, and some of them, the good ones, may really want to tell the story they see, the good and the bad, but some of them, really only want to find the bad and use it to confirm their suspicions and beliefs about what it is we do. To them we will always be the baby-killers, and they can’t let anything get in the way of challenging that belief, even if it means framing the war as a quagmire, and once again, neutering the US Military in front of the entire world.
Iraq is as far from Vietnam as can be, but if the media can turn Iraq into another Vietnam by forging public opinion to match their own belief about the US Military, then so be it. The end as they say, justifies the means. I just wonder how many fine American son’s and daughter’s they are willing to sacrifice on their alter of lies before America wakes up.
I replied, “I don’t want to hear just the good stuff, I expect that in war time there will be death and injuries, what I don’t approve of is the wholesale ignoring of the good things that are being done, the successes that US forces are accomplishing for simply another story that trots out the body count of US dead.”
The conversation went on like this for a good half-hour until the topic of imbeds came up, it was there that he said something that cemented in my mind the role the media felt they had to play in the current state of war reporting. When asked if he thought we should have more imbedded reporters he thought for a moment and then replied, “No.”
I was shocked that a long-time journalist would suggest that we shouldn’t be sending our future Pulitzer Prize winners to Iraq and Afghanistan to report on the war as it unfolded. Hs reply was both stunning and revealing. “Reporters should not imbed because then they might become sympathetic to the troops they are with, and with that sympathy so goes their objectiveness.”
Now think about what he is saying there for a minute. He is'nt saying that the journalist has to stay objective, detached, from what he is reporting otherwise if something bad happens they may not be able to report it. At the time I thought he simply meant that if one of the troopers with which he was imbedded was killed it may be too difficult to report the details of it, but now I think he meant something else entirely.
Now before I come out and say what it is that I think Mr. Volz really meant by his statement, let me preface this by saying that I hope that I am completely wrong about what I am about to reveal, but the actions and course of action by the media all points to the same conclusion.
Let us review an incident that happened recently in Afghanistan that provides us some insight into what I think Mr. Volz really meant. By now we are all aware that US Forces in Afghanistan were tricked into bombing a party of a rival warlord on the intelligence that they were Taliban. At the time of the incident thought the world media jumped on the false story that they intentionally bombed civilians completely ignoring the reports of Col. Oliver North USMC (Ret) who happened to be on the scene of the incident with his Fox News crew. Col North filmed the entire incident after the US forces he was imbedded with took fire from the village; during the engagement, US Forces asked for and received permission to call in an airstrike on the village. Col North continued to film as they bombed the village and was there when US forces went through the village later documenting the damage. No where in that video did they see evidence that would lead them to believe that they hit only civilians. Yes, civilian’s were present but not in the numbers suggested by the initial media reports. Of course, some of us expect this to happen since our enemy cares not for the local population and regularly hides among the populace, knowing that US Forces will hesitate to attack them there for fear of civilian casualties.
The story was reporting in the media with graphic and defaming headlines, along the lines of: US Forces Kill 90 civilians, etc. (If you are interested The Long War Journal has a long series on this event.) The Afghan government even got in on the story demanding that the Rules of Engagement (ROE) be re-written. Within days the US Military Command refuted the events as reported in the media and released their data on the event which completely contradicted the events in the paper, and launched a secondary investigation. It was this investigation that revealed that the intelligence that led Coalition Forces to the village in question was, well questionable. Despite the fact that the tribal leader and his men attacked coalition forces as they approached the village only helped paint the intelligence as valid. The end result was still the same. Coalition Forces crushed those who fired upon them.
But how the media reacted to the story is what we should be talking about. They didn’t as so many are wont to say, checked all their facts and verified the story; they simply ran it as is. No questions asked. Was there some other nefarious plot at play here?
I think so.
You see, it’s my opinion that the mainstream media is directly at odds with the US Military. The US Military they reason is full of misfits and murderers and to embed as Christian Lowe has done would cloud this belief in what we know as America’s Greatest. The media isn’t afraid of getting close to the troopers they embed with because they fear getting attached to them and then losing them. They fear embedding with the military and learning the truth about what it is they actually do, because to do so would shatter their belief that it’s not a matter of “If” they will do something wrong, al a Abu Ghraib but rather a matter of “When.”
Haditha, proven to be nothing more than propaganda by the enemy which was accepted whole cloth by the media, not because they were concerned about the supposed war crime being committed but rather because they expected that it was true from the start. They expect that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are really nothing more than government sanctioned criminals. Hired killers, who are more than willing to murder, loot and rape the populace at large, not because they are told to so, but because they can’t help but not to. To them; those who serve are nothing more then mental cases being given an outlet to act out on a grand scale. And it is there job as journalists to prove this to the American people, and the world.
This, in my opinion is what Mr. Volz meant when he stated: “Reporters should not embed because then they might become sympathetic to the troops they are with, and with that sympathy so goes their objectiveness.” He wasn’t saying he feared losing a friend with whom he had became brothers with during a firefight, but rather he was saying he feared being forced to challenge his belief structure as it related to the US Military.
For an institution whom has charged itself with uncovering the truth at any cost, they are fearful of uncovering their own hidden truth; they hate the US Military and only wish to, at a minimum, neuter it. The media, at some point in time, ceased to be the 4th estate and became a 5th column, working with whomever and whatever forces out there sought to destroy the US military. The sad part of this change is that today’s media members consider themselves patriots and protectors of our freedoms, when in fact the policies they seek to promote do nothing more than eat away at our freedoms and seek to cripple the one force we have to protect them.
The media fears embedding, because to do so would force them to accept that the US Military is not the evil force they present them as, but rather would alert the world that the media is really the force that needs to be watched. They had at one time been the defenders of freedom, speaking out against injustices and inequities around the world. They helped usher in a new form of government, one that gave them special powers to be free from political or royal influence. They uncovered government waste and corruption, and helped the common man know that he had not been forgotten, but somewhere along the line they became that which they were sworn to defend against.
Today’s journalists may be chomping at the bit to get to Iraq and Afghanistan and hot spots around the world, and some of them, the good ones, may really want to tell the story they see, the good and the bad, but some of them, really only want to find the bad and use it to confirm their suspicions and beliefs about what it is we do. To them we will always be the baby-killers, and they can’t let anything get in the way of challenging that belief, even if it means framing the war as a quagmire, and once again, neutering the US Military in front of the entire world.
Iraq is as far from Vietnam as can be, but if the media can turn Iraq into another Vietnam by forging public opinion to match their own belief about the US Military, then so be it. The end as they say, justifies the means. I just wonder how many fine American son’s and daughter’s they are willing to sacrifice on their alter of lies before America wakes up.
All part of a Gramscian "Long March through the culture" strategy to undermine and discredit our important institutions, values, and foundations, thereby leading to the disintegration of Western culture so that totalitarian socialism can emerge as the world's savior in its stead.
There isn't a day that goes by that my From the Front series doesn't have at least one story of the enemy dying for their cause at the hands of American might. Where are those bleeding leads? Being objective is a fine and noble cause, but lets be truly objective. Lets talk about the highs and lows. Lets highlight the successes of US forces in routing out al Qaeda and Taliban forces as well as the set backs. Let's give the American people an honest accounting of is actually happening and let them decide for themselves.
Or does the American media shy away from that because public opinion would drift away from their intended message? There really only is one answer, and that is that the American media and by extension World media really want the US to lose.
I do not agree that every journalist wants to go to Iraq. I would dare say quite a few have no interest at all in heading there. It has all but dried up in terms of news consumer interest, I think due to heavy repetition and negativity (news fatigue) coupled with the improvements there stemming the bad news flow.
I think the reasons of a lack of embeds relates to their journalistic functionality. These are the questions that spring to mind.
1)How difficult are they to obtain from the military?
2)What sort of restrictions are placed on reporters in embeds
3)Will I loose objectivity?
4)Is it dangerous? How dangerous?
5)Will the decision makers upstairs accept work from an embed situation?*
6)How many other embed journalists are successful?*
7)How often does something newsworthy happen in an embed?*
8)How much does it cost and who pays?
I happen to believe that the starred points are the showstoppers. Some reporters have been willing to report good news but these journalists don't decide what is published of their material. I think the decision makers upstairs are the ones with the biggest level of bias, helped along by their relatively insulated lives. As well as that good news simply does not sell well. This is quite widely known.
I think the addition of Mr Volz to this article isn't very good. I understand that David M has an issue with Mr Volz' writings and I wouldn't mind at all if it were ripped apart but instead he's the personal figurehead of a broad media attack here. David M forms an opinion of the meaning of Mr Volz' sentence which I feel is far too great a twist. I don't like the idea of stuffing words into people mouths and I find the logic expressed on how the David M came to the conclusion of what Mr Volz did and did not mean to say quite seriously flawed. I think Mr Volz will need to work hard enough to deal with his actual words and ideas as expressed without having them spun.
I take issue with the quotes in the article. To verify them I would need to check the original articles and trust David Ms heresay. I don't know David M to form an opinion of trust or distrust but the outstanding basis for my issue is the use of paraphrasing with quotes. I totally disagree with quoting a paraphrase. From that I lack faith in the correctness of the other quotes.
David M then goes into what I feel is far too conspiratorial tones with “plot” and presumed fears and beliefs held by the media. I think we don't need Truther kind of mindsets. I am quite confident the media is not afraid of challenging their views on the US military even if the media is dead wrong. If David M is correct, and the media does have this view of the US military, why would they fear having the views challenged? Because when you're convinced you're right, you don't fear being proven wrong, nor seek to work on verifying your opponents views. Wouldn't they feel confident enough to not challenge them at all? Wouldn't they be more afraid of the US soldiers killing them in an embed?
“Haditha, proven to be nothing more than propaganda by the enemy” Is it proven?
I do reckon David M has some good points to make. Things like Iraq not being Vietnam, media ignorance and bad media bias as well as who is protecting who's freedoms, but these weren't covered much. I feel this article was made in a way that will resonate well around here but just doesn't cut the mustard beyond sympathizers.
I also think the attitude of media is enemy has to be dropped. I think the US military badly needs to work on and with media of all kinds to improve the disastrous propaganda imbalance we've seen in this war. A very tall order indeed.
Final small point - news is a business, not a public service. They promote stories that get ratings. Always have, probably always will. I don't like it, but there it is.
Back in the last '69, I was an infantry squad leader in Viet Nam. One day, while we were being resupplied by helicopter out in the bush, a camera crew arrived along with the things we needed.
A while later, our Captain came over to me with the crew in tow and asked me if I wanted to take them out on a patrol I was about to leave on. In one of my proudest moments in the war, I replied, in my New York fashion with a question, "Do I have to bring them back?" We went out; they didn’t.
I am profoundly uncomfortable with media involvement in combat operations. It's one more thing to worry about when everyone is chock full of worries already. Nobody goes into a restaurant through the kitchen. Our combat soldiers deserve similar respect. Let the media build their résumés on someone else's work.
Should be a TINS for Bill in there somewhere, I'm guessing.
You make some good points, as for the paraphrasing a quote, you'll please note that my converstation took place at the community pool. I was not taking notes. Hence I am forced to paraphrase a quote, simply because to call it a direct quote would in fact be lying.
I'm not a fan of the conspiracy theories either, however, I do believe that there is a concerted effort on the part of the media to not be entirely objective and honest when it comes to all things military. The human interest story of the recovering vet always plays well on the national stage, but it isn't until we get to the local level, th hometown paper, that we really begin to find some honest support or actual interest in the military. When the local guard unit deploys or the local military base receives orders to deploy we will see a flurry of stories pop up about their local son's and daughter's going off to war. We'll get a peek into the lives of their families and the potential hardships and heartache, but that is becuae it is once again, a local issue.
But always when a story is reported on the larger picture that closeness is lost. It is no longer our son's and daughter's but the army that is being scrutinized, and almost universally it is bad news. Yes as another commentor noted News is a business. But the mission of their business is to inform, its what journalists take an "oath" to do, unfortunately as I see it, they are not so much informing but indoctrinating.
Despite all the grief I am giving Mr. Volz on these pages, he really is a pleasant person to be around, as long as the topic of conversation doesn't drift towards politics, economics or religion. Then it definitely becomes a battle of wills, until one party concedes, or they both agree to disagree, which in Mr. Volz's case he is more than willing to do.
Our conversations have never grown heated nor have any ad hominem attacks ever sprung up when one party felt like they were losing the argument.
Since you live in Fredneck...drop me a line, would be nice to meet another fellow NCO.
The American Main Stream Media have been willing and enthusiastic purveyors of products in support of Soviet, Red Chinese, North Vietnamese, Cuban, Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian, North Korean, Libyan, and Iraqi Psychological and Morale Operations for the last 40 years. They are wordsmiths who buy ink by the barrel while pumping out their denials of that fact, and have so far managed to talk their way out of accountability, but their time is coming.
Leftists want to change the world so they can redistribute the wealth, "end" war, save the environment, etc... Therefore, they pursue occupations that put them in a position to push their activist agenda. They also make money at the same time. Its win-win for them.
Anyway, Volz doesnt admit that he was wrong about the Surge and is worried that reporters who embed with U.S. troops could lose their "objectivity".
When someone talks about objectivity in such terms you would expect that individual to be objective. Yet Volz is clearly not objective in the least bit. He is merely insecure in his partisan stance on the issue.