Civilian_and_Military_Policy

The Military and the Mass Media: Their Parasitic Relationship and How to Fix It In the realm of civil-military relations, there is one aspect that makes itself readily apparent, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and that is the deteriorating relationship between the military and one of the most elite segments of society, the mass media. It is likely indisputable that there has always been an underlying current of tension between the military and the press. In the Civil War, General William T. Sherman is quoted to have said “I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all, there would be news from Hell before breakfast” (Lewis). With the almost daily advancements in technology and communication, the ever changing global landscape, the staunchly liberal views of American society, and the growing trend of passive ignorance among its people, the gap between the military and the mass media has become more pronounced over time and increasingly dangerous, for both parties, and for the public. These factors have made the possibility of a relationship, based on mutual trust, understanding and a common goal unattainable, and have, in fact, twisted the relationship into a parasitic one, based on lies and self interest. Introduction At the most basic level, tensions arise between the military and the press simply because they operate in different environments. Wars require silence, secrecy, and surprise, thus they are fought (and won) behind closed-doors (Porch). The press, by its very nature, can and does take away from this thin veil, by striving to uncover that which the military tries so hard to keep quiet. American society, and thus the media, is liberal and believes in optimism, moral righteousness, reasonable rationality, and diplomacy to solve conflict, while the military believes in realism, the evil of man, force, and the inevitability of war (Huntington). Essentially, the ethic of the military is at odds with the democratic ideals of society, or what Huntington would call, the ideological constant. In addition to being staunchly liberal (but not necessarily linked to it), American society is also trending toward passive ignorance. Reminiscent of the days of yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War, the public tends to believe what the media tells it, about the use of force (Feaver & Kohn). Citizens seem to lack healthy skepticism, and when the media reports solely negative stories about what the military is doing (i.e., the Iraq War after the fall of Baghdad), they simply believe it and form their opinions off of press accounts that may lack context or credibility, deepening the rift between the military and the media. World War II was seen as a triumph of favorable relations between the military and the press. The media was severely censored, but the mass media was behind its military, the American public was fully supportive of all military actions taken against the evil of Nazism, and the relationship between the two institutions had never been stronger (Porch). This would remain standard until, what is a well known fact now, the Vietnam War, when the relationship between the two parties suffered a severe blow. Unrestricted admission to the war zones, uncensored reporting, and increased technological wherewithal resulted in an influx of accounts and visuals of the casualties of war (Porch). These images shocked and terrified the American people, and codified civilian hostility toward the military and military hostility toward the press. Since then, as communication has become more sophisticated and technology has become more advanced, real time images and reports can be transmitted from the battlefield, intensifying the political impact of individual battles (Cohen). The effect of these images and around the clock news reports, known at the “CNN Effect,” astonish the American public and tend to influence the people’s willingness to tolerate war and its costs, both financial and human (Feaver & Kohn). Consequently, the tide of American opinion is turned against the military and its actions, and the relationship between the military and the press only worsens. Additionally, over time, the expansion of the global community has affected U.S. strategic goals and policy decisions. The world is getting smaller and smaller, and U.S. politics are increasingly impacted by the opinions, viewpoints, and policies of other countries. Everything the United States does is interconnected with these entities, which affects foreign policy, and in turn, military security policy. The when, where, and how of using military force is increasingly scrutinized by foreign leaders and foreign press, and is affected by them. Domestic opinion frequently relies on the opinion of the international community, so not only does the military feel pressure to garner domestic public support for its missions, but it also has to earn global support to maintain support from home and in the press. The Problem vs. the Ideal Ideally, the relationship between the military and the mass media would be mutually beneficial, based on trust, and dedicated to a common cause: the safety and preservation of the United States’ democracy and its people. This utopian relationship would build support for foreign policy, enhance the public’s understanding of the military, and improve public perception of the military and media coverage (McCormick). The current state, however, is one of mistrust, parasitism on both sides, and intent to achieve what it is in their own best interest. Trust is a fundamental component of any relationship, predicated on respect and understanding, and the belief in the honesty of the other participant. In the case of the military and the press, to procure trust, the two institutions would be required to be honest with each other and the public. This honesty would allow for the free exchange of information without subjectivity, censorship or dishonesty. Trust, however, seems to be one of the greatest pitfalls of the relationship. The press wants maximum access and exposure, but the military will not provide it. (McCormick). The media believes the military is lying to them and distorting or censoring the truth in order to cover up for failures or mistakes. The military believes that the press will go to any length to make its soldiers look bad, including compromising missions, exaggerating reports, and limiting information exchange to negative stories because of liberal bias. To a certain extent, they are both right. If the press cannot trust the military to be honest, and the military cannot trust the press to be unbiased, a cooperative relationship cannot be formed. Mutualism is an interaction between two organisms, where each party, while performing its function, receives benefit from that interaction. For the military and the press, a mutual relationship would have each institution fulfilling their function, while freely exchanging information to the benefit of each other and society. The role of the press would be to act as a watchdog of sorts on the U.S. government and military, to ensure maximum transparency for the American people, while the function of the military, according to Huntington, would be to provide military security, or protection against external threats, to the citizens of the United States. It is critical that each institution recognize the strategic importance of the other’s function in the fabric and future of the United States. Without one of these institutions, the U.S. would likely not be the great democracy it is today. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, this relationship requires an understanding, securely rooted in the First Amendment right, freedom of the press, without compromising the function of the military. It is vital that this relationship be predicated on the press receiving all the news, not just what the military wants society to know, but only reporting when, where, and how (but not what) the military assents to public information exchanges, requiring trust, and perhaps, forcing the media back into the realm of responsible journalism. If this relationship were to exist, the military would be able to protect the country, and tell its story, good or bad, accurately, and the press would be able to report said story to the public without being subversive or misleading. In tandem with the lack of trust, however, the current relationship is one of parasitism (in actuality, double parasitism), each attacking the other, and as a result, they destroy each other’s ability to do their jobs. The press, positive that the military is hiding the truth from it, will do whatever it takes to get a story that sells, reporting when it wants, where it wants, and what it wants, and, in the end, compromising the military’s mission, and quite possibly, costing lives. When the media takes this kind of action, the military is unable to perform its function, costing the soldiers’ professionalism (in Huntington’s view) and the American people protection against international threats. When the military withholds, alters, or censors the truth, the media cannot safeguard freedom of the press, and thus do its job. In each case, while their jobs may be different, their ultimate goal is the same, ideally: that is, to ensure the preservation of freedom and the security of our democracy for the American people. As trust disintegrates, and the relationship starts to turn parasitic, however, the military and press begin to either formulate their own goals and interests, or think they are uniquely able to reach the ideal goal on their own, fighting for freedom (in the context of their function) alone, not trusting any other institution, despite the need for collective action. The mass media will frequently choose stories for their own self-aggrandizement, to sell newspapers or magazines, or to attract viewers. Instead of objectively providing the public with the necessary information, the media looks for the stories that will provide the most “bang for the buck” so to speak, adhering to the motto that “if it bleeds, it leads.” It is no longer about ensuring the public and the media’s First Amendment right, but more about sensationalism, money, and fame. The military may make its goal to hide information from the press and the public, reportable or not, or may question its goal of protecting a society that is so openly hostile to its mission and its actions. When these institutions lose sight of the true goal of their functions, which is identical, as a result of the above factors, the relationship between the two becomes even more adversarial. Mutualism built on trust, and committed to the best interests of the United States would be ideal for military-media relations. However, the conflict between the military ethic and the ideological constant, the advancing technological world, the growing global community, and the increasing trend of passive ignorance throughout American society has eliminated the possibility of creating such a relationship without significant policy implementation. Policy Recommendations Policy cannot just create trust between the two institutions or make them understand the importance of the other in the preservation of American culture and freedoms. The current relationship is one based on decades of turmoil, tension, and antagonism and cannot be changed overnight. Thus, any policy must aid in the transition to a more mutually beneficial relationship, and allow for the possibility to develop trust and understanding between the two institutions over time. There are several possible policy options to do this, including instituting compulsory service, nationalizing the press, or creating a new system to govern the interactions between the two institutions. In addition, as always, the status quo option, to be discussed (and dismissed) first, and the removal of either institution, to be discussed (and dismissed) second. The cheapest option is keeping the status quo, or leave it the way it is. In a way, the adversarial, antagonistic relationship they have provides an unintentional and unique checks and balance system, reminiscent of those already in place in the U.S. government. It’s possible that this system may be the only way to keep each on its toes. Is this relationship healthy enough to survive' As it becomes more damaging, it seems likely that the relationship will deteriorate so badly that the military and the mass media will eventually become enemies, instead of uncooperative partners. Making foes out of institutions that exist to protect U.S. citizens from external threats and internal ones (the government) could be potentially hazardous to society and the preservation of American democracy. The government could eradicate parts of or entire institutions. Congress could declare that no press is allowed in active war zones. Any journalist caught disobeying the laws of Congress, would be subject to subsequent penalty or punishment. Conversely, the government could eliminate the military. The liberal American society (and media) is constantly at odds with the military and its ethic. Why keep the institution around if it consistently goes against what the American people want' Kicking reporters out of war zones would have been easier when technology wasn’t as advanced. Today, people can pretty much sneak into wherever they want and/or film a battle from outside a war zone with a good camera. Eliminating reporters from these areas will not make the relations any better; in fact, it would probably make them worse as the journalists would know be illegally gathering information. In addition, the American public would decry this policy, saying it infringed on First Amendment rights and that they have a right to know what the military is doing through the press. Despite the views of many left-leaning celebrities and news anchors, eradicating the military is not now, nor will it ever be, a feasible option. Without a large strong military, essentially scaring others by pure might, the United States would succumb to its many enemies and would cease to exist. Elimination of this institution may make the press happy, but there would be no war to report on and no democracy to report to without it. Additionally, the government could nationalize the press in order to keep the media from stepping out of its lane. This step would allow the military to control information exchange with a great deal of authority, like censorship on crack, and the American people would know what the government wanted them to know. The press would be pawns of the highest administration officials, legally required to report what the government told them to, without subjectivity. There would be no tension between the institutions because the military would be in control of the press. Government-controlled media outlets are not too far out of the realm of possibility with the current administration and its notions of nationalizing the airline industry and the banks. Similar to nationalizing the airlines for national security reasons, there is also the option of nationalizing certain media outlets, those solely responsible for war correspondence, and allowing independent media agencies to cover other news; i.e., nationalizing access to national security information. However, it is not likely that this would ever be acceptable to the American people or the current mass media. Besides being a flagrant perversion of Constitutional rights, nationalizing the whole or a part of the press has a Russia-esque feel to it that no American citizen or journalist would likely support. Since the beginning of our nation and the time of our founding fathers, the free exchange of ideas has been viewed as fundamental to our democracy, and there is little to no chance that the American people will give up that right. Predicated on the idea that knowledge is the best weapon, and similar to many of our allies, such as Israel, a policy could be passed to make all U.S. citizens serve in the military. It has been proposed that the media inaccurately reports stories without context because it does not understand war, and in order to understand war, journalists would have to fight in one. It is possible that with this knowledge, the press will report objective credible stories, negative or positive, in the appropriate context, thus eliminating much of the distrust and adversarial relationship between the two institutions. This policy would require the executive and legislative branches to put into law and to enforce compulsory service on all citizens over a certain age, usually eighteen, for a certain number of years. The draft, still a sore subject from the Vietnam era, is a non-starter in the United States. While some countries are able to make that kind of demand on their people, the United States cannot without significant retribution and protest. It might be possible to require all war correspondents to be veterans, and flip the compulsory part onto the journalist, and not on all citizens; however, it seems unlikely that journalists would be willing to accept such limitations, and decry it as discrimination. The most practical policy recommendation would be to change the entire system to support both military and press missions. This policy would include an overhaul of the Military Press Corps, which has been somewhat of a lame duck when it comes to reporting actual news, and a Media Bill of Rights. This document would be specific to the military and federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and would clearly define the roles, processes, procedures, and rules of engagement that would govern the media during military operations and other critical U.S. security-related missions. In addition, it would also govern the military in the ways in which it can cooperate with the press. This document would also provide for increased accountability on both sides. Military officers who distort, censor, or otherwise stop the press from doing their job will face effective punishment, and vice versa. The media must adhere to a strict reporting code, and face charges should they break it. There would also need to be a level of understanding between the press and the military about what the military does. War, by definition, is ugly, violent and fraught with peril. Collateral damage, civilian casualties, and friendly fire incidents happen in war zones, and always will happen in war zones, thus the nature of the beast. The mass media’s determination to show these events is not in anyone’s best interest but their own. The American public and the press need to acclimate to the fact that some things that are done for national security are not reportable, in the best interest of the country. In addition, without a strong military, providing highly reliable security through actions of war, whatever they may be, the liberty and freedom the press has would not exist, and it is important for the press (and American society) to recognize that. Critical to this policy is the implementation. Congress would need to pass this document as a statute to make it enforceable. Additionally, this would allow for separate accountability, in that, an injunction could be asked for in the event that a reporter or a military officer is not living up to the statute. It would also have to be embraced at the highest levels of command; i.e., the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top officials in federal and state executive and legislative branches, and heads of news agencies. They would need to accept the policy and enforce it down the chain of command. This policy may create the utopian ideal of military-media relations, or it may exacerbate the situation, given the strict rules and regulations being place on both sides. In the end, the actual human side will make that decision. Soldiers must individually adhere to a strong and sensible code of information sharing that is fair and supportable across the spectrum of operations. On the other side, the individual journalists must report to report, not to shock, self-aggrandize, or humiliate the military based on a personal bias. In the end, the military and the press will have to cooperate to make this relationship beneficial for either side. Conclusion The state of military-media relations today is, without a doubt, chaotic, and the ideal relationship of mutual understanding and trust is seemingly unattainable. Unchanged by policy, the adversarial relationship between the military and the press will inevitable get worse, as society becomes more liberal, technology becomes more advanced, and the world becomes more interconnected. If allowed to stay the course, these relations might disintegrate into nothing, or worse, into enemies, committed to the destruction of the other, instead of to preserving the safety of America’s democracy and its people. There are policy options to sustain or eliminate the gap between the military and the press, such as eradicating one or part of the institutions, or allowing the system to exist as is, to maintain the status quo. However, these options seem the least beneficial for society. In order to mend the gap between the military and the mass media, policy options such as nationalizing the press, instituting compulsory service, and overhauling the entire military-media system need to be taken into consideration. It is possible to better relations between the military and mass media, but only if the two institutions are willing to cooperate, trust in each other’s integrity, and recognize the need for both institutions in the foundation of American democracy and the preservation of society’s liberty and freedom. Without that, the relationship between the military and the media will remain a dysfunctional aspect of civil-military relations. Works Cited Cohen, Eliot A. Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime. New York: Anchor Books, 2003. Feaver, Peter D., and Richard H. Kohn. Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001. Huntington, Samuel P. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957. Lewis, Adrian R. The American Culture of War. London: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2006. McCormick Tribune Foundation. The Military-Media Relationship 2005. Rep. Chicago: McCormick Foundation, 2005. Porch, Douglas. "No Bad Stories: The American Media-Military Relationship." Naval War College Review Vol. LV, I (Winter 2002).