If you checked out Stars and Stripes online or in print this morning, you no doubt saw our lead story, detailing the U.S. military’s use of a public relations firm to review and grade the previous work of reporters who wish to embed with units in Afghanistan.
On Monday morning, the backtracking began.
It’s no revelation that the military screens the work of journalists seeking a war zone embed. And it’s usually not a problem. The military can and should ensure that those who ask to be embedded in Iraq or Afghanistan are professional journalists doing professional work and who will conduct themselves professionally in very serious situations.
What journalists’ groups say is unacceptable is The Rendon Group grading reporters’ coverage on a positive-negative-neutral scale as it relates to mission objectives. At a time when the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are facing international criticism for attempts to stifle the media, critics say it’s imperative that the U.S. military set a better example.
Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a public affairs officer with U.S. Forces Afghanistan in Kabul, told Stripes’ Charlie Reed during the reporting of the story that the Pentagon has begun shifting away from the positive-negative-neutral scale and is evaluating news coverage more for its accuracy.
It was the first topic broached by DOD spokesman Bryan Whitman on Monday morning during a meeting with Pentagon reporters. He said the rating program had been discontinued months ago.
“They are not doing that,” he said. “That's not been a practice for some time.”
Both statements are out of line with information Rendon officials gave to Reed, indicating that the practice is ongoing. Mathias and Whitman said that any review of a journalist’s work has not been used to turn them away.
However, earlier this year, Stripes reporter Heath Druzin was denied an embed with the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq. In rejecting his request, an Army public affairs officer cited Druzin’s “refusal to highlight” the good news the military wanted to emphasize.
“I am told by folks in Afghanistan that no amount of media analysis is a determining factor in whether or not somebody is embedded or not,” Whitman said.
He added that he expected U.S. Forces Afghanistan officials would be in touch with Reed to “clarify” the story, but as of early afternoon Reed had not been contacted.
See the application Multi-National Force – Iraq collects from journalists requesting an embed. And the Afghanistan-based International Security Assistance Force application (click on Media Visit/Embed Request Form). Both require reporters to submit examples of their work.
Our Military's Obsession with Image
Our military has become image obsessed. This need to control their image trumps even integrity. Thus they don’t want someone like Druzin embedded, because they risk loosing the control of their image to the occasional embarrassment by facts.
There are a number of
There are a number of reasons I can see for this. The first was mentioned above, the need for good image in a time when the mainstream media is so intent on destroying the good name of the military is understandable and sad. Added to this the need for lawyers so that, afterwards the other party can't come after you (as they now are with the CIA) and winning the war and staying alive has become at least THIRD on the list.
The other reason, however, is more nefarious -- to put in people who are working as de facto members of the administration. I would feel more comfortable know if this was a practice through the previous administration as well as this one or just the Obama Administration which already has a number of deeply disconcerting policies about controlling dissent and information.
Files prove Pentagon is profiling reporters
I am somewhat confused by the media's sensitivity to evaluation of their end product. The military evaluates each of it members and evaluates the activity and end product of each contractor it uses. To not rate an embedded reporter would seem irresponsible or careless to me. If the reporters are being accurate and reporting only news, they are worthwhile as an embed. If they are using their news articles as opinion pieces, they are not worth the risk the units have to endure to carry an embed. Having an outside agency do the evaluation seems appropriate to help minimize bias.
RE: Files prove
Jander8122, just to clarify: These reports are complied before the journalists ever set foot in country. It's an analysis of the stories they've done so far, not what they do while embedded. So they aren't being judged on how accurate their reporting in the field is, but instead on the topics and stories they've covered before embedding.
Leo Shane- Thanks. I
Leo Shane- Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. It helps ameliorate my confusion.
S&S - What's your real agenda?
What's your real objective in writing this story? Stars and Stripes knows as well as anyone who has ever served in DoD's bureaucracy that contractors like Rendon do what the client/Government asks them to do. Seems to me that your issue should be with the US Military, not which contractor is working to execute the project, or what their background or history is. It's irrelevant, irresponsible, tabloid journalism - it's beneath you. All one can conclude is that this amounts to a desire for headlines, or retaliation for a S&S reporter being denied access in Baghdad. Or possibly, you’re being used by someone with a grudge, and you don’t even know it – which is sad. Or you do know it, and that’s even worse.
At the end of the day, the US Government's effort in Afghanistan will not be successful if we cannot communicate effectively about it in Afghanistan, here in the US, and around the world. The Military is trying to be more effective in communicating, and to do that they want to know some background about what kind of coverage they might expect from embedded reporters. That seems pretty logical to me - no one in this town at a senior level has meetings without knowing who they're meeting with. Does USFORA want good coverage, that they think will help us achieve our objectives in Afghanistan? Of course they do, and there's nothing wrong with it as long as it doesn't cross into censorship - which it doesn't appear to have, in this case. Should they pay for outside help toward that end? I think the US military probably spends its money on a lot dumber things.
Slighted
And now Rear Adm Smith, ISAF’s Director of Communication, weighs in on the issue by way of S&S’s Letters to the Editor (28 Aug 09). The admiral is denying that PAO’s in his theater “grant or deny embeds based on a reporter’s history of coverage” going so far as to say that the accusations “slights professional journalists.”
Oops. The next day, S&S quoted the 101st Airborne PAO, who stated that he himself was responsible for approving/denying embed request based on reporter profiles, provided by his superiors. The profiles included the requesting reporters’ history of their coverage as well a rating system (pie-chart style) for favorable coverage...as recently as July.
I guess the pros can consider themselves "slighted" then.
“The press, in my view [is] a critically important guarantor of our freedom. When the press identifies a problem in the military, our response should be to find out if the allegations are true — and if so, say so, and then act to remedy the problem. If untrue, then be able to document that fact. The press is not the enemy, and to treat it as such is self-defeating.” ~ SecDef Robert Gates