News--wartime censorship

News

05/03/03

In Iraq information war, how much is too much to know?

By Meghan Dinger

During the war in Iraq, many American citizens raised questions about the amount of information necessary for maintaining the safety of the troops.

"Why, citizens ask, do those reporters keep telling the enemy the location and plans of troops?" Karen Dunlap wrote in a Poynter Institute story. "Why do reporters ask and tell about troops morale problems? Why do they keep saying where the troops are located and what the military plans to do?"

Another complaint was written to Marvin Lake at Hampton Roads which said, "Stop saying where they're going, who's going and for how long. Some things shouldn't be told. Why don't you take that information...and e-mail it to Saddam?"

There has been a long-standing conflict between the news media's need for access, the public's right to know what they report, and the military's need for secrecy and safety.

"How can reporting of the war's preparations take place in a way that does not compromise the safety of America's service members and civilians?" David Mazzarella wrote in a 2001 article. "How does a news organization avoid giving valuable information to terrorists?"

As for the military's role, Pentagon Senior Spokesman Bryan Whitman said in an interview with Freedom Forum's writer Natalie Cortes that the military "understands reporters' concerns but that the top priority must be troop safety."

Despite the tension and opposing goals of the military and the media, the military's role, according to Brig. Gen. Andrew Davis, director of the U.S. Marine Corps' public affairs division, is "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment. Those of us who think about that realize that we and our brothers and sisters are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect those freedoms."

As the military continues with the government's goals in Iraq, the role of the journalist is to inform the public, and often walks a fine line between newsgathering and reporting, without compromising the safety of the United States military. Questions have been raised on the amount of information that a journalist should publish in times of war, where troop safety, battlefield security, and the element of surprise are highly valued.

According to an article by D. Shaw, the duty of the media is "to keep the public informed about the war effort and about possible terrorist targets."

The journalism world argues that the public has the right to know, and believes that information is essential to decision-making in a democracy.

"We feel an obligation to tell readers as much as we can as soon as we can - as long as we are not putting out troops in danger," Carl Fincke, military team leader, said in a Hampton Roads interview. "There are many instances when we do not publish information until the Navy feels it is appropriate."

Utah State University journalism professor Mike Sweeney said the outcome of this media vs. military issue came when the Pentagon and the Bush Administration sat down last fall and again early this spring, to make sure that battlefield security would not be compromised, and at the same time, to allow journalists access. Their outcome was journalist embedding.

Embedded journalists in Iraq become permanent parts of the unit that they are assigned to, Sweeney said, and are trained to learn how to be war correspondents. They were trained to learn what stories are compromising to the troops, as well as what types of information is useful to the enemy.

"As a professional courtesy, we ask journalists not to report anything that might compromise the troops in the field," Navy Lt. Commander Charles Owen said to Dunlap in an interview. "They are not censored, they are given some information on what they can and cannot do ... Any embedded journalists who threaten security are given one warning. If a second violation occurs, the journalist is escorted out of the unit."

"The embedding seems to be working. This is probably the best coverage of a war of all," Sweeney said.

Embedding seems to have worked because the journalists were trained in specifics of war reporting and are extremely experienced in their field.

According to a Post-Gazette article, Rob Owen said, "The Defense Department rules prohibit embedded reporters from revealing some specifics, including geographic locations of military units, information regarding future operations, photography showing level of security at military installations or encampments and information identifying postponed or canceled operations."

As for local opinions on journalist embedding, Sweeney said, "The journalist should not have total freedom because some information has value to the enemy. You can't tell the homeland everything because it would help the enemy to change their battle plans and achieve victory... The question is deciding exactly where to draw the line on what to publish and what to suppress. I am fairly confident that nearly all journalists would know what to do if they were given nearly total freedom."

"I think it's a good thing for people to feel involved with media coverage of the war, so that they can make well-informed decisions and have logical opinions about their leaders," Marie Griffin, news editor of the Utah Statesman said. "The media play an extremely important role in life and it needs to be there in every circumstance."

Editor-in-Chief of the Statesman Joseph Dougherty agrees that the embedded journalists have been doing a good job, but also feels the reporting hasn't been completely accurate and hasn't been going far enough.

"I think it is necessary and important that reporters are embedded with the troops," he said. "Most of what we have heard has been cheerleading. It seems journalists have been picking and choosing what to show."