Guest Blog: Casualty In An Undeclared War

by C. Blake Powers

No, this is not talking about innocent civilians being used as human shields in Iraq or anywhere else. Nor is it a discussion of special operations being conducted across the globe as a part of the war on terror. What the title of this piece is about is the undeclared war between mainstream media and the military.

This war, such as it is, has been ongoing since around the time of the Korean war and came fully into its own in Vietnam. There are just causes for conflict on both sides, and both are guilty of atrocities. Yet, it is the media that has been continuing to fight a battle against the military, and fails to see that it is losing the war.

CONTINUED...

No, that is not quite right. Most of the mainstream media clearly realizes right now that they are losing the war, and that is in part responsible for the recent spate of serious discussion about the ability of embedded reporters to report on the war in a professional manner. The sly argument goes that since they train with these troops and are beholden to them for food, water, safety, and more that they cannot report in an accurate, fair, and balanced manner. All of this being done in a way as to state that it is not the reporter's fault, but then again they did volunteer for this, train, and take other steps that many prudent and professional reporters chose not to do...

Some quick background is needed since most people have never been exposed to the so-called canons of journalism. According to most texts, the sacred principals of journalism are to be objective, balanced, and beholden to none. It means that stories are to present both sides, equally, and that editorializing – the presentation of the reporter or outlet's own opinions – is to be clearly labeled as such. It means that the reporter and the news organization for which they work are not to be financially dependent upon the subject of a story, nor are they to show preferential treatment to a sponsor or sponsors. It also means that reporters are not supposed to accept gifts, free rides, or in some cases even a drink at a bar from anyone, much less anyone associated with a story.

In contemporary journalistic mythos, journalism – particularly journalism since the late 60s – falls into such a golden age that upholds these ideals. The highest ideals are upheld, pure journalists at major outlets and publications live up to these exacting standards, the unwashed are exposed and hounded out, and truth rules the day. Like all golden-age mythos, however, it is a crock.

The fact is that we are not in a golden age of pure journalism. Many in the field do try to live up to those standards, but the fact is that most media coverage does have bias to some degree or another and most publications and media outlets do have some unofficial affiliation with groups or parties. One good example is the Washington Post, which as been linked with the Democratic Party for decades, or the Washington Times with the Republicans. Editorializing regularly takes place in stories and is not clearly identified, as anyone reading a particularly impassioned story in a paper or watching a sweeps-generated documentary against some titillating alleged public nuisance can testify. The very fact that such things are against something, and the reporters express outrage or shock over the fact that nothing has been done, or needs to be done, clearly demonstrates that fairness and balance are not the prime consideration. There is also the mythos that the media exists to provide truth and secure liberties. The media exists to make money, the stories drive that, and in the process should try to help get the truth out, preserve liberty, and all the other high and noble ideals behind a free press.

One of the best examples of the bias endemic in modern mass media is coverage of the military. With the exception of local stations in an area of military presence, stories about the military, or military actions, tend to follow a common theme that is not flattering. If you look at military coverage, look at how much focuses on procurement scandals, sex scandals, failures of weapons, failures of programs to design and build new weapons, or other negative things. Then look for stories that focus on anything positive.

The immediate cry from the media is that such stories are necessary, and they are to ensure that things don't get swept under a rug and do get corrected when needed. This cry is also followed by the old dictum that conflict, a good juicy story that pits against the established interests sells, and again that is true and the media exist to make money, not spread truth. Yet, behind all of this lies the undeclared war by many in mass media against the military.

For a variety of reasons, many in the media tend to be liberal in their social and political beliefs. Far from setting aside their biases when reporting, they use them and mask what they are doing. Part and parcel of most liberal religious ideologies – and called such as these are not reasoned positions but are rather tenets held on pure faith in a religious-like belief – is the fact that the military is evil, that those who practice this are less than human because they will fight and kill, that they enjoy doing so, and are guilty without trial of far worse things simply by association.

Much of this has continued because there has been no bridge between two very different cultures, though they are not as different as one might think. One of the more successful campaigns in the current war on terror has been the assault on this divide. The idea of embedded reporters was a masterstroke, since the reporters have to go through training, live with the troops, and go through events with them. Just as their grandfathers did during WWII, these reporters see war oft unvarnished; they see the horrors inflicted by enemy regimes upon innocents; and, they come to question many of the unspoken assumptions that lie behind the undeclared war.

ly, I am surprised that the backlash against this took as long to materialize as it did, and I expect to see it get much worse. The worst of the journalistic profession are going to fight this, and fight the embedded reporters, tooth and nail to hold onto the war and to keep the military the enemy. It will not be pretty for any to see, and it will also drive home to even the most fervent believer in the current journalist mythos the rampant bias in the media. The lines will be drawn and the identities of the soldiers on both sides of this will be made clear.

The impetus for this analysis was this weekends shameful conduct of Peter Arnett, a reporter who broke every rule of journalism that I have held dear for many years. He editorialized and presented those comments as fact rather than interpretation; he appears to have omitted facts and used information that may not have been completely factual; and, worst of all, he did so over enemy-controlled media. Much as I feel it is deserved, I doubt the Sedition Act will be applied to him and to his sponsoring organization, for much the same reason as it was not fully applied to the Copperheads during the Civil War and to similar organizations during WWI, WWII, and other conflicts.

Many in the media use the excuse that the beholden to none portion of the canons of journalism means that a journalist cannot be patriotic, that by so doing they are being biased. I say that this is pure and unadulterated bilge-water and is often used as excuse to cover for bias and actions in a war to destroy the U.S. military.

For me, I feel that patriotism is not a source of bias and feel that the ideals of journalism should be followed – and I wish far more people in the profession did so. The military does indeed need a watchdog, and plans need oversight. For example, the military modernization begun under the previous administration that focuses on light troops in light vehicles, such as the Stryker vehicle that won't even stop machinegun bullets or otherwise protect the soldiers inside needs some close attention and debate. There are other programs, other problems, corrupt procurement, mis-spending, and the like that can and should be brought out to the public.

There is no more patriotic duty than to do so, yet familiarity with the military is not an impediment to such. Instead, we will now have a generation of reporters who understand the discussion, the history and operations behind such discussion, and what such will mean to future generations of soldiers. Just as business reporters are expected to understand finance and management in order to do their jobs well, reporters covering the military need a similar understanding, and are now getting it.

It is time to end the undeclared war. The hardliners on both sides need to be gone, and to face the fact that they all lost. What is needed now is real reporting by reporters who have the integrity to live up to the code of journalism and report honestly and accurately on all issues regarding the military, and not bow to the biased zealots on either side or conform to current "standard practices."