Author, journalist, and former U.S. Marine infantry leader/ paratrooper W. Thomas Smith Jr. has begun editing World Defense Review at ReportingWar.com, which includes his "Beyond the DropZone" column. The site is something of a blog/ e-zine amalgam, with global focus and a diverse set of contributors. I recently had the opportunity to chat with W. Thomas Smith Jr. about his site. Here's what he says:
JK: There are lots of blogs out there discussing the War on Terror, and the MilBlog community providing reporting from the front lines. What unique element is worlddefensereview.com looking to add to that mix?
WTSJ: Well, we are not really a blog. We will certainly have a blog page with links to various blogs, and we're considering other ways we can highlight relevant blogs. But we're actually more of an e-zine – or an e-magazine – combining magazine-style commentary, exclusive interviews and features with some of the elements of a military/ defense website.
We also are not nearly where we want to be in terms of what we'll be offering our readers. But our plans are for World Defense Review to be a primary source for defense news and commentary unlike any other. In terms of unique: You'll see a combination of fresh new voices and those of seasoned professionals, all with varying perspectives and opinions because they'll be coming from different experiences.
JK: What do you think is the worst-reported aspect of the current global conflict? The worst-understood aspect by the general population?
WTSJ: There are two major problems with reporting military issues and global conflict in the current war on terror.
The first is - in the case of Iraq and even Afghanistan - it is very difficult to cover insurgent warfare thoroughly and accurately. It's not the reporters' fault. They are doing as much as they can. But most of the reporters in Iraq, for instance, are either hunkered down in "safe zones" or enclaves. They cover bombings after the fact, and a few are actually going out on patrols with specific units. But it's simply too dangerous to operate effectively as an independent reporter in Iraq.
Reporting war today is quite a bit different than it was in during the "offensive" phase of the war in the spring of 2003. Reporting was incredibly thorough and accurate then because the enemy was on the run in every sector that we had a troop presence, and all of the journalists were embedded with rapidly moving coalition units. They were eating the same chow, sleeping in the same holes, dodging the same bullets. They saw the good, the bad, and the ugly, and they reported it all.
Today, it's almost too dangerous to go out and cover something good like a school construction or a medical clinic being painted. If there's no military escort and you take a cab, you're liable to be sold by the cab driver to a handful of Zarqawi's headsmen.
So the majority of the coverage leans toward the negative. Yes, it's also certainly an issue of "if it bleeds, it leads." But more than that, it is a matter of areas being far too dangerous for effective reporting. So it is a freedom of movement problem.
The second problem is there are far too many reporters who are not doing their homework. I'm constantly reading stories where reporters simply don't understand the complexities of the military culture much less the organizations themselves. And how can a journalist effectively write about something if he or she doesn't understand what it really looks like or its function?
JK: Yeah, we've talked about that last bit on Winds. Glad you're trying to light a candle rather than curse the darkness. So... If you could have people walk away from your site really understanding just one thing, what would it be?
WTSJ: I hope readers will realize that one cannot develop an understanding about anything without taking a look at all points of view. Readers also need to understand that as information is now increasing almost exponentially, so to is the importance of having to understand that everything in the world is in some way connected to any flashpoint of conflict anywhere on the globe. So we hope to provide solid resources for education and understanding in that regard.
JK: What are you looking for in terms of contributors and articles? How should people who think they fit those criteria contact you?
WTSJ: First of all, a potential contributor must be able to write well. Like any national publication, we're looking for solid copy that is clean, concise, and clever without being cutesy or pretentious. Frankly, amateurs or non-published writers hoping to earn their first byline need not apply. But if someone has solid story idea, they should drop me a line at wtsjr, over here @reportingwar.com. We'll go from there.
JK: What are your long-term ambitions for the site? In a realistic world where you achieve your greatest goals for worlddefensereview.com, what would we be saying about it at the end of 2008?
WTSJ: That's a tough question because all things evolve in time. But it would be safe to say that I believe we will be the source of choice for a large, diverse readership looking to develop a greater understanding of global conflict and military/defense issues. We'll be a place for everyone: The high school or college student interested in developing his or her understanding of 21st Century armed conflict, the professional soldier, the policymaker, and the PhD researcher.
Read World Defense Review.
This was an interesting interview and I will frequent the e-zine to give it a fair evaluation. However, I am a bit concerned by the fairly large number of liberal newspaper articles that are linked on his site. Several specific sources have lost much of their credibility with me; e.g., The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, etc., are typically very liberally biased in their "reporting" and some of his other sources were questionable, too.
Is Mr. Smith personally known to you and can you vouch for his journalistic and professional integrity?
He is known to me by his work, not personally. His work has appeared in National Review, so I think the safe assumption is that he's serious about the multiple points of view thing he mentions.
He's a friend of mine (I'm a contributor) and I think ET is just jumping to conclusions based on links not the original content. The links are just links to other news items being covered and aren't the original content of the site (something I used to think would be obvious until I got blasted on my own site for simply linking to something one time to start discussion.)
The comments about the lack of good reporting in Iraq now are spot on.
Does anyone remember some months back the Arab American reporter who speaks fluent Arabic and looks the part strolled around on his own, unnoticed?
I can't recall his name.
He reported what it was like for the average Iraqi citizen to be on the wrong end of shouting American robo-soldiers.
I read it and realized right then we were losing in Iraq.
And I sympathize mightily with our lads, having myself been in Desert Storm.