thedrifter
09-29-07, 01:00 PM
Posted on Fri, Sep. 28, 2007
Changing military attitudes
Kansas City Star, MO
The media and the military will always be engaged in a tug-of-war because they have different goals. Reporters want access, commanders want control.
Yet there are encouraging signs that some in the military realize that clamping down too much can be counterproductive, while allowing more access can actually help their cause.
During the Gulf War in 1991, Gen. Walt Boomer wanted more press coverage for his Marines. Some analysts later concluded that because of Boomer’s attitude, the Marines received more favorable coverage and credit — at the expense of Army units.
Winning wars is not only about winning battles. It’s also about perceptions. When there is an information vacuum, people often assume the worst.
One who learned this on the job is Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top commander at Fort Leavenworth. For 13 months, he was the chief military spokesman in Baghdad.
In remarks Friday to the National Conference of Editorial Writers convention in Kansas City, Caldwell told how he came to realize that it’s often better to make facts public as they become available — rather than wait for a complete and accurate report that only shows up after the story has grown cold.
At Fort Leavenworth, Caldwell also serves as commandant of the Command and General Staff College, which trains mid-level officers for higher jobs. So he’s in a position to begin changing attitudes on the subject of media relations.
Caldwell admits the Army has a long way to go. Many commanders see the media as an annoyance to be avoided, he said.
The Pentagon has tried a variety of approaches in handling the media. During the Vietnam War, reporters traveled around the country virtually at will. In the invasion of Grenada in 1983, they were shut out for the first two days.
In Iraq, many have been embedded with combat units, an approach that has generally worked well. In Baghdad, there have been signs that attitudes toward the media are loosening up under the top commander, Gen. David Petraeus.
Even so, author Max Boot wrote during a trip to Iraq earlier this year that the military mindset “sees the media as a potential enemy to be shunned at all costs.”
Caldwell’s efforts to change such military attitudes are welcome, and could do much to lower the tension between reporters and commanders — and allow the free flow of information that a democracy requires.
Ellie
Changing military attitudes
Kansas City Star, MO
The media and the military will always be engaged in a tug-of-war because they have different goals. Reporters want access, commanders want control.
Yet there are encouraging signs that some in the military realize that clamping down too much can be counterproductive, while allowing more access can actually help their cause.
During the Gulf War in 1991, Gen. Walt Boomer wanted more press coverage for his Marines. Some analysts later concluded that because of Boomer’s attitude, the Marines received more favorable coverage and credit — at the expense of Army units.
Winning wars is not only about winning battles. It’s also about perceptions. When there is an information vacuum, people often assume the worst.
One who learned this on the job is Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top commander at Fort Leavenworth. For 13 months, he was the chief military spokesman in Baghdad.
In remarks Friday to the National Conference of Editorial Writers convention in Kansas City, Caldwell told how he came to realize that it’s often better to make facts public as they become available — rather than wait for a complete and accurate report that only shows up after the story has grown cold.
At Fort Leavenworth, Caldwell also serves as commandant of the Command and General Staff College, which trains mid-level officers for higher jobs. So he’s in a position to begin changing attitudes on the subject of media relations.
Caldwell admits the Army has a long way to go. Many commanders see the media as an annoyance to be avoided, he said.
The Pentagon has tried a variety of approaches in handling the media. During the Vietnam War, reporters traveled around the country virtually at will. In the invasion of Grenada in 1983, they were shut out for the first two days.
In Iraq, many have been embedded with combat units, an approach that has generally worked well. In Baghdad, there have been signs that attitudes toward the media are loosening up under the top commander, Gen. David Petraeus.
Even so, author Max Boot wrote during a trip to Iraq earlier this year that the military mindset “sees the media as a potential enemy to be shunned at all costs.”
Caldwell’s efforts to change such military attitudes are welcome, and could do much to lower the tension between reporters and commanders — and allow the free flow of information that a democracy requires.
Ellie