LTC Bob Bateman, in today’s Small Wars Journal Blog:
For years I struggled with many of my peers, trying to convince them that journalists are not the enemy. It was an uphill row to hoe, but a worthy one. Over time most seem to have accepted the proposition that journalists and their editors really do take a lot of time and effort to determine if they should run with a story, particularly one which might damage us, so the terrain shifted. More and more I came to find myself engaging with either veterans or “pro military” civilian bloggers. Their positions are more hardened than those of us serving today. Often this appears to be a byproduct of their politics. (One of the political parties has it as a basic contention that “the mainstream media” is fundamentally anti-military.) Over and over again I’ve heard the refrain by people of this inclination, that journalists don’t give a damn about those of us in uniform and would sell us out for a second if it meant a good story. . . .
It frustrates me to no end to listen to this claptrap, because the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. Most journalists, and most journalism outlets, actually go pretty far out of their way to make sure that they do not endanger troops, nor spill any beans which might impede upcoming operations.
But now I do have an example of a “journalist” blowing a secret and endangering lives. . .
10 Comments
Public opinion (both Arab and western) are centers of gravity in this war, just as much who controls a town. The media in large part forms that public opinion. So, whatever you think about the media leanings, it IS a key player and policy needs to be crafted with the media as a primary consideration and not just as a tertiary afterthought.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/05/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Prince Harry was in Afghanistan, Afghans aren’t Arabs, unless the term is meant in some metaphorical sense.
Matt Drudge is hardly known in Britain or beyond the borders of the United States.
All of the coverage of the Windsor Afghan “outing” in Britain concerned the Australian women’s magazine. Drudge was hardly mentioned. (Should Drudge feel bad about being ignored?)
I’m not sure if the Taliban actually read either Drudge or “New Idea”. But the whole imbroglio was brilliantly managed to make Prince Harry, who was last seen dressed in a Nazi uniform, and who is known as the “Ginger Binger”, look passably like a competent military person.
“New Idea” is a publication owned by the Murdoch empire (like Fox News). The mag is quite close to the bottom of the news food chain. It’s not too hard to guess how the story first appeared there rather than (say) the London Sun, a mega-tabloid also owned by the Murdoch empire.
The internal politics of major media empires are sometimes almost as interesting as the politics of the Pentagon.
Katz,
I would submit that you are incorrect. By my measure (of the six major daily UK newspapers) the early January speculation of “The New Look” passed entirely without comment. Not surprisingly, as their circ is in the thousands (or perhaps busts 10K, in Aussie-land). The overwhelming response, as measured both by Fleet Street (which said nothing after the 6 Jan tidbit in Australia, but which broke the embargo after Drudge) was to Drudge’s 21 MILLION (Plus) daily hits. (Go to his page, check left side about 3/4 down for his hit counter).
21 Million hits. No UK mainstream, nor non-European magazine, has that publication breadth. Drudge is international, and massive. To claim that he is “hardly known” in Britain suggests you don’t know the UK. True, of his 21,000,000 hits only, perhaps, 100,000 come from the UK, but are you KIDDING? Moreover, the threat is not that people in the UK found out about Harry…it’s the Taliban son. Think that none, not even one, of those 21,000,000 hits was from somebody who monitors the US media from Afghanistan? Are you SERIOUS?
Bob Bateman
1. The magazine’s name is in fact “New Idea”, not “New Look”.
2. New Idea’s weekly circulation is between 400,000 and 500,000. See here:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:djh–awZHskJ:www.sevencorporate.com.au/_uploads/Files/18-08-2006-Pacific%2520Magazines%2520is%2520number%25201%2520in%2520three%2520of%2520its%2520five%2520publishing%2520categories.pdf+%22new+idea%22+circulation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=au
3. “New Idea” (not “New Look”) is part of the Murdoch stable. There is much cross-fertilisation of news stories within the Murdoch stable.
4. British Army PR had a media package ready to release before Harry was withdrawn from Afghanistan. This package was clearly organised before the Drudge Report was released. Do you really think that the British Army went into panic mode over ths only after the release of the Drudge Report? How naive.
5. As you correctly state, the important issue is the knowledge of the Taliban. Of course the Taliban monitors the press. Do you think that the Taliban don’t have ONE sympathiser in multi-cultural Australia who was in a position to pass on the scoop that Prince Harry was reported by New Idea to be in Afghanistan?
6. Are you in a position of responsibility?
No, I did not say, nor even remotely imply, that the BA went into “Panic mode.” Hell, most on Fleet street didn’t expect it to last a week, and same according to my BA friends. Which is why they had a “package” ready, even before he deployed. (Which the UK media have reported on.) How naive of you to think I don’t read the UK media that made this explicit.
But when “New Idea” (I must’ve had Eisenhower-on-the-brain) published their speculation…nobody took notice, and the “Murdoch linked” Wall Street Journal, let alone FOX, or any of his UK holdings, did not say a word. (Thereby undercutting your simplistic “linked” quasi-thesis.
It was Drudge and his 21,000,000 daily hits that made the decision to pull our ally’s favorite (temporarily) royal son from the lines, and nothing else.
Apparently those who were in the position to make that decision decided that an unsourced and vague reference in a women’s gossip magazine in Australia was not sufficient cause for alarm. I myself doubt that the Taleban has many sympathizers who peruse womens fashion/gossip magazines in Australia. They are, you may perhaps have heard, a somewhat misogynistic group, and thus are unlikely to meet the demographic of “New Idea”, even if it had 1000% the readership that it does. Are you that ill-informed of the tenets of their movement, even seven years after they came to international prominence? How can that be so?
Define “responsibility”, and while you’re at it, explain relevence?
“Katz”
Speaking of which, man up and post a real name. I don’t enter the lists with people who hide behind anonymous titles.
Now, on your contention that Drudge wasn’t focused upon by the UK media, and is not known outside the US, that is just plain indefensible ignorance. You wrote: “Matt Drudge is hardly known in Britain or beyond the borders of the United States.” Yet here are just a few links from the UK demonstrating the exact opposite:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/09/military.monarchy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/wdrudge229.xml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princes-cover-in-afghanistan-blown-by-drudge-report-789335.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3454535.ece
The Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the freakin’ Times of London…
I mean bugger, General Dannet himself tagged Drudge. And you contend that he is “not known”? What planet are you living on?
Drudge outed, and a combat soldier had to be withdrawn prematurely. What are your questions?
And, as I said, if you don’t stop playing the anonymous card, nobody will take you seriously. Least of all me.
Bateman
So you admit that “New Idea” is in fact a mass circulation publication.
The flow of information in the Murdoch News Corp is downwards, not upwards. Murdoch has used “New Idea” at least once before to release sensational, British-interest news. See here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/the-womens-magazine-that-landed-an-unfortunate-scoop-790020.html
[BTW, this story in the Independent gets the Harry story right]:
I didn’t say “not known”. Are you in the habit of misquoting as well as miss-naming? I daresay however, that “New Idea” is more widely known in Britain than Drudge. The above scoop alone made “New Idea” a household word in Britain.
Most saliently, do you think that the Taliban censor what they read for intelligence purposes because they don’t approve of the editorial policies of the publication? How quaint.
If that were right, perhaps the US Army could pass on its most secret orders in the pages of Hustler.
On a serious note, how many Taliban informants would it require to read “New Idea” for a leak to have occurred? (My rough guess is less than two. What’s yours?)
“Katz”
Do you have a name, or will you continue to hide behind your anonymity?
You ask, “On a serious note, how many Taliban informants would it require to read “New Idea” for a leak to have occurred? (My rough guess is less than two. What’s yours?)”
Quaint indeed. The fact that the Taleban did not do anything or say anything or react at all to the “New Idea” story (while they did in reaction to the Drudge story) suggests that either fundamentalist male Muslims who might associate with the Taleban do not read Australian women’s fashion/gossip magazines at all, or they don’t accept them as a viable source of information.
Self-censorship does seem to be the answer. Unless you have another “quaint” solution to this factual series of events. Nobody, but nobody, appears to have paid any attention to the 7 January New Idea story (which in any event, got the story wrong if they reported that he “joined his regiment”…since he was not with the Household Cavalry in Afghanistan), not the Taleban, nor the British Army. No two ways around that.
Now, last time, I’ll ask. Will you post a real name? I don’t debate or even usually discuss things with people who cower behind false names on the internet. A real name, or you can debate yourself from this point forward.
Bob Bateman
But Lieutenant Colonel, you seem to have neglected to read carefully, again.
You’ll note that “New Idea” ran two stories about Harry. The second of them accurately announced that he was in Afghanistan.
Do I need to remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
Do you have any concrete evidence of the Taliban galvanising themselves into jihadist action against Harry’s position after Drudge repeated the “New Idea” story?
I thought not.
How do I know that you are “Bob Bateman”? Do I care if you aren’t?
The “Federalist Papers” of your Founding Fathers were all written under pseudonyms. Are you going to reject the US Constitution because it was conceived and inspired by a gaggle of scribblers skulking behind some noms de plume?
I thought not.
Does it change anything if I told you my name was in fact Monica Katz?
Perhaps some momentary surprise.