| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Belmont Club: the media and the battlefield |
| 2006-06-03 |
It would be interesting if someone could write a theoretical guide to counterinsurgency which took into account the effect of the media on operations. One interesting possibility is that the reason small footprints preferred by Boot are more efficient than big footprints is that they prevent a war from being politicized by a media circus. Sometimes the word circus is literally apt. Recently in East Timor, competition between two rival TV networks captured how the ringmasters works. Channel 7 got a film clip of the Channel 9 correspondent setting up an interview and subsequently aired the bombshell. The film clipshows host Jessica Rowe interviewing East Timor taskforce commanding officer Brigadier Michael Slater. "I'm wondering how you feel about your safety given that you've got armed guards there standing behind you, armed soldiers," Rowe says. The Jessca Rowe-Slater incident was enlightening because it suggests that since the media is part of the battlefield, the coverage of the media must be a vital part of the entire picture. The curious over-reaction by the MSM to embedded bloggers -- questioning their legitimacy, their "objectivity", their professionalism, etc -- recollects nothing so much as the effect of garlic or a Cross on a vampire. Reflecting on it, I think the reason is that bloggers often do what the Channel 7 did to Channel 9 in the incident above. One unnoticed fact -- you can check it out -- is that blogger Stephen Vincent was the only Western media person killed in Iraq in 2005. The statistical unlikeliness of that fact has always bothered me. But from the viewpoint of the Ba'athist insurgency it would make sense to target the anyone who could cover the media. After all, the regular media works through stringers and must maintain "access"; it's got to sell stories, etc. As Eason Jordan reminded us, the regular media has long had relationships with the Ba'ath. If the media is a weapon then it makes sense to eliminate threats to that weapon. Just hypothetically. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #5 How about holding the Media to the same standards they hold everyone else. What happens to a manufacturer of defective merchandise? What happens when a company which files false and misleading statements? What happens when an enterprise engages in knowningly false claims and misrepresentations concerning their product? Why in the name of 'equal before the law' is there a difference between libel of a 'public' and 'private' person? First, this is not the press of 1790. It is a major 'entertainment' industry driven by ratings and circulation. When local purveyors of 'news' enraged enough of their local readership, they simply went out of business. Today they are protected by corporation constructs which simply put good money into the rat holes because they are not profit centers. Stock in major corporations is do deluded by volume that the ability to ousted the good old boys is near to impossible, so they raid the corporations in this manner to support their personal agendas. Second, this only highlights that those charged with conducting warfare have surrendered their mission to the Media. The senior brass in the Pentagon has never wanted to spend either the monetary or personnel resources to conduct this type of warfare. They still live in a pre-20th Century mentality. The only time the Media has been on their side was in the short period around mid-century. All their technology and all their trained troops mean nothing if you still lose the war because you lose the home front. Given the recent efforts by the Army hierarchy to squelch bloggers in the ranks, they donÂ’t get it. And donÂ’t give me crap about Opsec. Anyone whoÂ’s spent time at the company level knows that commanders donÂ’t want to deal with anything more than they have too, so all they want is an excuse to shut the problem off. You beat the MSM by providing a better product. |
| Posted by: Creretch Ebbavique2449 2006-06-03 14:20 |
| #4 Anon1, you prove Vader's point. The media is (controlled by) the enemy. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2006-06-03 13:49 |
| #3 ps: DarthVader, you sound like an idiot when you post things like hang the media. What a fascist. Go to Saudi Arabia - your enemy shares your view but they're smarter. They're busy buying the media. Look up Prince Alwaleed and see what he's doing buying up Newsltd and cinema chains |
| Posted by: Anon1 2006-06-03 12:45 |
| #2 The media is the only thing that keeps freedom in domestic society. You can't be free if you don't know what is going on and you cannot make informed decisions. A free media is integral to democracy. The problem isn't the media but the laws governing them. The problem is the media isn't free. The problem is they are bound by rules and pushed by special interest lobby groups such as the Islamist lobby groups that can use law courts to penalise media through fines and suppression orders. There are complex guidelines governing what the media can and cannot print from hate speech laws to blasphemy laws to defamation laws. The only people it is safe to criticise are famouse celebrities (TV, Film, Movies) and politicians: commenting on public figures is priviledged. You pretty much can't be sued (it's rare). Thus the media is all about talking trivial trash or rabidly criticising Western politicians. We never criticise foreign cultures the way we criticise our own or hold them to the same standards of behaviour for two reasons: 1) the public wants to know what is relevant to them: local focus or for world news how it impacts us or how we reacted to it. 2) there is no punishment for criticising our government but if you criticise China, you won't be granted another interview, or access to the market (see: google) or criticise Islamist fascism and you will be sued for hate speech and publicly called racist. So there you have it. Then there is the culture of the media. Within the media stories rewarded (eg: MEAA awards in Australia) typically go to stories that have had an impact on politics. A policy has been reversed, someone has been sacked: a quantifiable example to which you can refer to show your story has had influence and an impact on life in the country. That is what gets awarded. But the problem is you can only get access to information that is legal or that people give you. So Freedom of Information laws let you get access to government documents: so the light is on them for criticism. Freedom of Information doesn't give you access to all the inner runnings of Lakemba mosque, that's a lot more difficult. You cannot legally bug or even record a conversation. So the big critical stories on our enemies never get written, we keep whipping our own governments and democratic leaders for not being perfect while we let the cockroaches breed in the darkness under the floorboards. Media aren't the enemy. You need to change the rules by which media operate. And that means changes to legislation. 1) safeguard freedom of speech. In Australia it is not protected by a bill of rights or even by law. 2) take away the right to sue for defamation by organisations: political, religious - any organisation. 3) limit defamation payouts for individuals (unlimited in Australia. Lose a leg, the payout is limited. Lose your reputation you can be paid any amount of money to infinity). 4) remove religion and culture from hate speech laws. They are not genetic characteristics over which you have no control but a set of ideas and behaviours that should be open to criticism, even strident criticism. 5)Truth and the frank and honest debate of facts and figures MUST be safeguarded. Debates that could even be called racist must be absolutely protected if they are true and based on fact. Truth must be an absolute defence against defamation, hate speech, anti-racism and any other law. If 98% of the prison population is of one ethnic or racial group then it is a matter of public interest to discuss why that might be without fear of legal censure. If most suicide bombings are committed by Muslims we MUST be able to write: Islamic suicide bombers, and ask the question: why is Islamist Fascism on the rise and debate it without fear of being sued in the courts and harrassed from our jobs. The media wants to be free it is the laws that restrain it. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2006-06-03 12:43 |
| #1 The media is the enemy. Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-06-03 10:17 |