Military

DATE=10-23-01

TYPE=English Programs Feature

NUMBER=7-35468

TITLE=The Military and the Media at Wartime

BYLINE=Keming Kuo

TELEPHONE=619-0936

DATELINE=Arlington, VA.

EDITOR=vicki swaney

CONTENT=

_

INTRO: During World War II and the Vietnam conflict, American journalists joined soldiers on the battlefields to provide the public an independent perspective of military activities. During the current war on terrorism, reporters' access to war areas has been limited. When soldiers recently departed in helicopters from an aircraft carrier for missions in Afghanistan, no reporters were on hand. Just how much access should reporters have during times of war? A group of military officers and journalists discussed the issue at a recent [10-17] conference at the Newseum in Arlington, Virginia. ________ has more.

TEXT: The current war against terrorism has been described as a very different kind of war, with so-called "special operations" and clandestine activities. Washington officials have advised Americans that they may not learn about various military maneuvers until well after they take place if at all. Some of the activities are being kept secret to protect the security of a given operation. Rear Admiral Craig Quigley adds that the military action in Afghanistan -and possibly elsewhere- will be a long, drawn-out process:

TAPE: CUT ONE QUIGLEY :25

"The duration will be measured in months and years, not days and weeks, for starters. And it's very much a global engagement. Today, all eyes are on Afghanistan, where the activity is centered today. There's no doubt that, at some point and place in the future, our Special Forces [soldiers] will be involved in the war on terrorism."

TEXT: Admiral Quigley says that, despite the limitations placed on journalists' access to some of the military actions, reporters have generally gone along with the restrictions:

TAPE: CUT TWO QUIGLEY :34

"The news organizations I've come in contact with over the years the very professional Pentagon press corps are very good journalists, and have a good understanding of the delicacies of covering that beat. They know that you cannot exist in the Pentagon without coming across classified and sensitive information. They treat it very responsibly; they're concerned about the lives of the men and women they cover."

TEXT: But some journalists are beginning to question just how far the military should go in restricting press access. Among them is Associated Press military correspondent Susanne Schafer, one of the panelists at the Freedom Forum discussion:

TAPE: CUT THREE SCHAFER :32

"If they love us so much, why don't they have [reporters] with the Tenth Mountain Division? There is a situation now, it seems, where reporters have not been allowed to go with what ground forces are near Afghanistan. There are different agreements that have been made over the years in the past in combat situations where reporters can be 'imbedded' with troops where they may not be using satellite up-links and filing daily."

TEXT: [OPT] Ms. Schafer also questioned whether it was necessary to prevent the media from identifying soldiers interviewed only by their first name. She suggests that identifying soldiers fully would serve as a morale booster making their families at home proud of them. [END OPT] Veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett, formerly with C-N-N, says that limiting reporters' knowledge of troop movement may not keep the information secret:

TAPE: CUT FOUR ARNETT 1:14

"Once American forces become operational outside the United States and committed to action, then you have observers on the ground with reporters and others watching what American and Allied troops are doing. If American troops gather at an Afghan village, first of all, the Afghans see it. Presumably the enemy with Afghanistan agents everywhere- would understand that American troops are in that village. So to report it is to explain to the world what the local people know and presumably what the enemy knows.

"What we have here is a situation where reporters are being asked by the U-S government to not see things in the field. So if you do see American forces grouping in Uzbekistan and they're flying in and out, you don't report that. This makes it difficult for an American correspondent, particularly when he knows that other reporters -who have gathered from every country in the world- [are present.] They are going to be reporting what they think American troops are doing. American reporters will understand not to talk about it. There's where we'll have controversy."

TEXT: Although the war against terrorism is unlike any other war America has participated in, General James Jones -commandant of the U-S Marines- says American military officers generally agree on the principle of providing access to journalists during times of war:

TAPE: CUT FIVE JONES :36

"I absolutely believe the public has a right to know as much as possible. The lines are drawn when operational risk and operations that have yet to be executed, or are about to be executed, for the safety of our troops and the success of the mission, there have to be some firewalls there. But as a general concept in a democratic society, I believe it's incumbent on all of us to make sure that the public is informed."

TEXT: General James Jones, one of several military officers and journalists discussing the amount of access the American media should have during times of war.