The Military News Media Relationship

Over the course of the next six months, the Strategic Studies Institute will examine the impact of the media's technological advances on strategic and operational level planning and policymaking, first in an overseas theater, and subsequently on decisions made at the national level. The first of these two studies recognizes the complexity of executing military operations under the scrutiny of a very responsive, high technology world news media. Given the volatile, unstable, and ambiguous environment in which armed forces can find themselves, the actions of field forces have a greater chance than ever before of affecting subsequent strategic decisions made at higher levels. The pressure on field commanders to "get it right the first time" is demonstrably greater than ever. The author intends that these thoughts provide commanders with an understanding of the high technology and competitive news media environment they can expect to experience and offers specific suggestions for successfully communicating with reporters.

One of the realities of modern military operations has been that they are often subjected to intense scrutiny by the international news media. Under most circumstances, the deployment of U.S. forces attracts large numbers of print and broadcast journalists dedicated to providing their audiences with near real-time information of varying accuracy and completeness. This extraordinary availability of information may well affect the agenda of the executive and legislative branches of government and have important impacts on military decision makers in operational theaters.

The image of public relations, and particularly government public relations, is often linked to thoughts of press agentry and propaganda (Brown, 1976; Cutlip, 1995; Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2000; Lesly, 1988), and journalists seem to agree with this association (Ryan & Martinson, 1985; Stegall & Sanders, 1986). As a result, a "media-public relations struggle' (Cutlip, 1976, p. 6) ensues, despite the reliance each has upon the other to do their jobs effectively (Bishop, 1988; Brown, 1976; Cutlip, 1976; Gieber & Johnson, 1961; Shea & Gulick, 1997; Sietel, 1992). This mutually-dependent relationship is especially important to the Department of Defense (Baroody, 1999, Braestrup, 1991), which considers the news media "the principal means of communicating information about the military to the general public" (Joint Pub 3-61, p. vi) and measures the effectiveness of the military public affairs program upon its ability to communicate with various publics to maintain awareness and support of the Defense Department (Public Affairs Handbook, 1991). Each of the branches of the armed forces - the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps - has a distinct public affairs structure, including how they designate public affairs officers (Public Affairs Handbook, 1991). With the exception of the Marine Corps, which follows Navy guidelines, each branch also has their own set of regulations and policies.

The study examines the status of military-media relations in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Based on public relations theory, studies on source-journalist relationships, the historical precedence of wartime military-media relations, studies about military public affairs, and critiques of the Gulf War situation, the author assesses the Gulf War media policy, the post-Gulf War revised DoD policy, and their impact on present relations. The perspectives of media representatives, military representatives, and communication scholars about Gulf War and present military-media relations were gathered through interviews. Findings of each study group were analyzed and compared. Findings of previous studies on the subject are also discussed. The researcher concludes, while some provisions of the Gulf War policy did not facilitate open media coverage, problems in the policy's execution created more tension between the military and the media. Hostility towards the media also remained from the Vietnam era. Military commanders' support is also a prerequisite for media access to units. Military education programs to foster a better appreciation of a free press' role free in a democracy are needed for all members. In addition, the author recommends additional public affairs training, including a mentoring program, be instituted. Also, while the military should continue to provide opportunities for reporters to participate in training exercises to learn about the military, it is unrealistic to expect that most reporters can participate due to shrinking resources at news organizations. Finally, military and media representatives continue a dialogue to regularly discuss issues of mutual concern.

A noticeable civil-military gap has emerged in Amen can society where the public does not fully understand the mission of the military, and the military does not understand the expectations and demands of the public in a liberal democracy. Basically, maintaining a good rapport with the media is vital to bridge this civil-military gap.' Military cooperation with the media by allowing appropriate access enables journalists to communicate with the military base of support in the public, and thus may prove vital to effective military operations. As a result, the public will be better prepared to embrace good news' stories that are introduced by the military and prepared also to accept the times when a negative story breaks in the news, From an online survey administered to the unrestricted line (URL) community of Navy officers, this research identifies instances of Navy officer bias that is derived from family background, limited interaction and experience in working with the media, and inherently from bias that is subordinated from senior naval leadership. Based on these findings, the author believes that the U.S. Navy may not continue to mold individuals to think in new and innovative ways for future naval missions unless they are given a much more broader and thorough roadmap of critical thinking and analytical skills; which invariably includes the consideration of military-media relationships when planning and executing military operations.

This book applies the concept of mediatization to the contemporary dynamic between war, media and society, with a focus on the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). Since the beginning of the 21st century the IDF has undergone an intensive process of mediatization that has transformed the media into an interpretative grid for many of its military activities and increasingly utilized media to garner public support and construct civilian perceptions of conflict and security through media activity and strategy. This process can be divided into four distinct chronological phases in accordance with the operational challenges confronted by the IDF during this period, from the Al-Aqsa Intifada of 2000, through Israeli unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, and the second Lebanon war of 2006, to the series of Gaza confrontations of 2008-2014. The work shows how the IDF’s media policy evolved from a narrow perception of its role, and separation between operational and media actions to a cohesive and coherently articulated media strategy that is increasingly intertwined with military action and operational strategy and a vital component of strategic military aims and objectives. This strategic stance has led the IDF to adopt a global media perspective using the most advanced new media platforms, designed to influence public opinion and improve national narratives, both in Israel and the international community. By applying the concept of mediatization to the Israeli case, this book fills a research lacuna and offers a new prism for the study of media-military relations in contemporary conflicts. The book will be of much interest to students of civil-military relations, strategic studies, Middle Eastern Studies, media and communication studies, sociology and IR, in general.