Throughout history, the two institutions often have been at odds, but the tension escalated markedly in a brief eight-year period-from the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989 to the Desert Storm victory in 1991. Each of those led to bitter complaints by the news media that the military had completely shut out news coverage (Grenada), needlessly delayed a press pool it had helped set up (Panama), or stifled journalists through censorship, delays and denial of access (Desert Storm).
Leaders of both institutions recognized that the relationship was broken and needed to be fixed. Military and news representatives, as well as independent individuals and organizations, convened panels and round-table discussions, organized meetings and study groups, produced reports and books, and developed the Pentagon pool system-all with an eye toward bringing the relationship to an even keel. All those efforts have made substantial contributions, and should be recognized and applauded. Progress continues. But much remains to be done.
The news media, collectively, are often unpopular and, if illustrated, would look like one of the late Rube Goldberg's cartoon contraptions. They function independently, without rules or regulations, except for some that are self-imposed. The media's disparate elements-from small newsletters and special-interest magazines to national newspapers and TV networks-have a variety of interests and goals. They have their share of rogues, incompetence and avarice. Yet, at their best, the media provide the nation with a service it can get nowhere else. The Founding Fathers intended America's free press to function as the Fourth Estate of government. It does that.
The military is perennially popular and, at its best in battle, functions like a conditioned athlete. It, too, has its share of incompetence, selfishness and vindictiveness. When it makes mistakes, they can be monumental. Lives can be lost. Appropriately, the armed forces are surrounded by rules and regulations. They are disciplined, hierarchical and live within a homogenous, closed culture that can be hostile to outsiders.
When the two institutions meet during a conflict, clashes are inevitable. The press wants to tell the story, and the military wants to win the war and keep casualties to a minimum. The press wants freedom, and the military wants control. Those are fundamental differences that will never change. Yet the military and the media also have worked together in harmony, particularly in situations where individuals in both institutions had the time to get to know and respect one another.
Despite the disputes of the past, leaders in each institution understand the importance of the other. Top military officials acknowledge their responsibility to the First Amendment guarantee of the people's right to know, and the vast majority of military officers (83%) believe the news media are just as necessary to maintaining American freedom as the military, according to a poll taken for this study. This attitude exists even though members of the armed forces, who swear to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, give up many personal liberties that news people and other citizens take for granted.
Similarly, leaders of the nation's news media appreciate that, without the protection of America's military forces, precious constitutional freedoms would not have been preserved for more than 200 years. The poll shows that 93% of the news media disagree with the proposition that members of the military are more interested in their own image than in the good of the country. News leaders understand the need for mutual support and cooperation, especially given the fact that there is no legal way to force the military to cooperate in news coverage.
Yet animosity has tarnished the relationship, particularly during the last dozen years. Some military officers, including some who never served there, still blame the news media for the loss of the Vietnam War. Although top defense and military officials interviewed for this study do not subscribe to that belief, 64% of the military officers surveyed in the opinion poll believe strongly, or at least somewhat, that news media coverage of events in Vietnam harmed the war effort. On the media side, 70% disagreed with that characterization.
One positive development in the relationship is that stereotypes seem to have broken down. Only 23% of the military officers surveyed strongly agreed or agreed somewhat with the statement that "the news media are mainly left-wing doves," and just 5% of the media representatives in the survey agreed or strongly agreed that military personnel are "mainly right-wing hawks."
Although a perfect cooperative union of the media and the military is likely impossible, given the differences in missions and personalities, there are wise men and women in both institutions who recognize that their ultimate goal-the preservation of American freedoms-is the same. They also have learned that cooperation serves the interests of each, as well as serving the American people.
This study focuses on the military-media relationship in conflict situations, based on the conviction that if the two institutions can work together during the tension and fog of war, they likely can get along in peacetime. We do, however, recognize that there are disputes and issues related to news media coverage of the defense establishment in peacetime. Similarly, the study recognizes, but does not address, the coverage by the foreign news media of American forces in military operations. Those relationships are not covered by the First Amendment and are best left to the military's judgment.
We have organized the materials gathered in our nine months of research into three distinct sections. The "Overview" begins with an executive summary and includes a look at the most recent large-scale U.S. conflict, the Persian Gulf War; the results from the First Amendment Center study of the military and the media; an examination of wartime security issues from the military's point of view; and the history of the media/military relationship on the battlefield and in the courts. Part II, "For the Future," comprises a detailed list of recommendations for both the media and the military; an explanation of the Independent Coverage Tier System, our proposed system for media deployment in wars of the future; a discussion of trust; and an examination of educational issues affecting both military and media personnel. The final section, "Other Views," includes key excerpts from a number of interviews conducted over the course of our tenure at The First Amendment Center.
This study truly has been a joint effort. Although a small number of the more than 60 interviews were conducted individually, the vast majority involved both authors. Similarly, for the first time in these joint scholarly efforts at The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, both members of the team fully participated in writing the report, which is why careful readers will note some variations in style in different sections.
William P. Lawrence
Frank A. Aukofer
May 1995
Copyright 1995 The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center return to JOUR/IR 246 Week Three