[iwar] [fc:Pentagon.Calls.For.Sensible.Press]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-23 08:06:34


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3306-1003849573-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19373 invoked by uid 510); 23 Oct 2001 15:05:42 -0000
Received: from n25.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.75) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 23 Oct 2001 15:05:42 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3306-1003849573-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.223] by n25.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Oct 2001 15:06:11 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 23 Oct 2001 15:06:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 70314 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2001 15:06:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 23 Oct 2001 15:06:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Oct 2001 15:06:12 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9NF6Yj20888 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:06:34 -0700
Message-Id: <200110231506.f9NF6Yj20888@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Pentagon.Calls.For.Sensible.Press]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Washington Times
October 23, 2001
Pentagon Calls For Sensible Press
By Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times 

Is there a fair and constructive medium between the persistent press and the
security-conscious Pentagon? Their relationship has become adversarial as
reporters try to tease out stories from cautious spokesmen on a war that is
not "sequential." This is not a made-for-TV conflict with talking points.
"The old model won't work," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
yesterday, suggesting press and Pentagon could cobble together a reasonable
new modus operandi for covering the war in Afghanistan that "made sense."
Mr. Rumsfeld assured reporters he would "give as much information as safely
possible." He reaffirmed their role in a free world, addressed a question
about his own credibility and explained why it would not be prudent for
journalists to parachute in with special forces.

Though last Friday's scattered press reports on ground operations ultimately
did not jeopardize anyone, Mr. Rumsfeld was plenty irked that a source at
the Pentagon had leaked classified material. "It floors me that anyone would
be willing to do that," he said. "It's terrible, terrible. I can't imagine
people being that irresponsible."

Things are getting tense. Even as CNN and other networks vie for scoops
through unorthodox means, White House and DOD officials have cautioned the
media that instant information gratification is not possible. They suggest
journalists use discretion or inadvertently risk aiding media-savvy
terrorists.

The requests have not sat well with the media, though the military has
placed some 40 journalists on Navy ships or Air Force humanitarian flights.
It is not enough, say journalists who believe official spin is encroaching
upon press freedoms. In recent weeks, 26 press organizations released a
joint statement to "express our concern over the increasing restrictions by
the U.S. government that limit news gathering and inhibit the free flow of
information." Some journalists hinted at censorship or claimed that an
"inexperienced" administration forced them to pick between the First
Amendment and their own patriotism.

Press restraints inspire journalists to "subvert the process and find a way
around the blockades of information," said Ronald Yates of the University of
Illinois' Department of Journalism.

Such is the nature of the beast. Media and military have had trying moments
since the Civil War, according to Roy Clark of the Poynter Institute. There
were halcyon, cooperative days between the two during World War II, and lean
years during the Gulf War and conflicts that followed.

"The same patterns and rhythms return: The press never has enough access and
the military fears too much of it," he said. "But the press loses its
credibility if it demands 100 percent access. In turn, the military loses
their credibility if they cut the press out of everything."

There is no easy solution. But Mr. Clark's suggestions echo Mr. Rumsfeld's
plea that press and military work together.

"Self-censoring sensitive information is an important part of covering a
war, as is reassuring and informing those on the home front," Mr. Clark
said. "But there are still those who make false steps to advance the story
an inch, and there's that bottomless pit of the 24-hour news cycle to
receive it."

"Though we don't like the word 'propaganda,' I am in favor of the press
playing a role in a form of truthful propaganda for a while," Mr. Clark
said. "That way, they could create a good platform and a good case to argue
for increased access."

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:56 PST