[iwar] [fc:Truth.in.the.Packaging.of.War.News]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-26 17:25:00


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3507-1004142292-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); Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22068 invoked by uid 510); 27 Oct 2001 00:24:15 -0000
Received: from n2.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.52) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2001 00:24:15 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3507-1004142292-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.222] by n2.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2001 00:24:52 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 27 Oct 2001 00:24:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 83022 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2001 00:24:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 27 Oct 2001 00:24:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2001 00:24:52 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9R0P1U20627 for iwar@onelist.com; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:25:01 -0700
Message-Id: <200110270025.f9R0P1U20627@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: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Truth.in.the.Packaging.of.War.News]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Truth in the Packaging of War News

SAN FRANCISCO -- Most of the American press goes to war by asking the
Department of Defense for permission to tag along with the people doing the
fighting. The bosses at the Pentagon then tell hat-in-hand delegations of
editors and television executives,² Don¹t call us, we¹ll call you.²

In other words, since the war in Vietnam ended badly for all concerned, the
military has used and abused newspapers and television to show and tell the
American people stories that range from ³carefully controlled ³ to plain old
³making it up.² Most news outlets operate under the thumb of an operation
that should be called PNN, the ³Pentagon News Network.² We report what we¹re
told because we are not being allowed to cover what is actually happening.

There is, to be sure, a certain contest between the military and the press,
and some reporters fight all the way to try to get around military
restrictions on actual on-scene coverage. But the Defense Department almost
always wins in the short-run -- which is what they are interested in when
trying to maintain civilian and political support for the battles of the day
-- because the military usually has three crucial elements of control:
transportation, communication and guns.

A 1982 Naval War College advisory on press treatment, based partly on
British press methods during the war against Argentinia in the Falkland
Islands, described the rules this way: ³Sanitize the visual images of war,
control media acess to theaters, censor information that could upset readers
and viewers, exclude journalists who would not write favorable stories.²

That pretty much became American media strategy in the three actions since
then, beginning with the little invasion of little 1983 Grenada. Reporters
who tried to get to the island -- where the Pentagon said the mission was no
more than the rescue of American medical students caught in a local civil
war -- by boat and plane were turned away by American guns. The order of the
day was:Stay away or weŒll blow you away.

In the next action, the invasion of Panama that ended with the capture of
dictator Manuel Noriega, the Defense Department, led then by Secretart
Richard Cheney, simply locked up American correspondents on a military base,
until the real fighting was over -- so that American readers and viewers
were protected from the fog and chaos of actual war. The truth is so messy.
Among the things that allowed Cheney to do was to discuss the great
successes of the Air Force¹s new ³stealth² bombers, though it turned out
later that the bombers actually missed all their targets.

In the 1990 Gulf War, when more than a half-million Americans and allies
invaded Iraq to return the palaces of Kuwait to their rightful and royal
owners -- the royal family waited out the action on the beaches of the
French Riviera -- it was Patriot missiles that were hailed as the new
super-weapons. Generals and reporters,too, did voice-overs on Pentagon films
that seemed to show the Patriots miraculously clearing the sky of Iraq¹s
Scuds. And that version did turn out to be a miracle, because later
investigations, by both the press and the military itself, indicated that
the Patriots never once hit anything they were aimed at.

My target here, however, is not the military. They do their job well and so
does ³PNN².-- too well. Truth is the first casualty in war. Reporters and
cameras get in the way -- and if you let them get too close they might
report things about military efficiency that could upset the taxpayers
paying for missile misses and stealth photography. My gripe is with my own
business. The press,in general, prefers appearing authoritative in war
coverage to admitting that we are being manipulated and lied to -- and that
we do not actually know what is going on, particularly in the early combat
of any war. 

Now the contest between the imperatives of the military and press is moving
to the mountains and fields of Central and South Asia. The press has some
new technology on its side, particularly portable videophones, but I¹m sure
the military will have some new tricks,too. But it would be niave not to
expect the military to create its own truths -- and disheartening to know
that the press will report it pretty much as new gospel. What I would like
to see this time around is correspondents emphasizing the difference between
what they know and what they are being told -- ³How¹s it going out there,
Dick?²...²How would I know they won¹t let us near the action.²

COPYRIGHT 2001 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

------------------------ 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 20:59:57 PST