The Command and General Staff College had the honor of hosting six members of the national media for a Media Panel. They consisted of: Kyra Phillips from CNN, Thom Shanker, Correspondent from the New York Times, Cami McCormick Correspondent CBS radio news, John Barry from Newsweek, Noah Shachtman from Wired Magazine and Wired.com , and John Roberts from Fox News. The panel started with a question from Mr. Steve Boylan, mediator for the panel. How is the military doing with relations with the media? Each member of the panel gave an answer. A summary of the answers is that military members needed to develop a trust relationship with each of the reporters that they were working with. A specific comment from Thom Shanker was a highlight as he stated a comment made earlier in an article from Mr. Boylan, “This relationship is like a dysfunctional marriage and we stay together for the kids.” John Barry commented that he believed that we are that the height of the good relationship and from this point forward the relationship would continue to degrade. Noah Shachtman highlighted the fact the media/military relationship works in spite of itself and commented on the importance of the military publishing its own good news stories. John Roberts finished the comments from the panel with a reiteration about reaching the high water mark and needing to continue to work to find stories about the military and the military helping the media to find good stories as we downsize from Iraq and Afghanistan.
After John Robert’s comments, a question and answer session was started with the audience. A total of seven questions were asked by the audience. The first question was in response to Noah Shachtman’s experience with Green Projects in the Navy. He wanted an equal effort from the PAO that was assigned to help him with the story. This brought up a response from Kyra Phillips on how she had poor experiences from PAOs that she believed were the “flunkies” of the military. The issue of trust was brought back up in the third question. Noah Shachtman commented on the media not being a profession and how it was of upmost importance to find media you can trust. The antithesis to this was in Thom Shanker’s comments about New York Times reporters and their vetting of journalists. The next question was about informing and influencing. The consensus from the panel is that journalists are there to inform and it is their responsibility to inform the public so that the American People can make accurate decisions. Thom Shanker’s comment about his time on IO missions stood out. He said, “You can’t advance democratic ideals through non democratic means. The best IO missions are not designed as IO missions but successfully planned missions.”
The next question was about how media people deal with PTSD and mentorship of the junior members of their field. Cami McCormick admitted she has PTSD and talked about how many journalists do and they struggle with going forward to their superiors about their symptoms similarly to the military. John Roberts commented on the second part of the interview about the development of the junior members in their field and how it doesn’t happen. The last two questions had ideas from the panel about the importance of imbedding media into the Air Force especially in the UAV community and then the difference why good news versus bad news stories get published. The panel finished with a dialogue on how to prevent an incident like the one presented in the article for reading “The Runaway General.” The consensus was to layout the ground rules for imbeds from the very beginning so there was not confusion when the actual story came out.
The student reaction was positive as well as the panel to the students. This was evident in a question posed to the students about the number of students that had dealt with the media during their time in the military. The answers from the panel were straightforward and direct.
In response to today’s media panel, what are you going to do to prepare yourself to build trust with members of the media in your future jobs?
18 Comments on "16 August Media Panel"
Having just finished the introduction to media block, here are a few quick points/thoughts:
1. Media training for leaders in the Army at all levels must be continued and increased if possible. The only way to get “comfortable” in dealing with the media and knowing how to handle the tough and unexpected questions is to incorporate media interviews into our training whenever possible. Having leaders, especially junior officers, who are well trained in dealing with the media should make units feel confident when they send a reporter to interview a company commander or follow a platoon on patrol. Interaction with the media only increases at the field grade level, so basic media skills need to be well established by then to ensure that our field grade officers can continue effective media engagement but at a higher level.
2. During a time of declining resources and declining deployments, it is imperative that the Army “tell its story” to the American public. While there are various mediums to achieve this goal (i.e. facebook, journals, etc), the media is perhaps the most important one as they have the most influence on the general public. We as an Army have to engage the media, be transparent, and most of all proactive. If something bad happens, we should be the first one to release a statement and have the media react to us. If something good happens, we must contact the media and provide it to them – while they may not carry it, it at least demonstrates our commitment to engaging the media and keeping the public informed.
3. The Army needs to have some of its best officers serving as Public Affairs Officers (PAO). It is a difficult job and they are usually the first ones in contact with the media. Many organizations within the Army realize the changing nature of communication mediums and have established strategic communication departments that incorporate PAOs to ensure that a common message is being delivered by the organization across all mediums. It takes smart and quality officers to operate in this environment and to ensure that the organization’s message is being delivered accurately to the media. This is one area where units need to “get it right” as a mistake could have horrible consequences.
MAJ Adam Sawyer
SG 9C
I have had a negative experience with the media. Whenever you are going to give an interview, you need to be ready for surprise questions. The best way to handle surprises it to refer back to your standard operating procedures. If you know how you do business, inside and out, then when someone implies that you may be doing something wrong, you can bridge the question by explaining how you do business.
In my experience, I was interviewed by a member of CNN for a special that would be on Anderson Cooper. The reporter talked to me about the questions he was interested in before the interview would take place so I could think about them. Further, they were going to use a video of a MQ-1 Predator hellfire strike on a mortar team from Balad that I conducted. As soon as they were ready for the on camera interview, the first question he asked me was “How do you know it isn’t innocent women and children you are killing?” Who could be ready for that question? After taking a couple of seconds to compose my answer, I responded that in the specific video involved, we watched the individuals fire a mortar at US forces, so there was no uncertainty. Then I fell back to standard operating procedure and said something like: Well, the decision to fire on someone doesn’t rest with me. Let me explain how close air support works. I’m talking to a Joint Terminal Attack Controller who is working for the ground commander. Whenever a situation develops, the decision rests with the ground commander who reviews the evidence, considers the likelihood of collateral damage, weighs the cost versus the potential gain, and makes a decision. We stick to his decision.
The answer I gave had a little more detail to it than the summary above, and it certainly wasn’t what the reporter was looking for. What it was however, was the safe, approved description of textbook close air support. There is nothing controversial about that! When the interview was aired, nothing from that exchange was mentioned and the only damage was to that reporter’s credibility. In hindsight however, I do wish that I could have known the types of questions he asks beforehand so I could better prepare. Regardless, sticking to a textbook answer was both safe and effective.
V/R,
Maj Eric Hendrickson, USAF, 9C
Okay…for those that have commented so far. Now that you have taken the four hour block of introduction to the media as well as your past experiences into account, has anyone had a negative experience(s) with the media and if so, did you bring it up as to find out perhaps why during the in class time?
I was brought up in the military to NOT speak with the media because that was the lane of the commander and/or the PAO, and the command didn’t want anything to go wrong. Of course, this was back in the 90′s. As well as, I haven’t been approached by a reporter since then, until after the media panel discussion. I think it was very informative and a great lead into our media class discussion. Ms. Kyra Phillips brought out some great points. She mentioned that we need to get to know the media personnel around us and build a relationship with them. Mr. Thom Shanker said, as most of you have mentioned, that the military and the media is like a dysfunctional marriage but we have to continue to work together. Ms. Cami McCormick and Mr. John Barry discussed how to build that bond of trust. This will assist me, as well as, C141 in preparing for reporters and THE STORY.
As I deal with media in my future jobs, I will prepare by working harder to sell my good news stories. When possible I will research my interviewer in order to protect myself and to assist me in developing an effective one sided rapport.
As a Civil Affairs Officer many of the mission and projects I conduct can be portrayed as a feel good story with little relevance worth reporting to the public. Kyra Phillips from CNN discusses some of the good news stories she covered and emphasized that those types of stories need to be explained better. If we can demonstrate how these types of projects result in security, or a positive change leading to an end state that the public cares about, then it is much more likely to get coverage.
Each of the reporters expressed that their primary motivation was to inform the public and that influence was not part of their agenda. The truth is that what they cover, how they cover it and to who they are writing is largely a game of influence. According to the panel their vocation is not one of teaching, coaching and mentoring one another to help increase the success of the journalism collective. They must write stories that move their career forward. Because of this there potentially could be a conflict between media and military in which what they report benefits them at a personal and professional cost to the soldier responding to the interview. This should be an urgent warning to take the interview seriously, to conduct the appropriate research and to build a skeptical one sided rapport.
V/R
CPT Davies
My peers have made some interesting points concerning relationships with the media. Points such as understanding that media in general is to inform the public and as such has some level of influence. As stated by Mr. Shanker of New York Times, “The relationship between the media and military is like that of a dysfunctional marriage. They stay together for the sake of the kids.” The kids that Mr. Shanker is referring are the general public. It is my idea that military leaders and personnel must first understand that the media will almost certainly be a part of every crisis/conflict that arises, conduct background information on all media in contact with, and conduct thorough rehearsals and preparations for each media engagement.
The biggest take-away for me is that most of the panel had favorable interactions with the military and believed in what they were doing. This was highlighted by Cami McCormick of CBS radio when speaking about how media can influence policy in theater. She spoke about the lack of armored vehicles during the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the negative articles that followed. As a result of some of the negative attention, additional armored vehicle soon arrived in country. This event confirmed, at least from Ms. McCormick perspective, that the media has a significant role. I tend to agree and encourage military leaders to be proactive and communicate their messages
v/r
MAJ Jackson
I was absent from this media panel but after reading this blog, I was able to gain some important lessons learned from the various perspectives of my fellow students. Based on my personality, I am naturally inclined to avoid the media “and just do my job.” Some of the key take-aways from my peers include: conduct research on your reporter and understand and forecast his bias (not his news agency’s) as well as get the good news story out there. The feedback in this blog allowed me to take some of the lessons learned from my classmates and the training was not a completely lost opportunity for me.
Every member of the media panel presented themselves well and showed a high degree of competence in their craft we call journalism. It shocked and dissappointed me to hear there are such low standards to enter the field of journalism. Basically, there are no standards. This provides a very dangerous enviroment when we are dealing with the media.
I agree with the idea that we need to engage with the media early and often in order to build relationships and trust among them. As one of our instructors said, “if you don’t make any comments to the media, they will get the information from somewhere you may not want them to get it”. Or from someone else that does not have the best perspective or can’t speak well enough for the good deeds accomplished by our warriors. It is on us to seize the initiative in dealing with the media.
Thinking as a future leader that I would like to be this media panel was very useful for me.
It gave me a better view point how to deal with media and how to prepare myself before
dealing with media.
Using of embeded programs for journalist in my point of view is a very good program
because it helps the media persons
How the things work in Army?
How far the limit line of information will be to them to put in their articles.
According the disccusion in class I was disappointed to here that some of the peers had wors
storys when they were dipoyed in missions like Iraq or Afghansitan.
My opinion before comming here was that US Army have good relationship with media.
The biggest take away for me was the reminder that the reporters are individuals. I have been guilty in the past of simply seeing “the guy from the Times” or “the guy from Fox”. Listening to the panel and realizing that the reporters are not necessarily tied to whatever biases I might think a particular outlet has will be valuable in the future. As earlier posts mentioned, knowing the background of the individual reporter will be valuable in preparing for future media interractions. I also found the panel’s reaction to blogs and other informal media outlets interesting.
I thought the media panel was a valuable experience as I had only interacted with journalists doing background research on potential stories. I thought that it was interesting to note the variety and depth of experience of the panelists. Several panelists stated that their role was to inform the public not to influence public opinion. However, I do not think that you can cleanly separate the two. Choosing to report for a particular news organization that has a liberal or conservative viewpoint can certainly have an influence on how the story is told. The news organization may spin the story one way or another and the reporter on the ground is involved in that process.
I agree with MAJ Milloy in that I now know that I need to do my homework for future interactions with members of the media. Mr. Shanker spoke of a dysfunctional relationship between the media and the military. That relationship would look very different even if I got to select among members of the Media Panel that spoke to the class. Understanding as much as I can about what types of stories a journalist has done in the past, what type of story the journalist is looking for could be critical points to making the media-military relationship more functional than dysfunctional.
V/R,
MAJ Robbins
I certainly learned a lot about their particular POVs and some of the ways they dealt with the resistance they received. It was interesting to see what things they did or did not do to help destroy those walls. I was most impressed with what a couple of the reporters did to prepare for their embedded missions. Like some of the previous commentators I also learned that researching not just the commentator but their intended audience is very important when preparing for a press conference or even a one on one interview. I will certainly use some of those tips along with the techniques they described that the individuals they had the best rapport with used in my future encounters or even to support my commander.
v/r
MAJ Brooks
Mr. Shachtman’s articles in the Danger Room have sometimes misrepresented developing technologies at DARPA. Because of those instances, many program managers refuse, delay or stonewall Mr. Shachtman’s request for an interview through PAO. Those same program managers are willing and eager to be interviewed but wish to do so with someone they trust. Without existing trust, prior experiences and reputation largely influence their willingness to engage. Right or wrong, that is oftentimes human nature. Both end up losing.
MAJ Wallace
Former DARPA PM
Here are some of my thoughts:
PAOs are important so don’t select a dud. PAOs should do their homework and read reporters’ bios and recent stories. You and your PAO should meet the media members before the interview and have dinner. Discuss ground rules and exchange ideas for possible stories.
The Media panel was a great experience. Having the broad panel of seasoned media folks come in and share their thoughts and experiences related to working with the military and building relationships was invaluable. We have all been wary of speaking to the media at some point in our career and having a new tool bag to use for what I now understand is a necessary and useful relationship will pay off big dividends in the future.
My big take-away is that if the media is sniffing around your backyard for a story you should direct them to one, because if you don’t help shape the story you may not like what they come up with on their own.
In order to prepare to deal with the media, I will make media integration part of my operations and plan on working with them. I will have to be proactive on their involvement for the stories that I want or my leadership would wants them to cover.
The media panel presented their perspective on what type of stories they were after and gave a couple of tips on how to work on getting your message out through the media. The big operations of force on force seem to sell themselves, but the humanitarian missions appeared to take more effort to acquire event coverage. My favorite tip was when it came to the “good news” stories; make sure you get the media personally involved. Kyra Phillips from CNN related her story on the school for the blind and the results she accomplished by guiding this story into the news. It appeared to me that this story was brought to her attention by a sharp military member that knew how to partner with the media.
V/r
Maj Wolff
As an Information Operations officer (FA30), I think this media panel experience was valuable for two primary reasons. First, it provided the opportunity for officers to experience the “human” element of reporters. Second, it allows for a non-threatening environment in which to ask questions of the panel that can help to shed light on the “motives” of reporters. A large part of the challenge that I face as a FA30 is in getting the individuals in the unit to embrace the media in a way that can help serve the mission of disrupting the enemy’s decision making cycle by mitigating the harm that the media can cause and, on the flip side, leverage the benefits to ourselves of media coverage in an effort to protect the commander’s decision making cycle and gain information superiority. The panel was valuable in that it helped to decrease any “mystique” about the media that we may have and also to challenge them with concerns that we have as soldiers about things we may have experienced. I hope that CGSC will continue to keep this experience within the scheduled curriculum. In my opinion, the value added for when we go back out into the operational Army will be on equal par with some of the other instruction that we are destined to receive.
v/r
MAJ Steve Kitchens
After listening to the panel, I feel a greater need to research the media member I will be interacting with prior to any interviews. Not a just cursory look at their biographies, but a deeper look at their recent publications or interviews. The type of questions you recieve from different members of the media will obviously vary to some degree, but in some cases they can vary greatly. The panel members I considered mainstream media (CNN, FOX News, CBS, etc) appeared much more typical of the media interaction I have witnessed then someone such as Noah Shachtman from Wired Magazine.
v/r
MAJ Milloy
The panel represented a great cross section of different media types from printed to web based reporters. It was immediately evident that some of my peers had dealt with a few of the panelists and had some expressed reservations about dealing with them. This demonstrated the panel’s comments that there are good and bad reporters. Personnally, my experiences have been positive when dealing with the media in Korea, Germany and Iraq. I believe the printed media’s monetarily restricted operating environment, and the draw down of war zones will start limiting media interaction with the military over the next decade. Instead of trying to avoid media engagements, tomorrows leaders may have to actively seek out reporters to get their message out and maintain there media skills. This may or may not be a bad thing, since the preponderance of news articles tend to have negative connotations.
One part of the Media panel I did not agree with was when they made fun at some of our military. It may have been a little mood lightener at the time, but reflecting on it leaves a little to be desired. They are not part of our team and should use a little tact when speaking about them, especially in that forum.
I say, keep up the embed program to tell the military story from the eyes of the soldier in the fight. As leaders, we should take some of the articles with a grain of salt. In order to sell a story, sometimes the reporters are going to put that negative spin on things or won’t have enough time to check all of their facts. In these times, we must insure that retractions are printed/posted (pg 12 bottom corner) and do the same damage control we do for any other mishap.
v/r
MAJ Groover