Gen. Stanley McChrystal: on the job market soon ... ???

[Jim123]

Almost threw the remote control through my television this morning when a CNN correspondent described himself as a "veteran" of both Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He'd been an imbedded reporter.

Wow. I'm hoping said correspondent just slipped up and intended to say "veteran reporter of..."

(Take a deep breath and close your eyes for a few seconds. Stand up and go get a glass of water.)

 

[wlawr005]

I think if you asked the media about that, they would defy any notion that they could be "used" by government. Media that are used in that manner fall into category of propaganda and our press corps unites over their independence and role as watchdog over performance of the government and military. Military can scarcely hope to control access to combat zones and within units/staffs. When imbeds are permitted or access to leaders is granted, you have no control over product.

I agree with the independence of the media, but I fail to see their role as a watchdog being effective when there is an overwhelming majority of liberal bias.

 

[nittany03]

I agree with the independence of the media, but I fail to see their role as a watchdog being effective when there is an overwhelming majority of liberal bias.

He's not saying that they're effective. He's saying that they see themselves as effective. See the difference? The problem is that every reporter born and raised since the 70s wants to be the next Woodward or Bernstein, and Expose Government Officials In Evil Scandalous Acts. They see these in places where none really exist. Confirmation bias, anyone?

The Brits have a saying for this that the US press would do well to heed. "Cock-up before conspiracy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

 

[MrSaturn]

Military can scarcely hope to control access to combat zones and within units/staffs. When imbeds are permitted or access to leaders is granted, you have no control over product.

If we know what the reporter has written previously, what his subject tends to be and control his access to leaders don't we have a large amount of control over the product?

I would like to know how the PAO helped prep the General for this reporter...

 

[exhelodrvr]

I think if you asked the media about that, they would defy any notion that they could be "used" by government. Media that are used in that manner fall into category of propaganda and our press corps unites over their independence and role as watchdog over performance of the government and military. Military can scarcely hope to control access to combat zones and within units/staffs. When imbeds are permitted or access to leaders is granted, you have no control over product.

The media can be "used" to a higher degree than we currently do. IMO, they aren't aggressive enough with the press releases, and make it more difficult than it needs to be for embeds. I have the impression that they would be better off giving military bloggers more freedom, but there is a very fine line there. In general, they are a step slow and usually playing catch-up.

 

[HeyJoe]

If we know what the reporter has written previously, what his subject tends to be and control his access to leaders don't we have a large amount of control over the product?

No way can you hope to control the product. In fact, PAOs are forbidden to try. Besides, reporters can go anywhere else they want to get opinions and spin the story anyway they like as well as selectively quote leaders to support their view. They do sensitivity training in Pentagon for senior leaders in which try are shown how an innocuous comment can be wrapped with opposing views or off the wall statements by others in same paragraph making leader look out of touch or not paint true story. Many leaders consequently elect not to talk to press and use spokespersons.

 

[MrSaturn]

Many leaders consequently elect not to talk to press and use spokespersons.

Wouldn't electing not to have a reporter present at a meeting or a leader not talking to the press directly influence their product? Obviously we cant stand over them and force them to type what we want. However, if a reporter constantly bends and misuses statements that reporter shouldnt be allowed to get into those meetings or conduct those interviews or be that imbed. PAOs already do this to help mitigate these concerns and why I say we do control the product.

I look at this as more of a lesson, as Officers I think we have a hold on what exactly is appropriate to say among different groups. We dont speak the same way we do to peers as we do to seniors. We speak differently in the wardroom then at home. We absolutely should monitor what we say in front of the press and in public. When we slip up we positively contribute to their product, which could be critical of us.

 

[HeyJoe]

IMO, they aren't aggressive enough with the press releases, and make it more difficult than it needs to be for embeds.

Interesting that you mention that, Press Releases are fine for base/hometown newspapers and to attempt to garner interest, but no self respecting media editor/reporter will print them verbatim. They will use them as a lead, but virtually all print media want original reporting and images if at all possible. Reporters want the byline, editors and publishers want to scoop their competition and be the source everyone goes to for what's really going on.

I have the impression that they would be better off giving military bloggers more freedom, but there is a very fine line there. In general, they are a step slow and usually playing catch-up.

Bloggers are still new to the media scene and causing old heavyweights to react because they eat away at their legacy marketshare. They also run the gamut of near lunacy to inside reporting so they are an interesting addition to the media circus.

 

[HeyJoe]

Wouldn't electing not to have a reporter present at a meeting or a leader not talking to the press directly influence their product?

The word "influence" has a particular meaning and I do not agree you can or should try. Refusing to talk has an effect on what is written but press can fire back with charge Navy was uncooperative or refused to comment. This type interchange is best left to PAOs and there is a 24/7 News Desk in Pentagon working calls and developing the Navy Story during times of controversy or crisis.

Obviously we cant stand over them and force them to type what we want. However, if a reporter constantly bends and misuses statements that reporter shouldnt be allowed to get into those meetings or conduct those interviews or be that imbed. PAOs already do this to help mitigate these concerns and why I say we do control the product.

We don't control it at all. Reporters try to develop other sources within the service even though they are supposed to go through the News Desk. So you can only control what you say and not know what someone is talking about.

I look at this as more of a lesson, as Officers I think we have a hold on what exactly is appropriate to say among different groups. We dont speak the same way we do to peers as we do to seniors. We speak differently in the wardroom then at home. We absolutely should monitor what we say in front of the press and in public.

That is the lesson many already know and now is reinforced.

When we slip up we positively contribute to their product, which could be critical of us.

"Positively"? Perhaps you mean directly. I doubt McChrystal's close-knit staff believe their direct inputs into article were totally positive now they've read it.

 

[exhelodrvr]

The incorrect/misleading information outweighs the information that presents an accurate picture. Our military has done a poor job combatting that (yes, that is an appropriate term), much to the detriment of the mission. The media can't be controlled, but a better effort should be made to make timely, accurate information easily available to the public.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/michael-hastings-rolling_n_625261.html article saying that soldiers are glad McChrystal is gone. Anybody hearing this or is this a case of a reporter covering his ass (and yes i know its from the huffin potelyst)

Absafuckinglutely true. I don't know of anyone who was upset to hear it....
the reporter already covered his ass when he handed the quote list he intended to publish over to MCChrystal..and McChrystal said looks good to me...No conspiracy theories in this one...no reporter blame...it was Stan's fault and Stan's alone

 

[Rocketman]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how much "damage", if any, was done to MCChrystal's senior staff by this piece. O-4s and above.

 

[HeyJoe]

The incorrect/misleading information outweighs the information that presents an accurate picture.

What incorrect/misleading information? That's a pretty broad statement....Can you be more specific? Are you talking about what military releases for public consumption or what is published by print media? Or something else entirely.

Our military has done a poor job combatting that (yes, that is an appropriate term), much to the detriment of the mission.

If you're talking about military trying to dispel reported inaccuracies or misleading info as form of combat, that is an intriguing notion of merit since it is akin to Asymmetric Warfare. The military doesn't have control of the "battlefield", the media does and the military (government overall actually) has to abide by rulesets that the press is not inhibited by in the slightest interpretation. The government/military has to react to the media, but the reverse is not true. About the only thing military can do is restrict access by imbeds, but overall it is been successful rather than the press pool concept or no access at all. Regardless, there are some places, units and operations that the press is not allowed access to and that is the way it should be. Back to your first assessment of military doing a poor job....the public affairs folks and leadership are set up at a disadvantage in a democracy with a free/aggressive press community in a capitalistic highly competitive media economy that thrives on controversy and soundbites. The "SPECOPS" tier of the press doesn't get to top by writing feel good stories or human interest tomes. Reporting on the military is simply a means to an end with a dollar sign and ego intermingled wrapped in a cloak of self-righteousness tied to the public's "right to know" despite the military's basic principle of "need to know". This goes back as far as the Civil War (perhaps further) with complaints about press that yielded this interesting quote from a leading general:

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”

William Tecumseh Sherman

The media can't be controlled, but a better effort should be made to make timely, accurate information easily available to the public.

I'm at a loss at to what "timely, accurate, information" you allude is not available to the public that does not cross into OPSEC territory?!? I have served in Public Affairs roles at squadron, air wing, echelon II command and OPNAV levels although I was never a 1650, but I've known all the key players and watched up close the evolution of the means/vehicles they use to disemminate info in a timely manner and react to queries by researchers, the press and general public.

I'm not an apologist for CHINFO, but they've come a long way over the decades and I can't see what you think isn't being pushed or made available in a timely or accurate manner (except for occasional photo captions having aircraft misidentifiaction of course). For imagery alone, it used to take weeks for an image to be available to press from an aircraft carrier or even stateside unit. Today ~40 fresh images a day are posted on the Navy Newsstand that are literally hours old (many are posted on Air Warriors) thanks to digital photography, compression software and Internet availability on the ships at sea.

As a writer, I've taken full advantage of what is available and it is literally more than one person can digest. Every service and DoD has imagery, speeches, bios, fact sheets, press releases, etc. available on-line for data-mining from convenience of your PC. The Navy News Desk never sleeps and is there for short-fused queries and fact checking or referral to cognizant office. I've worked with them since 1986 when I was PAO for Naval Safety Center and had multiple calls per day and was still working with them in 1994 when I was AAM RO and had newspapers/magazine writers seeking info on my programs. CHINFO also has Navy Information Offices in major cities like New York, Dallas and Los Angeles whose sole purpose is providing "timely, accurate, information".

There is also the FOIA path that anyone can use and must respond on a set timeline or little old ladies in sneakers light up your CoCommand.

Note: if you're referring to what you read in print media as not being "timely or accurate", it doesn't mean it wasn't provided or service wasn't willing to provide it, it is more often the writer chose to write the story with a different slant to garner attention, facts be damned.

 

[PhrogLoop]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how much "damage", if any, was done to MCChrystal's senior staff by this piece. O-4s and above.

Sorry for the non-answer, but that remains to be seen. And you'll be hard pressed to get the true story unless you know pretty well someone who was on McChrystal's senior/personal staff who is willing to tell you over a beer and trusts that you won't run back to Rolling Stone for the juicy follow-up story. Also, very few of those staffers were naval officers. My guess is that some of the active duty members of McChrystal's staff will dissipate and turnover just like they would have if it was a scheduled change of command. GEN Petraeus will likely allow those guys to rotate home or to other commands because he'll be bringing in or soon hiring his own handpicked senior/personal staff. Especially the Chief of Staff/J-3/PAO/Aide de Camp types.

 

[exhelodrvr]

By "incorrect/misleading" I am referring to what the mainstream media puts out, not what the military puts out. I fully realize that the military does not control the media, and can't do whatever it wants to do as far as putting news out. And that is the way it should be. It sounds like you have worked in the PAO field - this is the fault of the PAOs - they are just following policy.

There have been numerous times over the past 10 years where the government (it's certainly not just the military, it's also the State Dept) have been later in releasing information about events than the media has been. This lets the media put their spin on it, most is disproportionately anti-U.S./anti-military. With the instant communications available, the24/7 news coverage, the news on the war gets out - it would be far better for the government (both civilian and military) to get the accurate version out first. It is going to get out anyway - they can't keep things under wraps anymore.