Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Media and Military Operations
Recently there has been much debate about the effect of media reports on military conduct. Most of this has to do with the security that the military needs to conduct their operations and the dangerous are some of the reports that the media sometimes leaks out. A recent article found in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy argued that First Amendment freedom was compromised because the military had such strong reviews when dealing with the security of media reports in both the Persian Gulf War and Operation Enduring Freedom (Lee, 2002). The article was fair enough to indicate that the judicial proceedings of the Supreme Court really did not relate to the things that happen in military operations during a war. However, it was also concerned that stopping these individuals in the media was harmful to free expression but not as much as punishing individuals in the media that had already acquired specific information (Lee, 2002).
There had been previous comments made about the security reviews of various information that the media had acquired and whether it was acceptable in order for the military to make sure that sensitive information was not released and that the amount of information and scope of that information released to the public was kept within the parameters of what would be safe as relating to national security (Lee, 2002). It is no secret that the military does limit access to the battlefield for the media (Nation, 1991). Some of this is naturally for safety reasons for the media members involved and the rest of it has to do with safety for the military individuals that are working on that field. For the most part, individuals in the media do their job with a great deal of skill and tact but it is not impossible to assume that there would be individuals in the media that would provide sensitive information to those that should not have it simply because they would say what they choose to report and provide too much detail (Nation, 1991). There is also a certain amount of sensationalism in the media and this could cause information to be reported that should have been kept secret. It is these types of issues of national security that the military is striving to avoid by not allowing as many media personnel on the battlefield and by attempting to screen what information they receive before they can pass it on to anyone else (Nation, 1991).
Many cases have indicated that the government often limits access to much of the military operations where there is a definite and important reason for doing this (Globe, 1982). These cases also discuss the Constitution and how this document finds the withholding of military information and the screening of press information before it goes to the public acceptable practice for the military in wartime. Screening what the media sends to the public has been a tradition in the military for quite some time and this is largely because of national security concerns (Globe, 1982). There is much information that military individuals might accidentally impart to a journalist and it is the desire for military to avoid this and to keep individuals in their charge in this country as safe as possible. Combat journalism is very important as it allows individuals who are not on the front lines to have an idea of what it is actually like for the soldiers (Globe, 1982). These individuals in the media are willing to go and risk their lives to report this information to others. This is certainly worth recognizing and has merit, however, that does not allow them the freedom to compromise the nation's security simply because they have an interesting story and want to get recognition for it. There are those that are in favor of the security reviews that the military conducts before press information is allowed to go public and that those that are opposed to it (Lee, 2002).
However, many that are opposed to it suggest laying down specific ground rules for the media and insisting that they follow them (Lee, 2002). Trusting the media to do this is actually not a good idea. This is not to imply that all media individuals are untrustworthy. However, most reporters are out to get a story and they will say and do what they need to in order to get that story. They would not deliberately attempt to compromise national security, but they may inadvertently do so in revealing specific information in that story. From the standpoint of security, trusting media to follow ground rules is actually more damaging than the security reviews ever could be (Lee, 2002). Sticking with a consistent policy for the media during wartime activities and still allowing them to have as much access as is reasonably possible should be the basic plan that military will involve themselves with and has basically been the plan that they have stuck to in the past. Sometimes this causes conflict between the desire of the media to report accurately and completely what they see and the need for the military to keep sensitive and secure information to themselves (Lee, 2002). The officer in command in that area at the time must use his own discretion to determine how much information should be given out to media and whether security will be compromised by this. It then becomes this individual's job to ensure that the security of this country is not compromise and that those who want to read about the military activities and see it on the news still get the chance. During the Persian Gulf War there were many restrictions on what the press could and could not say in their reports. Because of this, the media brought forth a lawsuit against the military seeking relief and judgment so that they could print what they wanted to print regarding military issues and what they saw the battlefield (Nation, 1991).
The argument was based around the idea of the First Amendment and that the military was violating this amendment by prohibiting the individuals in the media from gathering the news that they saw. The district court would not dismiss the case, nor would they agree to grant any kind of judgment. At that point, the court decided to table the issue and wait until there was another military operation (Nation, 1991). They felt that they did not have the kind of information to determine the exact guidelines that should relate to how much access the media can have to military operations overseas. Because of this, the media felt as though they did not get a fair deal and when the war in 2003 came about this afforded the courts the further military action that they were discussing and requiring to make a determination of what kind of guidelines must accompany the media when they go overseas and deal with wartime activities (Nation, 1991).
There have been several cases that have dealt with access to the battlefield by members of the press and none of these have been conclusive. Many still argue that the constitutional right of access remains and the media should be allowed to report whatever they see and hear on the battlefield (Kenealey, 1992). Branzburg v. Hayes was one of the many court cases in which the Supreme Court made the statement that First Amendment freedom of the press did extend to protection for being able to seek out news (Branzburg, 1972). However, even though the court cited with the media on this point they also pointed out that any reporter could be required to reveal to a grand jury any confidential source that he or she had used because the government must investigate any crimes that it finds and it has a compelling interest to do so (Branzburg, 1972). This case was very encouraging to those in the media who wanted right of access to the battlefield. However, it was not the only case that was brought to the courts.
In Pell v. Procunier (Pell, 1974) and Saxbe v. Washington Post (Saxbe, 1974) the court looked at things a little bit differently. In these it was pointed out that constitutional amendments did not require anyone in the government to allow the media to have access to any information that the general public could not also obtain. Naturally, the general public could not obtain information about military operations overseas unless the press provided them with this information. Because of this, these cases believed that the media did not have unrestricted access to the battlefield that the Branzburg case seemed to give them. Both the Pell and the Saxbe case upheld previous governmental regulations which limited the media's access to prisoners. Most of these cases dealt with access to prisoners and county jails, but they cleared the way for cases that eventually worked their way around to military operations (Lee, 2002). From county jails and prisoners the court got around to access by…[continue]
"Media And Military Operations Recently There Has" (2004, February 13) Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/media-and-military-operations-recently-there-162411
"Media And Military Operations Recently There Has" 13 February 2004. Web.25 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/media-and-military-operations-recently-there-162411>
"Media And Military Operations Recently There Has", 13 February 2004, Accessed.25 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/media-and-military-operations-recently-there-162411
In addition, the Marines have a much smaller force than the army. On the other hand, the army cannot be as selective as the marines because it needs to maintain a much higher number of troops. The article explains that the army "needs 80,000 new soldiers this year and must find them in a populace that is in many ways less willing and less able to serve than earlier generations
Military Draft In arguing against reinstating the military draft in the United States, several things come immediately to mind. First among those, for anyone who has learned anything at all about the Vietnam War, is that the draft can be devastating to society, causing upheaval at home as well as the return of bright, strong young men in body bags. David Halberstam, a journalist of considerable experience, wrote a book, The
Military Draw-Down from Afghanistan When terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, there was very little hesitation on the part of then President George W. Bush -- and the United States Congress -- to mount a retaliatory military campaign in Afghanistan, the place where bin Laden was training terrorists to kill Americans. The Taliban militants were control of Afghanistan at that time and they had provided training camps for
U.S. MILITARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Military & Environmental Law Environmental Analysis and Impact of the United States Military Military activity affects the environment in direct and indirect ways. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of military training and readiness activities and the impact of armed conflict and war on the environment. Most environmental impact that results from armed conflict and war occurs in foreign and not domestic environments. However,
War coverage-Media obsession To argue about the role of media in our lives would be only redundant since we already know and acknowledge the influence of media over our perception of the world. How the various news media including newspapers, television, radio and more recently Internet affect our thinking and shape our perception requires some close analysis of the way these agencies gather and present news. There is an interesting process
Health Consequences of Air Pollution for Military and Emergency Workers Database Validity and Originality This paper proposes a study of some of the most significant long-term and short-term effects of air-pollution on two different sets of workers. The first of these is those were affected by localized and intense air pollution that was produced as a direct result of the Gulf War, pollution that was caused for the most part by the
First of all only a scant few of these Veterans groups will acknowledge the "promise" of free health care; for the most part these groups will tout the benefits already promised by the Veterans Administration and assert that cuts in these benefits are the same a broken promise-or contractual breach in legal terms. The idea of the United States military making a "promise" or forging a legally binding agreement between