See Below

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 the media to criminal trials. This was a small victory for the media but it was not any greater of a fight then the one that the general public had in wanting to attend criminal trials. The need for open trials was recognized, however, and closing trials off to the media was considered to violate the rights of the media and the rights of the accused (Lee, 2002).

Those that were against military restrictions on the media will cite many of the cases that have brought the media to this point when they argue that the media has a right to have access to the battlefield. However, the case of Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court works to establish a test that would determine whether the media should be allowed to access a particular government activity (Globe, 1982). This test came in three parts. The activity that the media wishes to have access to must have been open historically, allowing the media access has to have an important role in the function of a particular activity, and even if the first two of these issues are met the media access can still be limited if there is an important and compelling governmental interest to limit the media access and these limits are specifically tailored in order to meet that interest (Globe, 1982). This sounds somewhat confusing, but it basically allows the military to protect national security and other rights that they may have from information that could be included in media reports and be damaging to military operations. Based on this three-part test most courts would likely find that military operations would not meet the criteria for being open to the media. There has never been a historical pattern of openness in war, even though reporters have sometimes enjoyed much freedom when they have covered these events. However, there has frequently been restricted access to much of the battlefield including the aforementioned security reviews. The press has been regulated in various ways since the Civil War, and this will not be rescinded anytime in the near future simply because the media feels that it wishes to report to the public more than is currently being allowed (Globe, 1982). In light of the second point, there is no actual reason for the media to be on the battlefield. Most Americans are aware of the war efforts of their country regardless of the media and therefore the media does not play a specific and important role in wartime activities (Globe, 1982). Turning to the third issue, the government definitely has a compelling interest in controlling much of the media access to military operations. This is mostly to continue the security precautions that individuals need and also to make sure that the military maintains the advantage of surprise that they may have over their enemies (Globe, 1982).

Logistical problems are also an issue because there are many reporters on the battlefield and all of these individuals have to be watched and kept safe. This can become difficult or even impossible to do and sometimes when one of these individuals is killed or injured there is uproar in the United States because they feel that the military did not do everything that they should have done to protect this individual. They do not seem to stop and consider the fact that this individual was on a battlefield and risking his or her life to report that he or she saw. There are also individuals who have argued that too much information was censored by the military during the Persian Gulf War and Operation Enduring Freedom, and that this was a violation of constitutional rights because there was no legal reason to restrain this amount of news (Jacobs, 1992). However, the military's system that they have designed and that they implemented during both of these conflicts was deemed to be constitutionally appropriate (Jacobs, 1992). While the military may need to be fairly harsh and restrict what it allows the media to cover, it is also important not to restrict the media too much because reporters will then sometimes choose to avoid many of the strict military rules and go out on their own to cover stories. This happened in 1991 when a CBS newsman, producer, cameraman, and soundman all headed off on their own near the Kuwaiti border (Gersch, Press, 1991). They were captured by Iraqis and they were held prisoner for over six weeks. Later one of the individuals stated that he had been fed very little and had also been beaten. He was not the only journalist to have decided in the past to get around the press restrictions that the military has given. At one point there were thought to be over 28 journalists missing in the war effort (Gersch, Missing, 1991). Naturally, no one wants to see this repeated but as the military tightens the restrictions on how much information these individuals in the media all allowed to hand out it is likely that these individuals will continue to go out on their own and the amount of missing journalists will only increase. At least one journalist was killed in the 2003 war against Iraq because he ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The military cannot protect everyone that is over there and these individuals who are so interested in reporting what they see seem to be unaware of much of the danger that they are actually in. They are not trained in combat and there is much about military operations that they do not know. However, for the most part the military willingly lets them in and takes care of them so that individuals in the United States can see what is going on with their military in another country. In the Persian Gulf War the military public affairs individuals proclaimed that the media coverage and relations had been a huge success (Machamer, 1993). The news coverage during that time was largely supportive of many of the efforts that took place in the Gulf War but had the conflict gone on longer and the casualties mounted this might have become difficult for those in public relations (Lee, 2002). Even though these media-military relations were said to be good representatives from the media were very critical about many of the restrictions that the military had imposed on them during the war. They also pointed out that in their opinions those individuals in the United States would be the ones that lost out because there would be very little original reporting on the part of the reporters. There would be no new and interesting reporting because the military would simply censor everything that they did not want seen or heard (Lee, 2002).

Whether this is completely accurate is difficult to say. The military makes one statement about relations and the media makes another. It appears that the two shall not meet anywhere in the middle and it is difficult for individuals hearing both sides of the story to determine which one is correct. Today there is a somewhat strained relationship between the news media and the individuals in the military. What has caused this major rift between the two is difficult to tell. Some of the military's problems began in the Vietnam War because there were very few restrictions on what the press could say (Hammond, 1996). There are those that even blamed the media and the poor coverage that they gave the Vietnam War for the reason that the war was lost. This is largely due to the fact that many of those in the media thought much of what the military was doing at that time to be very cruel and they made these assertions and statements to the American public which hurt the war effort and made the public feel as though there was so much antiwar sentiment that maybe there was definite reason for this and the war was a bad idea (Hammond, 1996).