Behind the Lines: Fighting under the media glare

[AlexRS]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292015051&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

'You guys in the media are reporting about a whole different war than the one we're fighting here," shouted the normally friendly officer over the phone line. "My men are heroically advancing against these Hizbullah ****s and all your lot can do is write about what we're doing wrong, what the intelligence didn't know and about personal rivalries in the general staff - you're driving me crazy."

I wasn't about to argue with a commander who had just lost two of his own soldiers, and I could understand his exasperation, but it's still totally unrealistic to expect that after two weeks of total warfare, the Israeli media, which is in one of its more patriotic phases right now, could possibly remain a totally uncritical cheerleader.

With perhaps the exception of marginal figures like Ha'aretz's Gideon Levy, the entire media establishment accepts the basic justification behind the government's decision to go to war - even if that government is still refusing to call this a war. There is, though, a major distinction between the way the press supported the government and the IDF during past conflicts and the coverage and commentary accompanying this round. Once upon a time, the watchword for the media at times of war was "Sheket, yorim" - quiet, they're shooting. This time the media's attitude could be termed supportive but critical.

Some traditionalists still believe that while the fighting is raging, no questions should be raised, but they're a receding minority. The amount of criticism found daily in the newspapers and on the nightly TV shows can easily give the impression that the once all-powerful IDF is now an inept and bumbling organization, directed by vainglorious generals using faulty intelligence.

This is, of course ridiculous - mistakes and mishaps were always part and parcel of the management of any war, including Israel's, but in the past most of these fiascoes only came to light years later in historical research. Even when journalists knew about battlefield failures, they kept things to themselves.

One of the most striking examples was the tragedy in the Bianur Valley in 1982 when Israeli Phantom jets mistakenly bombed a Nahal battalion with cluster bombs, causing over 50 casualties. The story of the worst case of "friendly fire" in IDF history was published only years later. Now commentators are dissecting the field commanders' judgment even before the wounded have been evacuated.

THIS IS not necessarily a bad thing. Years of press adoration went to the head of the military's commanders, especially after the spectacular Six Day War - which also had its fair share of screw-ups - and was perhaps one of the contributing factors to the complacency that allowed Israel to be caught unaware in the Yom Kippur War.

On the other hand, the barrage of criticism suddenly being leveled at the IDF is creating a skewed picture. The mistakes and miscalculations at various levels of the operation don't change the fact that Israel has a super professional army, staffed with highly motivated soldiers led by intelligent officers. They're imperfect, but that's probably because they're human beings operating in an extremely dangerous, stressful situation. But when the IDF's expectations are so high, and when every soldier's death is treated as a disaster of national proportions, disappointment and disillusionment are certain to follow.

Besides, war nowadays is fought not only in full glare of TV cameras - with cutthroat competition between channels, some of which didn't even exist in previous wars - but also on-line, on Web sites which are constantly updating themselves and spurring on the rest of the press.

Another reason that reporters are aware of mistakes almost as soon as they are made is the IDF Spokesperson's policy of openness. This began last summer, when reporters and cameramen were allowed to be present at every stage of disengagement from Gush Katif and northern Samaria settlements. From the training ahead of evacuation to the final destruction of the houses, including traumatic scenes where officers confronted families and ordered them to leave their homes, the press was granted total access.

Despite complaints by the military correspondents that the IDF isn't allowing reporters to go in to Lebanon with the troops (the first small "pool" was allowed into Maroun al-Ras on Wednesday night), the army is giving reporters unprecedented levels of information, almost in real-time. Under this new policy, large forums of reporters have received frequent briefings from all the top generals, including the heads of the Intelligence Branch. Not only Israeli journalists, but even the generally hostile foreign media were supplied with briefings and visits to usually restricted air force bases, during combat missions.

This approach, pioneered by IDF Spokeswoman Brig.-Gen Miri Regev, was a clear success in disengagement, when despite the trauma surrounding the process, the army managed to come out of it as national darlings, both efficient and compassionate. This summer the same policy is bringing mixed results. That's only to be expected, as rooting out fanatical Hizbullah fighters isn't the same as evacuating 8,000 Israelis, very few of whom resorted to violence, from their homes.

OF COURSE, the IDF didn't make things any easier on itself when, in its eagerness to show that the forces were making progress, it announced on Tuesday that the Hizbullah strongholds of Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbail had been captured. The very next day, after eight soldiers had been killed there, they were forced to admit that the fighting was far from over, and that Hizbullah, despite its own heavy losses, was still capable of inflicting severe damage.

There was also the high-profile televised argument on Tuesday night between Channel 2's uber-commentator Amnon Abramovitch and Regev. Abramovitch attacked the army for usurping what was essentially a civilian responsibility, hasbara, the explaining of Israel's policies. "The army should do the fighting and leave the explaining to the government," he said.

Regev answered that the IDF was only acting in the national interest since repeated polling showed that the public felt more reassured by senior officers than any other source. What Regev didn't say was that the army feels there is a vacuum, with the politicians, especially Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, deserting the PR front by refusing to give interviews or even conduct a press conference.

And perhaps that is the IDF's main achievement up until now in this war, at least on the home front. Despite all the talk of Israel becoming a more civilian society, at the price of opening itself up to the unrelenting criticism of the media, it has reestablished itself as the country's most revered and influential establishment. Ironically, by highlighting and even over-exaggerating the army's mistakes, the press has put the IDF back on its pedestal as national savior.

[Cskin]

The liberal media in Israel is no different than that here in the United States. The media as a whole has learned having witnessed the coverage of the Vietnam War that if you criticize and continue to undermine the ability of the military to wage war long enough.... that at some point they will have to succumb to the pressure from the people and give up. It's what the national mediots here in the US have perpetrated against our boys on the ground in Iraq and Ashcanistan for two years now. :doh:

[Destino]

The liberal media in Israel is no different than that here in the United States. The media as a whole has learned having witnessed the coverage of the Vietnam War that if you criticize and continue to undermine the ability of the military to wage war long enough.... that at some point they will have to succumb to the pressure from the people and give up. It's what the national mediots here in the US have perpetrated against our boys on the ground in Iraq and Ashcanistan for two years now. :doh:

The media isn't allowed to cover the current wars like the did the Veitnam conflict. In that war they showed America what war was really like. It was the first time the horrors of war found their way into the average American household. They saw first hand where their children were being sent and what would happen to them.

The current war has seen very little of that. Images of wounded Americans in the war zone are almost never shown, despite the fact that reporters are everywhere and surely have hours, even days of footage of precisely that. Also the images of coffins returning home have been banned. The only horror Americans are seeing from the Iraqi conflict with regularity are those inflicted on the civilian population.

In other words - you are wrong the media isn't treating this like vietnam at all. Compared to Vietnam the media has had kid gloves on. The problem is folks like yourself don't want news, you want patriotic messages.

[Sarge]

The media isn't allowed to cover the current wars like the did the Veitnam conflict. In that war they showed America what war was really like. It was the first time the horrors of war found their way into the average American household. They saw first hand where their children were being sent and what would happen to them.

The current war has seen very little of that. Images of wounded Americans in the war zone are almost never shown, despite the fact that reporters are everywhere and surely have hours, even days of footage of precisely that. Also the images of coffins returning home have been banned. The only horror Americans are seeing from the Iraqi conflict with regularity are those inflicted on the civilian population.

In other words - you are wrong the media isn't treating this like vietnam at all. Compared to Vietnam the media has had kid gloves on. The problem is folks like yourself don't want news, you want patriotic messages.

How soon we forget Abu Grhaib, the stories of the the suposed massacres by Americans, the NYT publishing details of classified anti-terror programs

If anything, the media is far more dangerous now than they were in Vietnam

[Cskin]

In other words - you are wrong the media isn't treating this like vietnam at all. Compared to Vietnam the media has had kid gloves on. The problem is folks like yourself don't want news, you want patriotic messages.

Huh...WTF?? I said nothing about the type of coverage in Vietnam.... I was talking about the LIBERAL LEFT whining and moaning and protesting the deaths of "innocent civilians" to the point that the American people simply went tone deaf as to why we were over there and succumbed to the politicians who wanted out.... cash faucet turned of.... and our boys brought home.

We're fighting Islamofacists over there.... and all the American media wants to report is the humvee that was blown up.... the missle miss into a "civilian" home..... or prisoners with panties on their head. How many stories have you seen about the hospitals we've built... or schools we've rebuilt... or about the women being able to vote and hold office in Iraq? You see...you don't see much of that. You know why? Because the LIBERAL MEDIA doesn't want the American people to see the good we're doing.... the nice sunny story.... because then the Americans OVER HERE wouldn't be demanding that we leave from OVER THERE.... where all we're doing, if you believe the mediots, is kiliing innocent civilians.... creating civil war.... forcing the people to swallow democracy..... oh... and the mantra "Bush lied, people died".

If you believe the media as a whole doesn't have an agenda to undermine our fight over there... may I remind you to pick up a NYT paper.... catch a few minutes of CBS...ABC... NBC.....CNN.... and MSNBC war coverage and then come back here and apologize to the rest of us.

[Destino]

How soon we forget Abu Grhaib, the stories of the the suposed massacres by Americans, the NYT publishing details of classified anti-terror programs

If anything, the media is far more dangerous now than they were in Vietnam

You really want to compare that? OK I'll play.

"The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the torture at Abu Ghraib

Raise of hands - how many people got a chance to see the photos of the "bad stuff" several elected officials referenced when talking about Abu G? Anyone? I only saw the initial release of photos that showed humiliation, anything that would actually point to torture... I think they are still in court about that.

This is what you call a far more dangerous media Sarge? Publishing images of soldiers posing with naked Iraqis compares to the thousands of images coming out of Vietnam of phsyically destroyed Americans bleeding and broken? They didn't even get their hands on the bad stuff this time around - and even if they had it would of been of THEM hurting not US hurting and that is a very big difference.

[AlexRS]

We're fighting Islamofacists over there.... and all the American media wants to report is the humvee that was blown up.... the missle miss into a "civilian" home..... or prisoners with panties on their head. How many stories have you seen about the hospitals we've built... or schools we've rebuilt... or about the women being able to vote and hold office in Iraq? You see...you don't see much of that. You know why? Because the LIBERAL MEDIA doesn't want the American people to see the good we're doing.... the nice sunny story.... because then the Americans OVER HERE wouldn't be demanding that we leave from OVER THERE.... where all we're doing, if you believe the mediots, is kiliing innocent civilians.... creating civil war.... forcing the people to swallow democracy..... oh... and the mantra "Bush lied, people died".

At the same time we do not see them reporting on horrendous war planning, complete lack of oversight in Iraq, billions of dollars in contractor overcharges, unwillingness of a Republican Congress to investigate anything our President does... we do not even see them talking about how much we spend on reconstruction conracts in Iraq and what we get in return...

So let's not start singing the same old "liberal media" song here.

Yes media should report Hizbollah tactics properly. Yes media should explain better what Israel is dealing with. Yes they should try and see through Hizbollah's propaganda - but that does not mean they should look the other way on issues such as abuse of prisoners.

I would like to see more stories about hospitals we've built too... you know, how many hospitals we've built, how much we've paid for them, quality of those hospitals, etc. The media is pretty bad at covering both sides of the issue... Graphic images and violence sell. Boring things do not sell. As simple as that...

[Destino]

Huh...WTF?? I said nothing about the type of coverage in Vietnam.... I was talking about the LIBERAL LEFT whining and moaning and protesting the deaths of "innocent civilians" to the point that the American people simply went tone deaf as to why we were over there and succumbed to the politicians who wanted out.... cash faucet turned of.... and our boys brought home.

You said nothing about the type of coverage?

"The media as a whole has learned having witnessed the coverage of the Vietnam War" - Cskin July 31, 2006

We're fighting Islamofacists over there.... and all the American media wants to report is the humvee that was blown up.... the missle miss into a "civilian" home..... or prisoners with panties on their head. How many stories have you seen about the hospitals we've built... or schools we've rebuilt... or about the women being able to vote and hold office in Iraq? You see...you don't see much of that. You know why? Because the LIBERAL MEDIA doesn't want the American people to see the good we're doing.... the nice sunny story.... because then the Americans OVER HERE wouldn't be demanding that we leave from OVER THERE.... where all we're doing, if you believe the mediots, is kiliing innocent civilians.... creating civil war.... forcing the people to swallow democracy..... oh... and the mantra "Bush lied, people died".

You seem unable to seperate what moonbat protest marchers say and what the media does. Please show me the major news outlets pushing "Bush lied people died". The media is showing injured civilians because frankly more people react to that headline then "new hosptial built" and if you doubt that go outside and ask around. You're stark raving mad if you think the media "doesn't want the American people to see the good we're doing" because the media has conservative and liberal papers. Hell even here in DC you can hardly go anywhere that doesn't sell the WashingtonTimes.

We live in the information age and you think people are being denied access to info by some massive plot involving THOUSANDS of media sources. That's insane. It's more likely JFK was shot by an alien who was jealous of his hair then the entire media all coming together in a unified effort to deny the american people knowledge that some good is going on in Iraq.

If you believe the media as a whole doesn't have an agenda to undermine our fight over there... may I remind you to pick up a NYT paper.... catch a few minutes of CBS...ABC... NBC.....CNN.... and MSNBC war coverage and then come back here and apologize to the rest of us.

The NYT has certainly crossed the line recently but I watch all of the rest all the time and frankly I don't see what you are talking about because it's not there.

Search for the thread posted recently about people seeing bias in the media. It showed that bias people (like you) found bias in reporting, while those opposite you found the opposite bias in the exact same report. It's not the media, it's the wingnut.

[Sarge]

You really want to compare that? OK I'll play.

Raise of hands - how many people got a chance to see the photos of the "bad stuff" several elected officials referenced when talking about Abu G? Anyone? I only saw the initial release of photos that showed humiliation, anything that would actually point to torture... I think they are still in court about that.

This is what you call a far more dangerous media Sarge? Publishing images of soldiers posing with naked Iraqis compares to the thousands of images coming out of Vietnam of phsyically destroyed Americans bleeding and broken? They didn't even get their hands on the bad stuff this time around - and even if they had it would of been of THEM hurting not US hurting and that is a very big difference.

Please. You're using Lindsey Graham as a source? You might as well replace the ® with a (D) to begin with.

ANd what ever happened with all of that, despite the outcry from the libs?

Evidently it wasn't all that serious

WHat we have now in the media is sympathizers, enemy sympathizers who grew up watching the previous generation of media contribute greatly to our withdraw from Vietnam.

It's cool for them the "fight for the little guys" while wearing their Che Guvera shirts and being a direct source of intel for the enemy and try to live up to or exceed the precedent their hippy ancestors set those many years ago

They're hypocracy was on display for all to see recently with the publication of information from several classified programs

THey want to publish every little secret the government has, but when asked the source of their clasified info, well then it's "We've got our sources but you can't make us reveal them"

Please

Nothing a few months in jail wouldn't cure