Photojournalism: formal Military Training for Journalists

I just viewed the MSNBC Tom Brokaw news report.

 

He included a report that the Pentagon is sponsoring a "boot camp"

for journalists in the event there is a war with Iraq.

 

Again, this is NOT a discussion of the pros or cons of such a war.

 

It showed journalists (correspondents, still photograpers, and

videographers) learning how to move with the military to report the

events of the war "up front and personal."

 

Evidently, during the Gulf War in 1991, journalists were banned from

many areas and were not given much assistance by the military,

according to tonight's report.

 

Now, the Pentagon seems to want an extensive and supportive reporting

of the coming conflict, and are providing formal training for

journalists who will be working in the field.

 

Training is being done now at Fort Benning, GA.

 

Anyone have more details or thoughts on this? This is, of course, a

photo related question.

Clips of this training have been shown on CNN and other news channels for weeks now. Mostly it's funny. Those guys won't last more than a few minutes in a chemical environment. It's designed to keep them from endangering troops because they don't know what to do.

I like the idea of better access for journalists; there was

practically none during Operation Desert Storm.

 

IMHO as a former Navy JAG, the courses have certainly generated good

press for the military.

 

In addition to teaching journalists how to keep out of the way, the

courses may save a few lives.

 

Jimmy Buffett went thru the Navy's water survival course before a ride

in a F-14; what he learned later saved him when he crashed his PB-Y.

 

If I were covering a war, I'd be glad for such training.

With these journalists receiving training (who paid the bill?) from the US, just how much objectivity can we expect? Lets face it war is waged in battle as much as through the press (or propoganda as some sides would say). Has war changed that much that journalists need to be led by hand?

 

But then again the US military has learned that you don't don't announce a night invasion to the press. I will never for get the invasion of Somolia (I beleive) with the TV lights catching our boys like deer in headlights.

 

Chip

Damned good idea. Let's hope it's more than a PR gesture.

 

I'm a Navy veteran Hospital Corpsman who spent a few years with the Marine Corps where I was exposed to some of the training received by Navy SEALs and Marine Recon units. It's tough training and valuable to anyone who might face adverse conditions, whether a photographer, journalist or a Peace Corps volunteer working in construction or agriculture in difficult terrain and climates.

 

Even if it doesn't translate to better coverage of another U.S. intervention in the Gulf, the training will at least benefit the participating journalists in other situations.

<I>With these journalists receiving training (who paid the bill?)</I><P>The bill was paid by the journalist news organization, or I guess if you are a freelancer working for an agency, by the agency. These kind of courses have been run for years in Britain.<P>I wouldn't worry about objectivity. Ask yourself: Do you consider yourself a corrupt individual? Wif not why do you presume that of others?<P>More worrisome is the military's plan to "embed" journalists with specific units. there seems to be a stir already that the military may be placing the journalists with units that won't be in the front lines. Unfortunately, the front lines are where the news is. This will be interesting to see to see how this works out. It is a cautious move back to the relationship journalists had with troops in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

Will a "strobe" going off be a target or a non-target for a rifle-toting guy on the enemy side?

 

The Isreali forces have "accidently" shot one or two reporters in the past....do the press services provide "insurance" in the war zone?

OK I was going to bring up the idea that this might be a way to get rid of a few of the more anti War liberal members of the press. By training them to be on the front lines with their flashes etc. BUT I don't want to make light of the fact that people will die for their job both in and out of the military during this action if and when it comes. I'm starting to realize now being connected (thru the net) to more then just local friends that one must do a little more thinking before speaking. I would hate to think of any Photojournalist trying to make a living is going to be dying in Iraq because he or she did not know that the funny yellow fog is mustand gas and the mask better be on BEFORE it touches you. So a bit of field training before hand fits nicely into my idea of a good way to spend some tax money. Interns for Billy boy to fiddle with is not.

Gee, Mark, maybe in your heart of hearts you'd like to get rid of all the other Americans who have any doubts about this war. Then you'd have the country to yourself with no opposing viewpoints needed whenever the question of killing tens of thousands of people comes up.

An article by someone who attended is available on the site www.digitaljournalist.com

My Country.

 

In her intercourse with other nations, may she always be in the right.

 

But right or wrong, My Country!

 

James S. Kennedy, Col, USAF(retired)

 

father of Kathleen Larkin nee Kennedy, Lt Col, USAF(retired)

 

father of soon to be 2/Lt James M. Kennedy, US Army

 

In James M's veins flows blood of those who served and gave blood in Khartoum, Sudan, 1898, Hickam AFB, Hawaii, 1941, Iwo Jima, 1945, and Viet Nam, 1966.

 

Why do many insist on seeing evil in the efforts of the freest, most generous, and inspirational of countries on earth?

Hats off to Jim Kennedy and his family. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who served over the generations. May God be with our fighting men and women.

And where do you wish God is with regard to all those Iraqi's on the receiving end of the rain of fire from the God-watched American troops?

I hope that God will inspire us to free the Iraqi people, with little or no bloodshed, from the evil that the criminal Hussein has forced upon them. Can any rational person doubt that the world will be a better place with Hussein gone? Are the Afghanis better off now that the Taliban has been destroyed? Please let the world unite to bring the joys and benefits of freedom to the oppressed peoples of the world, including North Koreans, Iraquis, Kurds, and yes, Palestinians.

 

I'm not sure I know who God is, but I know who he is not. He is not the mean, cruel, vengefull God so beloved of the true believing fundamentalists. We have the power now, and perhaps the will, to eliminate the criminal thuggism that has ruled most of the worlds peoples since time began, whose only goal has been raw power and oppression. It won't be easy, it won't be cheap, but in the long run, it is the only course. This is a beautiful planet, the only one we have. Let us free it from fear.

I thought HCB was God?

 

B

I will be very happy when we can back to debating the various merits of different lens and films, etc. In the meantime, I can not stand by silent while the motives of my country are reviled, especially by those countries who owe their very existance to the sacrifices of American patriots.

 

Let's get back to photography without politics.

And James, I'm not going to stand silent while people make jokes about ways of getting rid of "liberal" press members. Remember, it was "liberalism" that founded America in the first place. Since the term "liberal" has become so maligned in this country, it seems to have been forgotten or never understood that the US Constitution is based on "liberal" concepts. One of the liberal concepts that countries who are run by dictators don't have- is supposedly the right and need for a free people to debate and discuss when undertaking a war.

James,

 

I understand what you are saying. Though a recent poll (I know that polls can be done to say what you want them to say)indicated that 85% of the US public would support war with Iraq IF the UN and/or NATO were behind it, and that a majority would like to give UN inspectors more time.

 

It would seem that a mjority of average Americans do not want to see a needless war and the resulting images from the photojournalists in the field.

 

More recently NATO members have split on protecting Turkey during an attack by Iraq (presumably during an Iraq war). Question seems to be what does the rest of the world know that we don't? If the US is to be Big Brother for the world, then it should not be selective in who it protects.

 

Only history will tell who was right.

 

Chip

Ellis, my point was that if the journalists are with military units then their access is controled. Controled as to what they see, and ultimately in what they report. Before the hawks yell about reporting troop locations, strengths, and tatics - I am not alking about that. I am talking about the carnage. The emotional toll on any human in the war zone.

 

It is with open journalism that the world will be able to make an acurate judgement as to the actions of our government. It was images from Vietnam like the girl running in the streets burned by American bombs, images of our youth being maimed and killed in the jungles that turned the opinion of the country towards ending the conflict in Vietnam.

 

Chip

Does anyone reading this thread believe the Pentagon is doing this out of a sense of altruism? This is about control. Ever since Vietnam, the military has done whatever they can to regulate the access of the press to the battlefield. Whether or not any idividual member of the press corps receives 'valuable' training is not the issue. The whole point of an independent press is to keep us informed of what the authorities would rather we didn't know. That means the relationship between power and the press MUST be somewhat adversarial to provide any useful information to the public.

One thing I learned in my years as a newspaper photographer: a cop doesn't give a damn about the photographer's First Amendment rights--he's only interested in doing his job and not getting himself or anyone else killed. The military has priorities that do not include watching out for battlefield photographers. The boot camp concept is a good way to give potential combat news people some of the skills to survive. It's a good thing. It may save not only the lives of some journalists but some troops as well.

Of course it's about control. But what it inadvertently shows is that the military may have a serious case of overconfidence about what will happen in Iraq. Remember, it's been a very long time since US forces had to take a heavily defended urban area. And while it still isn't clear whether the Iraqis will fight, if they do they won't need more than conventional small arms, unconventional tactics, and a willingness to slug it out, in order to inflict possibly quite severe casualties. Such a scenario has been written up in a number of places, including an Op-ed in the LA Times and an analysis on the Stratfor site. There's a good chance then, maybe not better than 50/50, but a good chance, that all these journalists who got training may get to see much more than they bargained for. And much more than the military expects them to see. So stay tuned!

 

G.

George, you maybe right. But there may not be much for the photojournalists to shoot. According to adminstration sources on the radio this morning, they don't expect the war to take six weeks like the last one. They say maybe two weeks. Interesting if true.

 

Chip

The interesting story really isn't the war itself but the aftermath and the investigation into the Pentagon's various claims of success. Since our methodology is largely technological and antiseptic, I'm sure that the Pentagon is keen to show the world that our ground troops are actually in harm's way. You'll note that journalists are not being given access to bombers or surveillance planes, where more of the war will occur. The big question will be whether or not journalists are running around Baghdad ("embedded" or not) if US forces find themselves fighting house-to-house. For what that looks like, just ask the people who cover the West Bank.

 

BTW, the colonel at Fort Benning who was interviewed for the NBC piece said that he was happy that the press would now be able to report on how brave and capable our soldiers are, and he lamented that the press corp had not been embedded in Afghanistan.

 

Watch how tightly the press are clamped if things go awry.

James I've got a lot of time for America and for Americans, but

please save the self righteous, fundamentalist, patriotic crap for

those who want to hear it. I don't.