Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : WAR & CRISIS REPORTING
Clarke discusses revolution in war reporting by Dale Eisman 
Clarke discusses revolution in war reporting By DALE EISMAN, The Virginian-Pilot © June 3, 2003 WASHINGTON -- Along with weapons, tanks and gas masks, U.S. troops carried hundreds of journalists as they fought their way to Baghdad this spring. ``Embedded'' reporters revived a style of wartime journalism that had all but disappeared after the Vietnam War, giving a new generation an up-close look at wartime life. The new media access to troops in the field was spearheaded by Victoria Clarke, a former public relations executive who now serves as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's senior spokeswoman. Clarke, who appears tonight at an Old Dominion University forum on coverage of the Iraqi war, spoke last week to The Virginian-Pilot about the embedding program, and the views of Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command. Here are some excerpts from that interview: We understand that the decision to embed journalists with units in Iraq grew out of conferences you had with bureau chiefs over a period of months. Tell us about how that evolved and the thinking as you went through it. It starts even earlier than that -- in the summer and early fall. The secretary and the chairman and the general are enlightened enough and know enough about this business, they included us -- the public-affairs element -- in the planning from the earliest stages. They really understand what a role information plays in their business now. Is it your impression that was something new? Yeah. The planning for this war was a conscious statement -- we're going to include public affairs fully and from the very earliest stage of planning. So it starts from that. And just like everyone else involved in planning, we were doing research. So we would talk to countless colleagues, including ourselves, who had been involved in previous conflicts, whether it was Afghanistan or Panama or Persian Gulf I. And we started talking to a lot of people on your side of the fence, in news organizations, from every category of news organization, and every kind of person: What has worked in the past? What hasn't worked? What are the issues and concerns that we all have? Did you have an objective at the start, an idea of how you wanted this to turn out? Well, it's a fundamental belief that the more news and information we provide, through a variety of media, the better off we are. Anytime you can give people an up-close and personal look at the U.S. military, you're having a good day. Because they're so professional. They're so well-trained. They're so dedicated. And by demonstrating that, you can build and maintain a lot of support. . . . We also knew one of our objectives would be to blunt and overcome what we knew would be the most effective, massive, well-resourced disinformation, propaganda campaign of all time. There was a lot of unhappiness in the media about coverage in Afghanistan and in Gulf War I. How much did that drive you -- the idea that maybe the department hadn't gotten a fair shake because the media were unhappy? I'd separate the two. I wasn't around for the Persian Gulf War, so what people told me and what I heard was there was a great deal of difficulty in people getting their product back -- partly because there were restrictions placed on them, partly because technology didn't hold up. So those were important lessons learned. Afghanistan I'd put in a separate category. And I just don't accept those who say there were terrible restrictions. If you actually look at the facts, military operations started on Oct. 7 of '01. There were several dozen media embedded with every aspect of the military operations. You mentioned that Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers were very receptive, very open to all this. As you went down the chain of command, was there resistance? Without naming names, I think what you had at the very senior level -- the secretary and the chairman -- they got it and they understood it and they said, ``Let's go.'' The further down the food chain you went, the more people got it. You think about the average 22-year-old, 25-year-old; they're the video generation, they fully expect there to be cameras around and press around and those sorts of things. And they are so rightfully proud of what they do, they wanted it demonstrated. Then you get up to the midlevel. You had a few -- not much, but a few -- hangovers from Vietnam. But I've got to tell you, the support from the highest levels was so strong and so consistent, people may have had concerns, but they got over them pretty quickly. How much of an attempt was there at this end to use information to your benefit on the battlefield -- in particular the northern front? Troops were kept in position there for a long time, to perhaps foster the notion with Saddam that they might come that way. Who knows what goes through Saddam Hussein's mind, especially at that stage of the game? All I know about that is what General Franks has said publicly. And he's been careful in how he's couched that. And then I also know that our folks at the State Department and our policy shop were in there working on Turkey every day -- and at the end of the day it was somewhat disappointing. Is this a new model for war coverage do you think? Yeah. How that translates depends on the conflict. I think the comfort level, the respect and appreciation level has been raised on both sides significantly. I know that there are people in the military that are justifiably proud that people saw what they did. Some of the embedded journalists chafed at the restrictions on their movement. The overwhelming majority, from what I've seen and read and heard, were stunned at the access they did have. Many of them have said, ``We expected to be at the back of the pack,'' and most of them were extremely pleased with the access and the freedom of movement. Was this a fair test? This war went very well; it was over quickly. You might say quickly, I don't know if I would. If I were there, on the ground, it would seem to me like it was going on for a very, very long time. And you think about the number of things that happened in that time frame. In conflicts past, it might have taken two years for those same number of things to happen, so I don't think the chronological measure is an accurate one. I think it was extraordinarily difficult for many, many, many different reasons. |