As the nation moves closer to some form of attack on the al Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden, editors at major news organizations are trying to figure out how to cover what will almost certainly be an unconventional conflict, at least in part.
And the Bush administration is figuring out how much or, more likely, how little to tell the press or to allow it to observe.
The press and the government should realize two things.
The press should understand that some important undertakings in this coming battle will be covert, and that Special Forces or small commando-style units are not likely to make room for a reporter or photographer in their midst, nor are similar special units that could be formed using non-American forces. It is also clear that intelligence — timely, accurate information that can be swiftly acted upon — will be as important, perhaps more important, than powerful conventional military forces. So sensitive intelligence will be closely guarded, as it should be.
The administration should understand that the press will find a way to cover Americans at war, no matter what obstacles are put in the way. There is no bigger story. It may seem corny to the authorities, but news editors, especially with large news organizations that have the resources to attempt broadly based coverage, do feel an obligation, in an open and democratic society, to bring an independent account of conflict to their readers, even though some readers will not want it. Less corny is the idea that news organizations are intensely competitive.
If reporters are barred from the battlefield, some will try to go anyway. However restrictive officials may try to make the flow of information here, news and statements will be coming from other countries, especially those either under attack or in the neighborhood of the conflict. Scores of American correspondents already have been sent to these countries. Reporters will dig hard in Washington and elsewhere around the world with every source they have to find out what is really going on.
The point here, really, is that the American press is not the enemy. The press did not cause the Vietnam War to be lost, an idea that has driven much of the post-Vietnam attempt to crack down and control coverage. Some 58,000 dead GIs are what turned the public against that conflict.
Despite their different missions, reporters can’t cover combat without some cooperation from the military. They need access, frequently need transportation and, at times, protection. Many in the military understand the role of the press and want their efforts recorded. But the hangover from Vietnam lingers, and in all U.S. combat engagements since then, press access and timely coverage have diminished steadily.
Reporters accredited by the military to cover combat have shown, in those conflicts, that they will abide by security guidelines that protect U.S. forces and operations. Many newspapers have withheld sensitive material when the government asks, although sometimes that backfires, as it did when the New York Times withheld some of its reporting on what turned out to be the disastrous 1961 invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs.
The challenge in today’s extraordinary environment is to find a sensible way to preserve military security without dangerously discarding journalism’s obligation to provide an independent accounting to citizens.
Nine new “principles for news coverage of combat” were agreed to after the Persian Gulf War. They should stay in place as a starting point for what is to come. One provision says, “Journalists will be provided access to all major military units.” So far, four aircraft carriers and hundreds of Air Force planes have moved, and elements of one Army division are now being deployed. Several thousand U.S. troops are also in Saudi Arabia. No reporters moved with these forces. But there is still time.
