The Dysfunctional Relationship Between The Military And The Media

This week, the Army announced that it would open a new investigation into a possible cover-up in the death of former pro football player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. The embarrassing announcement comes after other instances in which the military has come under fire for misleading or withholding information from the press and public, most notably in the cases of the rescue of Jessica Lynch and allegations of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. I spoke to reporters and military analysts about what kind of impact these revelations have had on the relationship between the military and the press, and how each party views the other.

"There's an irony here, because when you had embedding, there was a sense that the reporting was better than ever," says Dan Goure, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute. "But since the end of major combat operations, the relationship has really gone to hell. There is a strongly held perception in the military – particularly the Army – that the media is doing the enemy's work. You guys are seen as the Jane Fondas of the Iraq war. And so the military attitude is, 'why should we level with you, because you're going to screw us.'"

That attitude apparently goes all the way to the top: Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that "the steady stream of errors [by the media] all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq."

Goure says the relationship between the press and military has been bad since the time of the Vietnam War. In World War II and the Korean War, he says, the military had a sense that the press was on their side. But today, he argues, "both the military and the media have unrealistic expectations of each other," as they have for the past 40 years. "The military expects the media to be a kind of public affairs arm, and the media expects the military to move faster and more agilely on these kinds of issues than they can. When the military is dealing with a problem, it has to go through the chain of command, there are reviews – it's a very laborious process."

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin says he generally assumes that the people he deals with in the military are "telling the truth – they're just not telling me the whole truth."

"If you think they're lying all the time," he adds, "you're never going to get a piece done."

Both Martin and Associated Press reporter Robert Burns say the recent revelations have not changed their approach when dealing with the military. "There's a certain amount of skepticism that's natural," says Burns. "You just have to judge the particular person you're taking to."

It should go without saying that the military does often have legitimate reasons to be secretive. But critics argue that the press has given military officials reason to be particularly distrustful of them by portraying the situation in Iraq as worse than it is. One reporter who covers the military, and who did not want to go on the record, told me that the military was unforthcoming before anyone could argue the press gave them a reason to be, however. The reporter cited as proof the military's handling of the press in Afghanistan, where, the reporter argues, the coverage was overwhelmingly positive.

In the present environment of mutual distrust, it can be particularly difficult for reporters to determine how much credibility to grant to military officials who ask them to suppress information for the good of American soldiers. Martin recently wrestled with the problem for a planned story on Improvised Explosive Devices, which a senior military officer asked him to hold. He did so, even though he "didn't find his argument about how it would help the enemy very persuasive." The judgment call set off a debate among media watchers.

The military's handling of the Pat Tillman case, however, doesn't seem particularly debatable. The circumstances of Tillman's death may have been embarrassing for the military, but there don't seem to be any national security reasons why the media and public – not to mention Tillman's family – should not have learned the truth immediately. "There's no defense of the handling of Tillman," says Martin. "They let their own people get up there and give inaccurate information."

The prison abuse stories are a somewhat more complicated question, since reports of mistreatment have the potential to inflame enemy passions. But Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, says even in those cases it helps the military for the truth to come out. "Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant," he argues. "To draw a curtain only encourages negative speculation." Fidell, a lawyer, notes sardonically that he's had to represent Stars and Stripes, "of all people," a newspaper serving the U.S. military community, to get the military to release information. "The public has been jerked around," he says.

The military's reliance on claims that it needs to be secretive for national security reasons – even in cases when the argument strikes many as less than compelling – has hurt them, according to one reporter, because it has left them with less credibility in times when they have a legitimate reason to keep something secret. AP reporter Burns says the Tillman case may be turning the tide. "They've come to realize how much it can hurt them to withhold information," he says. "I think they're starting to recognize that more than they did in the past."

Many of the reporters I spoke to say the military's secrecy has helped them control stories, which suggests there may not be a change in press strategy anytime soon, despite the embarrassment caused by the Tillman case. Fidell, who has crusaded for more openness on the part of the military, characterizes the situation bluntly. "At the moment," he says, "they're winning."