The media doesn't get it

Image courtesy: Master Sgt. Jerry Morrison

Unlike the national press, which I was once a part of, I waited to write about controversial video footage of combat operations in Iraq released by WikiLeaks under the provocative headline "Collateral Murder." After forming an opinion based on facts and commentary from experts on both ends of the spectrum, The Unknown Soldiers condemns the manner in which this footage was released and the U.S. press coverage that immediately followed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is also speaking out against the conduct of WikiLeaks and the national media, saying the initial picture painted offered a "soda straw view" of war.

Time and again during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the media has assumed the worst and intentionally inflamed controversy whenever an alleged "scandal" related to the military erupts. The most glaring example, perhaps, is the Haditha case, which dominated cable news, newspapers, and magazine covers for several months in 2006. While the deaths of 24 civilians in the disputed 2005 incident were certainly tragic, the media's rush to judgment against eight U.S. Marines was also unfortunate. Seven have since had charges dismissed or been acquitted, and the level of press coverage of the outcome has been nowhere near the initial fury to condemn American troops operating under the intense emotions of combat.

The WikiLeaks controversy is another example of journalists glorifying footage that could damage America's image and troop morale without putting the facts in context. While U.S. soldiers gunning down two Reuters journalists and ten others while making unfriendly remarks could be interpreted on the surface as an example of cold-blooded murder, examining the facts and pausing to think about the conditions U.S. forces must operate under in Iraq and Afghanistan lead to an entirely different conclusion. They weren't playing a "video game," as some articles suggested, but doing what they thought was necessary to protect their fellow troops during a dangerous battle.

First, the Pentagon already investigated this 2007 incident and found no wrongdoing by U.S. forces. In most reports, the press did note this fact, but usually not in headlines, lead paragraphs, or graphics. So the reality is that the media allowed an unnamed group of people at WikiLeaks, who are accountable to no one, to dictate the timing of a national discussion about a serious matter.

Second, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, the reporters who were tragically killed in the incident, were in a dangerous combat zone that U.S. forces had already raided. Troops mistook their equipment for weapons, asked for permission to fire, and received it. This is a sad example of the dangers of reporting during wartime, especially in the areas where enemies of the United States have been proven to frequent. While journalists who risk their lives to report in combat zones have my utmost respect, the producers back home, who are often more interested in celebrity gossip than news that impacts our lives, need to recognize that war is not cut and dry.

Third, what is the real value of showing the world that some American troops were laughing and saying things like "dead bastards" while shooting? What do journalists think raw audio of U.S. troops during World War II combat would have sounded like? Enemy German and Japanese forces were not referred to kindly by the Greatest Generation, and the words spoken during the conflict's unimaginable violence were probably not conciliatory. Had there been cameras attached to every Allied tank, the brave troops who saved the world from fascism may not be celebrated in the same light they are today. And that would be wrong. I don't care if my grandfathers or their friends denigrated storm troopers or kamikaze pilots while risking their lives to prevent Adolf Hitler and other evil Axis leaders from enslaving the world.

While not all media reports of the WikiLeaks incident were uninformed or biased, the initial reporting laid the groundwork for disgraceful conclusions like the ones made on The Huffington Post blog. Dan Froomkin called the military's versions of events a "cover story," and wrote that "two crewmen share a laugh when a Bradley fighting vehicle runs over one of the corpses." He embeds an MSNBC report to justify his accusations against American men and women who volunteered to serve our country.

While attending this weekend's 2010 MilBlog conference in Arlington, Virginia, former CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre moderated a discussion about media coverage of the Wikileaks controversy. McIntyre, who now runs a fantastic blog for Military.com, lamented over the lack of context given by the press to the public after the tape's release, particularly singling out cable news outlets for shallow coverage. While McIntyre will certainly have a successful career outside newsrooms, it is a shame that he is no longer providing insight and balance for war coverage for our former employer, CNN.

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Price Floyd, who was on the panel moderated by McIntyre, conceded that the Pentagon's initial response to the video footage was tepid. Perhaps that is why Secretary Gates forcefully addressed the incident the next day.

"People can put out anything they want and not be held accountable. There's no before and no after, just the present."

Gates also reminded the public, and the press, that America's post-9/11 struggle can be ugly.

"Let's also face the reality that we are in a war and our adversaries ... use civilians. They purposely put civilians in harm's way."

This site was not launched to agree with the Pentagon, but to spotlight individual stories of sacrifice. But in this case, the Department of Defense is right and its critics are wrong. Associated Press reporter Anne Flaherty, who is pictured above interviewing Gates, wrote an article about the Pentagon's pushback against WikiLeaks and the press. Some elements of her report for the AP, where I briefly worked in 2004, are accurate and balanced. Yet the correspondent included this volatile nugget.

Gates' remarks come amid reports of U.S. forces killing civilians on a bus near Kandahar in Afghanistan.

Nothing else is written about the alleged incident, no context is provided, and the source of the accusations is not revealed. From that isolated sentence, a given reader could interpret that U.S. troops surrounded a bus and murdered civilians in cold blood. Nothing is mentioned about reports of a terrorist throwing a grenade into a nearby Kandahar school that same day, or jumping on the education center's roof to attack NATO forces. Like I said, the media doesn't get it.

It's easy for someone to say they "support our troops," even if they don't support our nation's foreign policy. I respect fellow Americans who back up those words with responsible action or dissent. But when journalists rush to judgment in life and death stories about our military, what they are really saying is that a man or woman who volunteered to protect our country is a murderer. That is an incredibly serious allegation that can ruin lives and permanently split families already struggling with a loved one's deployment. In order to make that charge, you need more than one side of the story.