Post Scripts: What’s war coverage coming to?

As a former Army public information and press officer in two wars, I have never lost my interest in how the services handle the dissemination of news to the public. As an advocate of the "people’s right to know," I had good and bad experiences. The bad experiences had nothing to do with the security of our fighting men, but with the inability of some commanders to distinguish between what the people had a right to know and what the Army wanted them to know.

As a member of MacArthur’s press staff of over 200 officers, scattered over miles of the South Pacific, I have fond memories of my experience there. However, I was quickly oriented about what was expected of us whose assignments took us to landing sites on the beaches of island after island. The general made great presentations to the hundreds of Allies, reporters, and photographers who came into our theater of operations. MacArthur could give spellbinding speeches, speaking in a commanding manner, dramatically pacing back and forth behind his desk, or on a landing beach, proclaiming his belief in freedom of the press.

Yet not one news article or photograph left the Southwest Pacific without being exposed to GHQ’s censorship. However, it is obvious that in wartime, some control over the release of sensitive information has to be put into place. There were reporters then, and some remain, who would do anything to get a "scoop." However, in those dark days of WWII, most reporters were trustworthy and responsible journalists who would never jeopardize the life of a single GI.

Those serving on the press staff were aware of their responsibility as well. Now and then a censor would get a reprimand for letting something pass that MacArthur, or his press chief, Colonel LeGrand Diller, found objectionable. I recall one silly incident where a censor was reprimanded for letting a reporter write that a band marched down the streets of Brisbane playing "Stars and Stripes Forever." Good Lord! The Japanese had followed some of our troop ships across the Pacific; they knew Americans were in Australia!

Usually, war correspondents — Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force — got along well. An item I read recently leads me to think the services may not be as popular and cooperative as they once were. It involves more than just arguing over body count or bad tactical decisions. It happened at a recent military media seminar, a round table dealing with a mock war and a moderator asking provocative questions. A hypothetical scene had been set up for an Army colonel.

"Your unit has been badly mauled," the moderator began."Two of your men are wounded and exposed in an open field behind you. To rescue them, you know you will risk the rest of your men in your unit. Do you go for them?" "Yes sir," came the instant reply.

"Now," continued the moderator, "the situation is the same, but it is a TV cameraman and a correspondent badly wounded and exposed to heavy fire. Do you go back for them?"

"No, sir, I do not," replied the infantry officer. Then he added, "They’re not patriotic citizens."

The good old days for reporters and photographers appear to be over. Wars are fought by the young and reported by the young. There was no censorship during the Vietnam war, so the reporters began to divulge the agony of war, the truth about the dead and dying. People discovered the military was not above lying about casualties. The U.S. was losing the war despite inflated enemy body counts and "politicized" victories in non-battles fought by its Vietnamese clients. The less said about Vietnam the better, but there is sorrow for those who served there.

We’ve fought several brushfire wars since; the Kosovo adventure is a complete farce. The Gulf War saw the media corralled and a war fought like a video game of smart bombs and clean, bloodless air assaults. Everybody’s friend, Katie Couric of CBS Morning News, even toured the front with General Schwarzkopf. What’s war coming to?