Appendix 3
KNOW THINE ENEMY
By Peter Worthington

While the media per se is not exactly an enemy of the military, and vice versa, of course, these days it often has this appearance. Broadly speaking, the media has become mistrustful of the military and the military mistrustful of the media. Both with some justification.

Reasons for this are varied. From a media point of view, few media commentators have ever served in the military or had direct links with it. Even Peter Desbarats, former Dean of Journalism at the University of Western Ontario and a career-journalist who was a commissioner on the Somalia Inquiry, seemed to have little understanding or appreciation of what made soldiers tick, even after two-plus years of listening to military people testify. In his book on the Inquiry (Somalia Cover-Up) he acknowledges as much: “(It's) hard for me to imagine the kind of individual who seeks out this uniformity.” Soldiering is an alien world to him, and yet you feel he doesn't much like those who join up. It makes one wonder where he was during all the testimony at the inquiry.

In the 1950's and '60's there were still journalists who had served in the forces during World War 11 and who had some understanding of things military, and for whom soldiers weren't alien creatures. The Vietnam War affected many young journalists who matured thinking that anything they were told by military Public Affairs people might, or might not, be true and at best should be regarded skeptically. Damage control by DND Public Affairs and others since Somalia and Balkans peacekeeping (plus other incidents) have done little to alleviate media skepticism and much to increase it.

Speaking as one who has concern, respect and affection for the military, who has served in both the navy and army when the country was at war, and who has spent a large part of a journalistic career attending wars, revolutions, coups and crises in the Third World. who believes fervently that a competent, well equipped military is essential for both security and peace, I have opinions (prejudices? enlightenments?) how to improve relations between the media and the military.

A problem is public relations.

When I was a junior infantry officer (Korea), it always struck me (and other subalterns) that when a call from Higher Command for a public relations (or liaison) officer, the unit invariably nominated its most expendable officer. The sighs of relief that echoed through the unit would turn to groans when, weeks or months later, that expendable officer would re-appear in the unit escorting visiting journalists and given them an authoritative run-down on the tactical situation which, as an infantry officer and prior to being a PR officer, he could understand.

The subsequent reports of these captive journalists reflected what they have been told about the situation, and were often wildly inaccurate, incurring hoots of derision from troops at every level. Blame would be attributed to the journalists when, in fact, they may have been victims too.

Undoubtedly things have changed in our military, but in general, public affairs officers - depending on the individual - do not have a great deal of credibility with the media.

The best “salesman” for the military, are the combat arms - soldiers in the field, regardless of rank.

When it comes to the army, the most effective way to get the media to understand what makes soldiers tick, is to bring the two together. Rather than guided tours, or one-day group visits, I think the Public Affairs people in Ottawa (or units) should study the media and on the basis of their assessments invite certain individuals, on an exclusive basis, to spend some time with a particular unit, or participate in an exercise with troops in the field.

“Exclusivity" is catnip to journalists - irresistible.

The chance to participate in a northern exercise, or spend a couple of weeks with soldiers in the field be it Bosnia or wherever, will inevitably create better understanding among reporters who attend.

A journalist spending any length of time with a unit will inevitably hear a lot of scuttlebutt, stories, rumours, snafu, dirty linen, exaggerations and tantalizing stuff that would make embarrassing reports. This is a calculated risk. Being open and honest with reporters can result in embarrassment, but far more likely it will result in understanding, discretion, perspective.

Combat units are usually far more candid and reliable than rear echelon or headquarters stage-managing. One only has to look at how initial attempts of troops in the field to be open and forthright about awkward incidents were overruled by higher command and eventually blossomed into scandals and ruined careers - Somalia, the Bakovici mental hospital in Bosnia, grenade accidents, misuse of funds, etc.

A goal should be to get as many responsible media people as possible familiar with and understanding of the military. “Exclusivity” can't be over-emphasized. If one newspaper or TV outlet performs well, keep giving them chances. Their rival media outlets will complain and want preferential treatment too. Give them a chance, and if they perform well, alternate and juggle exclusive assignments.

Scandals will occur, and a sure way to guarantee media sensationalism is to try to cover them up. Candor is disarming.

Judgement should be used, but responsible journalists will not betray a trust. Always, the journalist will want to know what the truth is, even if he is pledged not to use it. Lying or misleading makes an enemy.

Once the trust of journalists has been earned, they will often protect you from your own indiscretions. My father, during the war and later as Canada's Civil Defence Co-ordinator, was often the focus of publicity and had a good rapport with the media, and often could be counted on for a lively or controversial quote. He was occasionally indiscreet, sometimes inadvertently, but rarely did the media hang him out to dry. And never did he claim he was misquoted.

In short, the greater direct contact there is between line officers and the journalists, the better off both will be. Rank-and-file soldiers are better than they've been depicted in the media. I'd argue that the greatest public relations problem the Canadian military and media have is at the general officer level. That may be due in part with today's system and the civilianization of the military bureaucracy.

Of course, when officers have to toe the line and echo conventional wisdom, they may not believe, it makes it tough - witness the credibility problem President Clinton's press secretary has. “Off the record” is usually respected by journalists, and while it is alien for soldiers to speak openly and off the record to the media, others do it and it works - providing you know the individuals you are dealing with. The FBI does it, the American military does it, RCMP Security used to do it, the police used to do it - all to advantage. I think the military should consider it too, because the message they want to get across is too important to be left to chance, politicians and bureaucrats who, traditionally, neither like, understand, nor trust the military which, over the years has served Canada more loyally and steadily than any government has.

Above all, try to know the individual journalists you are dealing with, and when you find a trustworthy one (not always easy) consider feeding him to keep him influential and able to get the military message across.

Anyway, these are just ideas and a topic for discussion...

BASIC GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH THE MEDIA