JOHNSON: War reporting demands more than taking dictation

By Bill Johnson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, May 9, 2008

I love this time of year, and not simply because baseball is back or, even, that the tulip bulbs buried in my garden have suddenly exploded, their stems resplendent with yellows, purples, red and white blossoms.

I also love this time of year for the e-mailed lists of questions I receive from college journalism and political science majors who've become desperate about whatever finals paper they have due.

I tell them I am happy to be of help with answers, even if it appears that they could obviously care less about the quality of their source.

The latest one arrived this week from a kid named Sean, a journalism major at a local college. His paper was on media and the military for his journalism ethics final.

I thought I would share my answers with you.

Question 1: How do you feel about the relationship between the military and the media?

I was certain, the first time I traveled to Fort Carson in 2003, that it would be an adversarial one. What is more establishment - which I had been taught through years of journalism training to be completely skeptical of - than the U.S. Army?

It startled me when I was immediately welcomed like a long, lost patrol member. They, too, almost couldn't wait to get me into the war zone, an attitude that made me question the entire enterprise.

Still, I went.

I got no briefing upon my arrival in Iraq, no list of stories the brass wanted written for the masses. They pretty much stuck me in a tent with 100-or-so soldiers and told me to have at it.

The only restrictions were given back in Colorado: Don't write about troop positions or troop movements, a no-brainer, in that I had as much desire as any trooper in my tent to let Mr. Sniper know where I was, which is to say, none.

I quickly discovered that the soldiers - who thought me completely nuts for going to Iraq voluntarily - were grateful for my being there.

They shared their experiences, their worries and their hopes, believing I would relay them home, that their mother, wife or kids would read of them, that it would bridge the long distance between them.

Question 2: What is your ethical standpoint on the military's close relationship with the media during a time of war, and do you think it is OK for embedded reporters to tag along on military maneuvers during armed combat?

As an embedded reporter, I learned you are just bound to get attached emotionally to the soldiers you live with. Reporters, foremost, are human beings. Did it affect my coverage of them? Not a chance.

I never lost sight of the job they had to do. They never lost sight of mine. It was not in their interest or mine to sugar-coat or otherwise distort what they did everyday.

And is it OK for embeds to tag along? It is the best and only way, in my opinion, to cover a war. I went along on many raids and patrols.

It is a reporter's reason for being there, to tell the story of the soldiers fighting the actual war, of trying to sleep at night atop the hood of a Humvee or on the corrugated metal ramp of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, of watching them decide whether to open fire on an approaching sedan or let its occupants live.

You keep from being dead on the same terms as the soldiers. A roadside bomb goes off. You survive it. Do they?

It is impossible to know and competently write about such an experience, one that the soldiers go through daily, if you are sending dispatches seated comfortably behind the blast walls in the base mess hall.

Question 3: Do you think the military exploits the media in this aspect (through embedding)?

I knew exactly what I was getting into: That the possibility of death was very real. Sometimes, I thought I was exploiting them. If I was willing to just take that risk, I could write anything I wanted. There was no attempt at censorship.

It was what got me into those Humvees and Bradleys: If I didn't get killed, I would have a pretty good story at the end of the day, which is as much as any reporter can ever hope for.

Question 4: How do you think the advancement of technology has affected the coverage of war since WWII?

All I know is we were in this very remote, quite hostile village some 50 miles south of Baghdad. Our computer batteries were almost dead, leaving us unable to send for the next day's paper.

The soldiers, unasked, jury-rigged a series of wires and other connections from a Humvee's battery that fed my and the photographer's computers and satellite phone.

We made the next day's edition.

Question 5: Do you think the media can sway public opinion for war with its coverage of it?

Do you mean lack of coverage? I believe this will be my business' lasting legacy when it comes to this war.

We did not ask the right questions during the build-up to it, and we certainly did not ask the right follow-ups when the extremely thin answers arrived.

It is not enough for people in my business today to say, well, if we knew then what we know now . . .

I think we now have learned a very important lesson, five years and multiple thousands of lives later, that we can never again be just stenographers for those in power.

johnsonw@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2763.

• May 10, 2008

  8:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  arby writes:

  Bill,
  I admire your courage in going to Iraq and putting your butt on the line to keep the home folks informed. Good article. Can you apply for VA benefits from getting blown out of your Humvee?

• May 10, 2008

  11:19 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  otterjill writes:

  Although I totally agree with your column, Bill, I think I should point out that you shouldn't forget the tenor of the times when all this started. Anyone questioning decisions too closely might very well be considered a traitor to the United States, and feel like one, too. Hopefully in the future we can all be more skeptical and less emotional during really tough times.