The Media and Its Responsibilities
Student Name
Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility – SOC 120
Instructor
June 19, 2011

Today’s media has been granted access to military operations to report to our society the facts as they happen. Some may argue that certain military facts should not be revealed to the United States public. The media and the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (www.constitution.net). The law prohibited the publication of false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame or to stir up sedition within the United States. What the media seems to overlook is that specific acts in a combat zone have a purpose that may or may not comply with the morals of our society. The media takes utilitarianism the ethical theory that determines the moral value of an act in terms of its results and if those results produce the greatest good for the greatest number and uses it to report sensitive information. They also use another theory to appeal to the good nature and moral upbringing of Americans and that is their virtue ethics they focus on the morality rather than the act. The media also feels it is their moral obligation and necessity, finding the source of ethical correctness in the rules according to which one acts. When the media reports it cleverly focuses on one of the theories or a combination of them, and renders a convincing opinion based on what they deem for our society. When a reporter has been authorized by our Government because of political pressure to be allowed to accompany a Military Unit on a mission it puts not only soldiers at risk but also the United States opinion of our military. As stated above the law prohibits scandalous writing against the government of the United States, so when a reporter reports a unit’s activity and it leads to a protest against the Government is this not scandalous activity. The media will hide behind the First Amendment when it serves their purpose but when it comes to our troops they will report because they feel the results produced from their report is for the greater good for the greatest number. The individual reporter justifies their actions by viewing one’s beliefs being conditioned by our society. But in actuality it is their ethical egoism (self interest) that drives them for the story, Nobel Peace Prize or the top network reporter. The following action of one reporter during a military mission is an example of his self eagerness to succeed over whatever the outcome. My Unit was tasked with a mission to clear one of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia’s last bastions in one of Iraq’s most troubled regions. Two weeks before the mission, the battalion commander sternly ordered that every soldier was to keep it secret from family, friends and face-book. Within the first 48 hours of the operation, the battalion lost several men. One news reporter, in his rush to record the events, released information pinpointing the deaths to our unit. This reporter violated standard protocol between journalists and the military not to release any information regarding those killed in action until family members had been properly notified by the Department of Defense. This release of information only confirmed the reservations and suspicious of some in the unit regarding journalists on the front line. Not to mention the nightmare the families had to endure wondering if their loved one had bee killed. While the military and embedded media both seek to serve the public good, the military in defense of national security and the media ensuring that civilians back home are fully informed of the nation’s foreign policy and wartime commitments. There are conflicts that can arise between the two. Successful military operations require the element of surprise, and this means secrecy. In contrast, military embeds and the media in general seek clearness in their reporting. Nonetheless, modern warfare necessitates a relationship and a continuing dialogue between the media and the military, because wars are fought not only overseas but also at home, in the realm of public opinion. Beyond strict national security concerns, the media can also draw the anger of military personnel when they disclose information that soldiers would prefer to keep in the unit. In another case experienced by my unit, an embedded journalist published the names of soldiers whom he felt had held back during a firefight. Thankfully, the journalist came to the conclusion that his decision to release names was a mistake, and he quickly removed them from his report. Nonetheless, the damage was done, and for the rest of the deployment those soldiers lived under a dark cloud of suspicion and knew that their actions in a few brief seconds would reflect poorly on them within the unit, and to the people outside the unit who had read the report. Many soldiers in the unit also felt that their efforts in a combat zone had gone unnoticed. Having a successful military operation today means not only that military objectives have been met, but also that the people at home and in the host nation are convinced that the tide of battle is on the side of the counterinsurgents. While military personnel may not always agree with the decisions of the media, there is a realization that the military is reliant on journalists to relay events on the battlefield. There is perhaps only one thing worse than losing a war, and that is fighting a war that people at home have forgotten or have no interest in. It is these journalist that tarnish the good that the media has established ever since allowing to accompany a military unit. Those journalists that want only to bolster their self interest are dangerous. What their self interest and hiding behind the First Amendment has done is placed the United States ranking to 17th of 167 countries in the annual World Press Freedom Index. (World Press Freedom Index, 2009). The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings. It is the media’s responsibility to report the news but at the expense of national security? Our society does not view this belief so how do they justify their actions, by using the First Amendment and presenting the story so as to gain sympathetic supporters. I am not saying take away the Freedom of the press because it is the guarantee by a government for free public press for its citizens and their associations. It also extends to news gathering and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. With respect to governmental information, a government distinguishes which materials are public and which are protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified, or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974). This quote from the Court sums up what is known as the Doctrine of Military Necessity or the military-deference doctrine. The press exercises enormous power and influence over society, and has responsibilities. Journalists have access to more information than the average individual, thus the press has become the eyes, ears, and voice of the public. Therefore the press is seen as an advance in achieving human rights for all, and contributing to the development of a world of peace and prosperity for all. The caution is that those who work in the media are themselves in need of ethical guidelines to ensure that this freedom is not abused. Access to military operations first hand has always been a soft spot with the Military Soldier and their Leaders they have nothing to hide it is simply not want their families to see what they have to endure. Freedom and the American way of life is a high price for a soldier to pay, it is those who serve to preserve that right need only remember the actions during combat. It is not only the journalist that has to be controlled when it comes to sensitive information but also soldiers. With today’s technological advances in respect to online communication there has started a new set of problems and concerns for the military, as well as to those concerned with service members’ First Amendment freedoms. In the past several years servicemen and women have begun writing online journals about their experiences and opinions about the world, politics and their everyday experiences in the military. The popularity of these online journals, known as mil-blogs, has become very popular with both authors and readers. According to Milblogging.com, a database that tracks military blogs, there were more than 2,000 military blogs in 38 countries in just one month. More than 500 of them originated from the front lines of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those mil-blogs provide an important look at the war by presenting unique insights from the points of view of those who are fighting it. The Department of Defense (DOD) is of course concerned about the content of posts made in these blogs, fearing that operational security may be compromised. The commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, Lt. General John R. Vines, issued a policy memorandum concerning “Unit and Soldier Owned and Maintained Websites.” The policy required all U.S. military and DOD personnel to register their Web sites with their unit chain of command. These personnel were to provide their unit, location, Webmaster name, domain name, IP address and the company hosting the site. They were also instructed that no prohibited information was to be published. Prohibited information includes classified information, casualty information before next-of-kin notification, anything protected under the Privacy Act, information related to ongoing investigations, and “For Official Use Only” information. In addition, the unit commanders were to do a quarterly review of the registered sites to ensure compliance with the policy. The Army has since revised its regulations and added that bloggers must “consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC (Operational Security) Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.” First Amendment advocates fear that these regulations will have an alarming effect on the free speech of military personnel and result in many mil-blogs getting shut down. The military, on the other hand, insists that it has the highest respect for the First Amendment rights of its service members and that these regulations are necessary to prevent the release of sensitive information. In a further monitoring effort, the DOD created AWRAC, the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell. According to an article written by Maj. Pam Newbern for the Army News Service, “Virginia National Guard eyes Web sites, blogs,” AWRAC was created to monitor official Web sites, but this mission was expanded to include unofficial sites written by service members. Then a team of 10 Virginia National Guardsmen were activated to scan official and unofficial Army Web sites for one year looking for operational-security violations. Over that year that group looked at 878 Army-run sites and 594 soldiers’ blogs; it found 1,956 security violations on the official sites and 26 violations on the blogs, showing that official sites were more likely to violate its regulations than the soldiers’ blogs. I take the view of the soldier, we do not want to take away a right of our society, but do not present a picture of a soldier that will discredit our patriotism with our country and families. Now is the time to renegotiate the rules of engagement between the military and the media, the head of The Associated Press (AP) recently declared, "Now is the time to insist that the First Amendment does apply to the battlefield." The AP executive, CEO Tom Curley, argues that the military has "weaponized information" and that President Obama must rein in the Pentagon. "Now is the time to resist the propaganda the Pentagon produces and live up to our obligation to question authority and thereby protect our democracy," he said. "Now is the time for the media to sit down with the military and determine a workable set of ground rules that serve the American people." (Tom Curley). Soldier’s have sworn to uphold the American way of life with our lives if need be, there are acts during war that go against our moral ethical background, but we do it for our society that will discredit our actions because it is popular. This has been a soldier’s frustration throughout time, and we have remained true to our country and its values within the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. We are just simply asking for the press to stay out of a soldier’s combat life with dignity.ReferencesBrain Stelter. (June 2008). CBS, Military Court faces First Amendment dispute. New York Times. Retrieved from www.niedradecoder.blogs.nytimes.com Elana J. Zeide. (Oct 2005). In bed with the military: First Amendment implications of embedded Journalism. New York University of Law Review. Retrieved from https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.comJudge Advocate Generals School. (Oct 2001). The Flag, The First Amendment, and the Military. The Free Library Periodical. Retrieved from www.thefreelibrary.comKaren C. Sinai. (2004). Shock and Awe: Does the First Amendment protect a media right of access to military operations. Yeshiva University Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. Retrieved from https//litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.comLarry W. Booth & Christine R. MacDonald (Feb 2010), Broadcasting Operation Iraqi Freedom: The People behind cable news ethics, decisions, and gender differences. Journal of Business Ethics. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.comMosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu Worldwide press freedom index. (July 2009). Nations online. Retrieved from https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/freedom_of_press.htm |