E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
In the immediate aftermath of the firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for that explosive article in Rolling Stone Magazine, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has issued a memo that clamps down on future media interviews which will clearly have a chilling effect on media engagements, particularly with senior military officers.
In the memo, entitled, "INTERACTION WITH THE MEDIA" Gates says he's "concerned that the [Defense] Department has grown lax in how we engage with the media, often in contravention of established rules and procedures." In an apparent attempt to control the message, Gates has now ordered that all interview requests from the media that have "possible national or international implications," which is pretty much everything the Pentagon press corps covers, must first be submitted to Pentagon Public Affairs for review and consultation.
Pentagon Public Affairs Officer Col. David LaPan insists these new controls are for consultation and recommendations only, and not to exert "veto" power over any requests. But in reality if the Pentagon advises against a particular media engagement that would amount to a de facto veto. It could also stand in the way of public accountability. Many senior military officers worried about their own career could easily hold up the secretary's memo as good reason for not talking to the media and, in turn, the American public.
LaPan also says the decision to take this step was taken by Gates himself, not a suggestion from the White House, and also claims the steps ordered here are only intended to "reinforce what is current policy" regarding military-media contacts.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell says Gates took this extraordinary step because he felt "too many people were talking too often about too many subjects without coordination and discipline" and insists it has nothing to do with censorhip.
Gates has often told military leaders and service members, "The press is not the enemy and to treat it as such is self-defeating." But his recent memo comes not only on the heels of the McChrystal debacle, but just as Gates has expressed frustration over the negative news coverage of the stalled war in Afghanistan.
Leave a Comment:
Think Progress:
Prominent conservatives and Republicans in Congress have been attacking RNC chair Michael Steele and calling for his ouster after Steele’s recent comments that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, conservative Pat Buchanan complained about the right’s reaction. “What bothers me is the effort here I think to force a position on the Republican Party before they’ve gone through their primary process,” Buchanan said, and addressed former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor about the foolish right-wing charge to wage war in Iraq:
Time’s Mark Halperin came to Senor’s defense, asking, “Why aren’t you asking him if we’re safer with Saddam Hussein gone?” “Yeah, thank you, Mark,” Senor said, then asking Buchanan, “Would we have been safer if Saddam Hussein were in power?” Surprisingly, when Buchanan offered a suggestion as to why the U.S. is perhaps not safer, Senor called his argument “legitimate”:
Man, I can't stand Halperin. Is he serious asking this question?!? Afghanistan was the war Mark, after September 11th. Hussein and Iraq was NOT. Everybody knows this except you. Sorry, but this guy Halperin is an idiot. Wasn't it Halperin the other day saying President Obama should take lots of time for himself, except he shouldn't play golf?
Who the hell is he to tell the President what he can and can't do to relax? Whether the president swims, plays basketball, poker or golf - is HIS business to decide, not Halperin's.
Some of these self-important media tv camera lovers are ridiculous.
Are we safer WITHOUT Hussein? You.have.got.to.be.kidding.me.
Right On PAT: I voted!
Amen, Pat. I'm afraid these people actually start believing the talking points they spout. And for the military to limit access to the press--which is really access to the American people---who do they think they work for and who pays for the war? I admire our troops endlessly but the military leadership of this country leaves a lot to be desired as far as I'm concerned.
Given the Liar-in-Chief's COMPLETE lack of "transparency"
I doubt Obama could see Russia . . . from Russia.
Well said. I caught that conversation this morning. For all Pat Buchanan's often strange logic, he was always against starting the Iraq War and he isn't afraid to say so. And he's right about the Steele comment, inaccurate as it was. Bill Krystol, Dan Senor and that crowd are neoconservative fools--they're actually proud of their efforts to start the Iraq War. In my view, they are a greater menace to this country than Saddam Hussein ever was.
I was so annoyed at Halperin Friday for his comments about the President not playing golf. The whole conversation is silly; it was silly when it was about Bush and it is silly now. I seriously doubt most Americans give it a second thought. In this tech savvy age, people get that the Pres has 24/7 communications, and a 24/7 job so if he plays golf or attends a concert, he deserves a couple hours downtime. Michael Smerconish was right about that and Halperin sounded petty and stupid.
Of course we aren't safer with Saddam Hussein gone. He had no nuclear weapons program, his army was rag tag, his air force a force in name only and -- most important of all -- he was hated by al Qa'eda (Osama bin Laden called him an apostate), wouldn't permit the development of a rival power center headed by jihadists, and he kept Iran in check.
What we managed to do by invading Iraq was destabilize the fragile balance in a volatile geographic region and precipitate a civil war in Iraq that lasted years and is still not finished.
Are we safer without Saddam Hussein?
Who's kidding whom?
Talk about a bull's eye. Voted.
Steeler Fan - If you want to know what's going on in the field join the military, otherwise step aside and let them do their job without the biased press throwing barbs and lies about them. Never had much use for reporters. I went in person to get the REAL truth.
Why do senior military officials need to have media interviews anyway? What purpose does this serve. Questions can be directed to Gates or to Patreaus. There is no need to question any other senior military official. They should know that most senior military officials are going to sugar-coat the situation to a degree anyway. What are they going to say? That we are getting our butts kicked? And if any legitmate news organization does not want to depend solely on what they hear from Gates or Patreaus then they should send and embed a few of their own folks among the grunts on the gorund in places like Afghainsitan to see what is truly going down. That is where the real story is and how to get it.
Yeah, and if we'd "relied" on McNamara and Westmoreland for all our information during Vietnam we'd STILL be engaged there. It's called the truth, which I would personally rather have than pro-Pentagon spin.
CA, I agree with you. Furthermore do we need CNN on the beach heads when our troops come ashore? In a world where anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law or other venue....these guys do not need to talk to the press. They simply need to file their reports and follow the chain of command. If the Commader in Chief wants to talk to the press...so be it
I want to tighten the media myself. Everyone is trying to have a 'gotcha' moment. It's getting so out of control that the only thing the media accomplishes anymore these days is giving arrogant ignorance air time.
I'm all for the pentagon putting the media in check, they let the enemy know every move we make by putting the administration in the blinding light of their cameras.
Transparency is a need to know tool and we need not know everything. Only the Republicants cry wolf only to be eaten by the wolf when it really matters.
LouisJ: "I want to tighten the media myself. Everyone is trying to have a 'gotcha' moment. It's getting so out of control that the only thing the media accomplishes anymore these days is giving arrogant ignorance air time".
I agree 1000%. I have thought for a long time that all the media does is give our enemies important information that could be used against our troops. I am not saying to censor them completely but I do believe that some of the info that the media prints should be left to those whose responsibility it is to answer to the public. Afterall, the media's role is to report and not give opinions, and their opinions are formed according to whatever the going trend is for that particular day. Even after we know everything what could we do about it? Nothing but get others worked up about who is right or who is wrong. Media, leave opinions out of the equations and report please.
Totally agree.
How many times does a journalist quote "an undisclosed person", "...not able to dicuss the ..", "..doesn't have the authority to ..."
So, because some loud mouth jerk can't keep a secret, it's OK for the media to print it?
Agree on that. Look at the two weeks of empty discussion on whether Pres Obama was angry enough at BP.
Gates is merely re-enforcing existing procedures. Journalists must have permission to embed with military units and for interviews--it's always been that way. Not all journalists are responsible. Wasn't it Heraldo Rivera who revealed a military unit's exact "classified" location pointing it out on a map on air during the lead up to the Iraq war?
Once upon a time senior military officers were smart enough to carefully weigh their words when talking to the press. There were exceptions like Gen. George Patton, but most knew they would get in trouble if they misspoke.
Somewhat related: During the Viet Nam era, we would get nightly, gruesome reports from Viet Nam. I place no value judgment on the reporting of Viet Nam, but those firefights were on the network news nightly. Since then wars have been sanitized. Yes, there are embedded journalists and perhaps I am naively assuming that they are relatively free to write their stories. I don't know. I look to CA for his thoughts on the matter.
I guess while the Pentagon wishes to tighten media controls, I wonder if we are getting enough information to make an intelligent assessment? Like...are we winning or losing and what is the departure plan.
We are leaving in August 2011. The Pentagon tightened media controls because a REPORTER did not recognize the importance of his assignment. You DO NOT print personal comments by senior officers.
They are citizens also and are entitled to thoughts that are not part of the chain of command. Did any Officer not follow any command from the National Command Authority. Of course not.
A single reporter got his 8 seconds of fame. How many people really care who he is and what he did?
Agree. During Vietnam, every night brought a death toll along with the gruesome pictures; a weekly count of dead soldiers. We wondered if it was anyone we knew or one of our family members. We saw the body bags and the caskets. Bush 41 stopped allowing visual pictures of our dead soldiers' caskets; finally, at least the families make the decision. If we do not see what is happening in a war every day and we do not see the human cost in caskets, the wars become less relevant to our thinking because it affects such a small number of our population. I didn't like the draft but that draft made war real to everyone. My guess is that if the draft had been reinstated, we would have finished the Afghan War and never headed to Iraq.
Ah yes the mantra of the corrupt tyrants is always to muzzle the media. Nothing but a bunch of tyrants in the Pentagon who wish to hide their nefarious ways in Iraq and Afghanistan, no wonder we're still stuck in a losing morass in Afghanistan. General BetrayUs McChrystal was stupid to not limit his 2 day interview with the Rolling Stone's journalist to the two days agreed upon. If he was so stupid to let the reporter run around with notepad and tape recorder for a whole month then he deserves the punishment he got for forgetting the sage saying that "Loose Lips Sink Ships".
Goofball Gates sure hasn't forgotten his mantra from War Criminals Bush and Cheney that his military had better not get off message. The sooner Obama gets rid of BushBaby Gates the better off our military will be as he has done nothing to wrap up the problem in Afghanistan. Time for Obama to stop appeasing the Neo-Nazi crowd of rightwing cheapskate chickenhawks and bring our troops back home where they belong. If the rightwing cheapskate chickenhawks don't want to raise taxes to pay for their neverending war then it's time to pull the plug on their military adventures that do nothing but waste Americans lives and treasure.
Say idiot:
Don't you sit on your fat azz and collect a Government check every month? I think you're full of sh!t, you never served because those that have served would never say some of the BS you spew.
Texas, I agree with you and for all its worth - Semper Fi
Reminiscent of the Pentagon Papers, the current Secretary of Defense alarmed at the leaking of classified intelligence by both active duty and civilian employees issued a memo on Friday July 2, 2010 which ordered all those folks plotting and planning to have interaction between themselves and the media must be cleared by the Defense Departments Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, "prior to interviews or any other means of media and public engagement with possible national or international implications."
While the General McChrystal's Rolling Stone magazine interview violated Tile 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, causing him to be relieved of command, it was vital for the American people to know that the top dog running military ops in Afghanistan did not agree with the policies of the President (Commander-in-Chief), and members of his hood in the White House. Why, because the inmates (the military), don't run the asylum. Congress does, at least that is what Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution states.
The July 2 Gates memo is just another attempt by the Department of Defense to cover its ass when things go wrong in wars. Events more related to debacles such as the recent one regarding Army Spec. Bradley Manning who was arrested for leaking classified video footage of a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship killing innocent civilians in Iraq back in 2007. The military is determined to squash these stories just as they attempted to suppress the Abu Ghraib torture fiesta, the torture of suspected Taliban in Afghanistan back in 2002, and black ops such as Operation Phoenix in Vietnam.
The U.S. Military mind set on the field of battle is no different than those of the Germans, The Vikings, The Greeks, or the Romans. Military mindset is wound around kill them, grill them or bride them. Public vetting of events such as these must be squashed by the Department of Defense. The DoD asserts, this is for national security reasons, that we the people are not entitled to know what the military is doing in foreign lands, even though we foot the bill.
How much access to the media did Patton, Eisenhower, Pershing, Grant, Lee, Sherman, Shalikasvili, Schwartzkopf et al have? That should be our guide.
It's not about how much access, but about what they are able to print in back and white
"Pretty much everything the Pentagon press corps covers, must first be submitted to Pentagon Public Affairs for review and cconsultation."
The Liar-in-Chief first suppresses all information on the Gulf oil spill--no cameras, private planes, interviews of the Union flunkies (the only clean up Obmaa permits in the region, FORGET SKIMMERS) or other negative information.
NOW the Liar-in-Chief turns to suppressing information about Obama's VIET NAM he OWNS.
SO MUCH FOR THE MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVER.
What a liar and criminal we have for a President
"What a liar and criminal we have for a President"
Ya know, I won't argue that point about our current administration, but what does that say about the last administration? Far more dishonest (liars) and criminal in my opinion (see violation of FISA laws, Geneva convention, etc.) Of course, Obama may still catch him in terms of illegality.
Madison, didn't Gates say the President had nothing to do with this decision! I thought he said it was "his" decision and they were working on it for a while. It's ok for you to have your opinion but at least use factual info to make your point.
"Factual info" regardless of what Gates said, you really can't believe everything the government tells the media is "factual". It is likely despite what "factual info" is present our commander in chief had a hand in this.
What do you propose Madison? Free run of the press in wartime areas? When troops get killed because some rating seeking reporter gives up a location, can we come to you for help? Rolling Stone sure had our troops at heart when they published that article. Way to show the enemy a weakness at our highest military levels.
For people that have not served, it is hard for them to understand that the press often does more harm than good for the troops.
Viewed from a Strategic Prospective, not a tactical one, anyone in the military or one of its civilian employees who has knowledge of illegal military activities has a duty to the citizens of this nation to blow the whistle on the bums.
Define illegal activities, it's ALL relative. You can't try battle field conditions in a peacetime court.
Careful,censorship is right around the corner.
I think it is important for the American people to receive regular journalist updates from reporters like Richard Engel on the Afghan and Iraq wars; I would not want to see that stopped. As it is, the nightly news barely mentions either war unless something bad happens or someone visits there. I also think the military should have some say in the interview process with top commanders like McChrystal; we saw the damage than can happen when a top commander forgets his leadership role and ignores that the media's cameras or tapes are rolling. What is acceptable grumbling (most of us grumble about jobs, the boss, the company) between co-workers is not something we would want published so I can understand Gates view that having disagreements part of the news is not good.
Speaking of visits to the war zones, I see the Three Muskateers (McCain, Lieberman, Graham) were visiting last week. Are those guys attached at the hip?
did you hear they just issued an edict that says that no press can independently go to the gulf to see and report on the oil spill. Now the press has to go through the white house, and if anyone tries to go down there and see for themselves they will be arrested and fined 40,000?
Cover it Up ?Vet. Nam all over again. Remember the Fake Body Counts, you don't need to change the truths if your winning. All you Mothers, better watch out for your Sons &&& Daughters.
Well, regardless of the intentions of the well meaning the result is that a single office will now have the authority to determine what information is made public, or how much information is kept from the public and exactly how that information will be made known. They sure do not seem to mind when we talk about the specifics of our military and foreign policy strategies but heaven forbid there be any accountability of extremely powerful central government, the most powerful of which has become the executive branch, which I am pretty sure was the last thing many of our founding fathers wanted, except Adams and Hamilton, naturally...Another victory for the state run media establishment and another nail in the coffin of constitutional checks and balances that were designed to protect the people from just such as this. A bloated beauracracy whose only goal is to continue to exist, to the point of having to make up stuff to do, and make up bad guys to fight. Gotta love the Military industrial Complex, well Eisenhower warned us..
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I favor a free and unfettered press, at war and at peace, whichever party is in power...
So you're in favor of the media possibly giving away troop positions or missions at the expense of our troops lives?
Sure blame the media and sensor them for a general speaking out on the lack of leadership in our government, maybe this was all staged so they could take away free speach!!!!
Not about censorship? Then what else would it be?
ANYONE should be able to exercise free speech-even if what they have to say is critical, unpopular, unbecoming, or just plain wrong.
What the hell is wrong with this country?!?!
He was probably going to retire anyway and they told him hey on you're way out we will give you a bonus we just need you to say somethings that way we could sensor the media you know because of the bugie man - terrorists!
You don't actually believe this do you? Generals are Generals because they know about strategic planning, McChrystal was brilliant! He says some @ssed up thing then steps down and Petraeus takes over, absolutely brilliant! Petraeus won't take any guff from anyone, and I guarantee we will see some real change and turn-arounds in Afghanistan now.
typical knee jerk reaction of this administration...
there are PA officials at every level - - now they all have to go to the Pentagon?
yeah, rule from above and from one point of failure
McCrystal? Wake up America, he was trying to tell you something...
Yep...censor all bad news....especially about the part where the Americans are losing the war in Afghanistan......
Couldn't have said it better!!!!
COMMIE CENSORSHIP!!!! The Pentagon claims to be fighting for freedom, however they act like a bunch of COMMUNISTS when it comes to freedom of the press.
Gates the Military Dictator of America says, screw you, no freedom of the press. Who voted this a$$hole as president?
Did anyone notice that HAMAS is doing the same thing. Birds of a feather/
Just a shout-out to Rachel Maddow.
While I sometimes get frustrated by her joking while civilization quietly and relentlessly moves toward oblivion, and sometimes taking what to me seems to be knee-jerk & one-sided liberal views toward more complex issues, I think she's reached her calling with her commentary from Afghanistan.
She is extremely adroit at asking the right questions of the right people over there in order to provide us stateside viewers with a more accurate picture of "what's going on over there", what the skinny is (& why) than we can get anywhere else on the tube.
MSNBC could do far worse than make Rachel your chief war correspondence. In my opinion, she's much better at reporting than she is hosting.
We're losing? Really? And you would know this how? You ever been there? What FOB were you at?
You seem to be an expert, or are you just another civilian blowhard who dont know is @ss from his elbow?
Funny in the American Conservative the same week that the story broke about McChrystal there was an article published that had far more damning evidence that proved our Military and Govt. knew about prisoners of war in Vietnam. It was said that the Vietnamese kept prisoners for collaratal just in case the United States backed out of paying promised war reparations. Congress nixed the payments and wa-la the Vietnamese had our prisoners. I am sad to think McChrystal would talk to a journalist from Rolling Stone Magazine, because it is after all Rolling Stone Magazine known for it's anti-war and hippie journalism, not that there is anything wrong with that but what it comes down to is watching what the other hand is doing and I think our National Press dropped the ball on one of the most important issues from the late 70's and 80's about our Prisoners of War in Vietnam. This should be an outrage but hey why not read a story in a magazine with a tart on the cover and a damning article of the highest ranking field general we have in a war that has almost been forgotten just like our Prisoners in Vietnam.