This book is the first about military-media relations to argue for a fundamental restructuring of national journalism and the first to document the failure of American journalism in the national security field for the past thirty years. Press complaints of excessive control by the military during the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91 were the inevitable result of the failure of American journalism to train competent specialists in military reporting and to provide an organizational structure that would assure continuing, comprehensive coverage of national defense in peace and war. This, in turn, is the result of retaining the city-room concept as the basic organizational feature of the press, with continuing reliance on the generalist in an age that demands increasingly well-trained specialists. So long as the press fails to modernize its basic methods of training to assure well-trained defense specialists, the military will be required to closely control reporters, as in the Persian Gulf War, as a basic requirement of security for armed forces members and the national interests. Permitting the military to control how the military itself is reported is a grave danger to the democratic process. Yet, so long as the press refuses to accept responsibility for large-scale reform, the public will continue to support close military control as an essential element of safety for its sons and daughters in the armed forces, and out of concern for the success of U.S. military operations. This book will be of interest to students of the press, of the military, and of the media at large.

The first comprehensive study of the contentious issue of the public's right to know in time of war or limited conflict. The book traces the uneasy relations between the military and a generally unprepared and gullible media, from the Crimea to the present day. It shows how the advent of nuclear warfare has outlawed the nationalistic wars of survival of the past, and freed the citizen from his age-old obligations in time of war, able to make up his or her own mind on the merits of the situation. It is here that the battle lies, in the struggle for public opinion as a necessary precursor to war. This book details how the military discovered the secret of media and public manipulation in the Falklands, tested it in Grenada, and refined it in Panama before deploying it in all its glory during the Gulf. This book is essential reading for every soldier and journalist, or any student of military history as it points the way to the future.

During what some have called the 'most televised war in history, ' did journalistic objectivity fall by the wayside? Were the experiences of embedded journalists in Iraq markedly different from reporters who went on their own? Reporting from the Front is a provocative look at media and the Iraq War-spanning issues from basic reporting and coverage to ethical dilemmas, personal safety, and training with the military. Featuring interviews with journalists such as Anne Garrels and Ivan Watson of NPR and Bob Schieffer and Byron Pitts of CBS, among others, Reporting from the Front offers personal insights from a wide range of correspondents, producers, editors, photojournalists, media managers, and military and defense officials about reporting on Iraq as well as on previous wars and other conflicts

This book examines the practices of actors involved in the media reportage of war, and the ways in which these practices may influence the conduct of modern military operations. War is a complex phenomenon which raises numerous questions about the organization of society that continue to challenge all those involved in its study. Increasingly, this includes the need to engage theoretically and empirically with the progressive collapse between the ways in which wars are conducted and the manner in which they are reported in the media. Drawing on the work of Erving Goffman, Military Media Management offers a distinctly new approach to our appreciation of the dynamic relationship between war and media; one that is fundamentally a product of social relations between those engaged in reporting war, and those conducting war campaigns. By exploring how and why the military manage information in particular ways, the text succeeds in providing a framework through which wider sociological investigation of this relationship can be understood. This book will be of much interest to students of military and security studies, media studies, war and conflict studies and IR in general.

Søgeord: Military and Media; Militæret og Medierne; Misinformation; TV; Royal Navy; RAF; News; Press; Objektivitet; Defence Public Relations Service; Censorship; BBC; British Army; Journalisme; Public Opinion; Iranian Embassy Siege; Ulster; Krigsreportage;

The republics of Greece and Rome proved incapable of waging war effectively and remaining free at the same time. The record of modern republics is not much more encouraging. How, then, did the United States manage to emerge victorious from the world wars of this century, including the Cold War, and still retain its fundamental liberties? For Karl-Friedrich Walling, this unprecedented accomplishment was the work of many hands and many generations, but of Alexander Hamilton especially. No Founder thought more about the theory and practice of modern war and free government. None supplied advice of more enduring relevance to statesmen faced with the responsibility of providing for the common defense while securing the blessings of liberty to their posterity. Hamilton's strategic sobriety led many of his contemporaries to view him as an American Caesar, but this revisionist account calls the conventional "militarist" interpretation of Hamilton into question. Hamilton sought to unite the strength necessary for war with the restraint required by the rule of law, popular consent, and individual rights. In the process, he helped found something new, the world's most durable republican empire. Walling constructs a conversation about war and freedom between Hamilton and the Loyalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Jeffersonians, and other Federalists. Instead of pitting Hamilton's virtues against his opponents' vices (or vice versa), Walling pits Hamilton's virtue of responsibility against the revolutionary virtue of vigilance, a quarrel he believes is inherent to American party government. By reexamining that quarrel in light of the necessities of war and the requirements of liberty, Walling has written the most balanced and moving account of Hamilton so far.