Censorship Vs. National Security

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives many freedoms, most notable in this case, the Freedom of the Press. As James C. Goodale explains, "The founders of the United States enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press" and he also mentions that Supreme Court Chief Justice Potter Stewart referred to the creation of the First Amendment as a way to "create a fourth institution" in the checks and balances process (Goodale, 1997).

It is argued, however, that in the times of war and other conflict, this freedom is brushed aside, often times for what government officials explain as a method for defending national security. This was not always the case, as an article by the Constitutional Rights Foundation explained that while the media had, in a sense, been cheerleaders in the past for the military, starting with the Korean War, that all has changed (War in Iraq-Press Freedom vs. Military Censorship). While it seems as though the media and press could be very beneficial in educating citizens back in the United States, away from the war, and even citizens and government officials of other countries, the United States has made it evident that a press that can do as they please is not always the right form of press for America. The question then lies, how much censorship is deemed appropriate in defending national security while still giving the press ample freedom that the First Amendment gives them?

Justifying press censorship can be hard, as Doris Graber refers to it as "The high-stakes dilemma". Explaining that press freedom is "crucial in times of national crisis such as rampant terrorism or war", Graber goes on to also state the security risks press freedom causes in the form of potentially leaking out information that was designed to remain confidential. (Graber). From here, there must be a balance of protection for press freedom, but also the protection for national security for United States citizens and military forces. The restrictions on what the press can and cannot reveal has developed over time, based on not only past negative experiences, but the development of technology as well.

While technology has made leaps and bounds in advancing world culture, those same leaps and bounds also can have negative impacts, whether it be intentional or unintentional by members of the press. Technology has changed over time to the point where an average person can take their cell phone and quickly find out how the top 25 teams in college football are doing. Major television networks can more quickly set up satellite uplinks to broadcast live streaming television back to their studio, when in the past they may have been forced to record a video and then transport it to a large city where the network could then show it. Finally, there is always someone, or some organization, out there that will go against the grain in anything. In this case, there are rogue reporters that break away from military press pools and can give away what is sensitive information concerning military operations.

One of the biggest examples of rogue reporting endangering American soldiers is Geraldo Rivera. According to an article by Chris Plante in March of 2003, "Rivera instructed his photographer to tilt the camera down in the sand in front of his feet so he could draw a map [of Iraq and United States troop movements]" (Plante, 2003). Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman was reported as saying "the commander felt that he [Rivera] had compromised operational information" (Plante, 2003) in explaining why the 101^st Airborne Division had to escort Rivera out of the country. Essentially, what Rivera did was took the information he had been informed of and then purposefully tried to relay that information back on not just to Fox News back in the United States, but because of the rapid spread of information, he basically broadcasted that to the world. Something to consider about this event in Rivera's defense, however, is how well can someone draw a map in the sand in a desert? Many would argue that drawing pictures in the sand is nothing that could cause that much damage. While Rivera's drawing may have been of bad detail and not to scale, the government responded on it because the fact that information such as this could leak out, no matter through what medium, was something that worried United States officials and made them want to make sure everyone knew they would not tolerate this.

It is clear that the media, in some way, is able to establish a strong and close connection with the viewer in the case of terrorism. Alex Schmid explains how this connection is so strong, writing "We are all victims of terrorism as it is constructed for us by the mass media, our primary and usually only source of information" (Schmid, 1992). Schmid continues by explaining that there is little rationale for our actions following news about a terrorist attack, as "it is more likely that we will be killed by lightning than by terrorists" (Schmid, 1992). Part of the reasoning for this is the way the media covers the event. Viewers often feel that what they are seeing could happen to them when they see acts of terror, but if they watch the news every night, there are bank robberies and car accidents, yet that seems to have less of an impact on people. The problem arises, however, when the media tries to establish too close of a connection with a viewer, one that compromises the safety of American soldiers and American lives abroad.

Censorship of the press by military officials is something that is not just a 21^st century concept as the Department of Defense created censorship rules for journalists involved in the Persian Gulf War and released those on January 8, 1991. The backbone of the censorship at that time was reliant on military censors to perform security reviews on all reports. Neil Lewis, a special writer in 1991 for the New York Times, reported that this was to analyze "whether reports contain information that would jeopardize an operation" (Lewis, 1991). This does not mean that journalists at the time were upset about this, as Andrew J. Glass, the Cox Newspaper Group Washington bureau chief was reported saying "I'm not against stringent rules...Experience shows that if people are given a clear set of rules...they will follow them" (Lewis, 1991). Members of the media were nervous though, that the military censors may take advantage of their power or be hesitant to let any information out.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists eleven years later, in 2002, the rules imposed for the Persian Gulf War caused Americans to not have "a full understanding of how the Gulf War was waged", which "served neither the military nor the public and it is a mistake that should not be repeated" (Society of Professional Journalists, 2002). America has turned into a society in which as soon as someone mentions something about a terrorist attack or a war, they instantly turn to online reports, television reports or the newspaper-all forms of the media, all of which fall under censorship guidelines when referring to press censorship.

It is also important to note that censorship by the government is not just used on the press, but on its own troops as well. According to a March 2005 report by Irene Wielawski, internet kill switches were being installed and used on United States Military information networks in Iraq. Essentially what this meant that if there had been an attack on allied forces in Iraq, a series of deaths, or something serious in nature, a senior military officer would be able to simply "pull the plug" on the communications networks, preventing not only soldiers, but embedded journalists from being able to communicate outside of the area they were currently in. Something else the report mentions, though, is that cellular phones are harder to control, as they send signals through local Iraqi communication networks, which cannot be controlled by the aforementioned kill switches (Wielawski, 2005). This also helps control panic that is caused, by attempting to keep soldiers and journalists from being able to broadcast a tragedy before the next-of-kin of any killed soldiers are notified.

The side of the story that often goes unnoticed and unappreciated however, is the amount of information that the United States government allows to be transmitted. While censorship generally carries a negative connotation, there have been many steps the government has taken in an attempt to be both reasonable but fair to the press. Some of the rules imposed for embedded journalists and media members for the Iraq War include 4.B. of the "Ground Rules for Journalists Embedded with US Forces during the Iraq War" which states "Print or broadcast stories will be datelined according to local ground rules" (Official Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, 2003). While this may seem trivial and something very insignificant in comparison to "internet kill switches" and other available communication silencers, it actually is quite important. Often times press releases, not just in the military, but in the business world as well, are prepared ahead of time, but there is a stipulation as to when the information can be released. For example, in the Iraq War, perhaps a military officer gives a reporter information regarding a planned attack on a specific region. Then, they stipulate that the information cannot be released until a certain time. This would then allow the journalist to prepare a story to release once the agreed upon time came, rather than having to wait. While this may not quite seem like censorship, it is in the fact that it allows the journalist access to sensitive information, but it prevents them from sharing it until a certain time.

Under section 4.F. of the same rules, the military also permits embedded members of the media to disclose the location of military targets that have previously been attacked (4.F.5), the number of enemy soldiers captured, so long as the numbers have been confirmed (4.F.3) and what branches of the armed forces are involved (4.F.10), as well as several other items that are often seen online and on television (Official Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, 2003).

However, just as the military makes concessions to allow the press their freedom, they also have to restrict numerous amounts of information, including any photography that may show security levels at military bases (4.G.8), specific numbers of troops, planes or ships in their respective units (4.G.1, 4.G.2, 4.G.4), as well as explaining what the Americans know about how effective enemy electronic warfare components are (4.G.14), as that could tip off the enemy to what we know about their technology. In addition, to preserve upmost secrecy, it is also prohibited for the media to release information about postponed or cancelled operations (4.G.15) (Official Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, 2003). While it is unmentioned as to why the media cannot release information regarding operations that did not take place, it is quite possible that those missions may have been set aside for future plans.

Even by quick glance of the rules, it is evident that the government has established more restrictions on the embedded media members than the amount press freedom they have given them. However, it is fair to also note that the military is not overseas fighting a war for the glory and to see who can get the most press coverage. Rather, the military is overseas on various missions to not only preserve American freedom, but to aid in assisting other people in the world gain their freedom. It seems as though the United States government is in favor of embedded journalists not only to keep the American people informed of what their fellow citizens are doing, but also to keep the journalists in the safest conditions possible. In addition, the more obvious reason for allowing embedded media members is to keep them close to military officers that can ensure only appropriate information is broadcasted.

These rules, however, were established in 1991, well before 9/11, the war on terror in Afghanistan, the current war in Iraq and even years before the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. All of these, whether they are domestic conflicts or wars overseas, have changed how the military operates in different situations. Likewise, in the media, significant advances have been made. Just since the turn of the 21^st century, the number of internet users has increased by about 26 percent in the United States (Miniwatts Marketing Group, 2007). These are startling statistics, as the way people access their information has changed, in addition to how the news is reported. However, the rules regarding media censorship has not seemed to evolve as quickly. While there are most likely some more freedoms for the media, the fact remains that the way the media reports and how the media is used develops more and more each day. Rules that were made even a year ago may need to be revised due to new developments in military conflicts and in technological advances.

The United States Army has a website for its Public Affairs division that does a good job of educating not only the media, but the average citizen as well. While the Public Affairs division would also serve in censoring the media, often times in conjunction with commanding officers in various regions, their job is also to "keep the American people and the Army informed, and helps to establish the conditions that lead to confidence in America's Army and its readiness to conduct operations in peacetime, conflict and war" (The United States Army, 2006). From this website, there is information regarding not only where current United States Army missions are going on, but also information on what they refer to as "Future Combat Systems", ranging from unmanned vehicles to new troop transportation vehicles (The United States Army, 2006). While often times the military gets a bad rap, so to speak, for the amount of censorship they do and have done in the past, they also provide the press with a lot of information to use.

Censorship is a topic that, whenever it is used, will have supporters and those who oppose it. While censorship of the press seems to violate First Amendment rights of the United States Constitution, the government also has the responsibility of protecting its citizens. It appears that what rules and regulations have been established are both fair to the media and work well for the government in protecting the United States citizens, as well as members of the United States military forces both state-side and abroad. Often times, it simply requires some common sense from the members of the media, such as the case in Geraldo Rivera where he got in trouble for talking about future troop movement. Obviously, that is sensitive information and should not be revealed. However, he could have spent time on his show reporting what the 101^st Airborne Division had done in the previous week or how the troops had been passing the time each day-something that is less sensitive information. It also seems that, especially for the embedded journalists, it is possible to easily access a military officer, such as a public affairs officer or commanding officer, to find out if the information they have is acceptable to be released. Censorship will always be an issue in regards to national security, as there will always be information that cannot be shared, can be shared with restrictions or information that the media will never know. It is how censorship is dealt with, by both the government and the media, that truly shows just how rules need to be created and adjusted, based on past, present and current issues.

Bibliography

Goodale, J. C. (1997). The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press. Issues of Democracy, 2 (1), 4.

Graber, D. A. Styles of image management during crises: justifying press censorship. Discourse & Society, 14 (5), 539-557.

Lewis, N. A. (1991, January 8). CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; Pentagon Issues Press Rules Authorizing Military Censors. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from The New York Times Online: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DB1030F93BA35752C0A967958260

Miniwatts Marketing Group. (2007). United States Internet Usage, Broadband and Telecommunications Reports. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from Internet World Stats: http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm

Official Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. (2003). Public Affiars Guidance (PAG) on embedding media. The Department of Defense. Washington D.C.: The Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Plante, C. (2003, March 31). Military kicks Geraldo out of Iraq. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from CNN.com-WORLD: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.geraldo/

Schmid, A. P. (1992). Terrorism and the Media: Freedom of Information vs. Freedom of Intimidation. In L. Howard, & L. Howard (Ed.), Terrorism: Roots, Impact, Responses (pp. 95-117). New York, New York, United States of America: Praeger.

Society of Professional Journalists. (2002, December 19). Journalism Coalition Seeks Open and Independent Reporting of Military Campaigns. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from SPJ News: http://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=304

The United States Army. (2006, November 8). Army Public Affairs. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from The United States Army: http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/

War in Iraq-Press Freedom vs. Military Censorship. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2007, from Constitutional Rights Foundation: http://www.crf-usa.org/Iraqwar_html/iraqwar_press.html

Wielawski, I. M. (2005, March 15). For Troops, Home Can Be Too Close. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from The New York Times Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/health/psychology/15fami.html?_r=1&oref=slogin