'Embedding' Leads To Restrictions p.10

By: DEBRA GERSH HERNANDEZ

JOURNALISTS WHO SPEND more than 24 hours with U.S. troops in Bosnia now must consider everything they see and hear as being "on background," unless they have specific permission to quote a soldier.
The so-called "Ricks Rule" was named for Wall Street Journal reporter Thomas E. Ricks, whose quotes from Army Col. Gregory Fontenot ? particularly of him telling two African-American soldiers that Croatians are racists ? created a stir.
Ricks had been "embedded" with Fontenot and his troops and produced a colorful profile, in which the racism comment was itself embedded in the story.
The reaction, however, was swift, ultimately leading to implementation of the rule.
During a Department of Defense briefing at the Pentagon, Kenneth Bacon, assistant secretary of defense/public affairs, said the decision was made by him and Col. Mark Brzozowski in Tusla.
"We were facing some resistance to embedding reporters in units," Bacon said.
"It was the feeling on my part ? and also on Col. Brzozowski's part, but I took the initiative here and I'll take the credit or blame for it ? that it was not reasonable to expect sergeants, privates, colonels, majors, anybody in this unit, to be on guard and talking on the record 24 hours a day in all situations," he said.
"What was reasonable," Bacon continued, "was to give reporters an opportunity to go and live with the unit and get a feel and a taste for how that unit operates and the problems they're dealing with."
"And if that reporter wanted to report comments, observations and analysis on the record that it was reasonable to ask that reporter to go to the person and say I would like to sit down and interview you on the record, just as when you sit down with a source, you clear the ground rules," Bacon said.
Noting that he believes "it's just a matter of fundamental courtesy that people be given a right to decide whether they're going to talk for a quotation or not," Bacon said the previous system made "it very difficult for a soldier, particularly a soldier unschooled in dealing with the media, to make that decision. . . . This is, I think, a clearer set of standards for both the reporters and for people in the military."
Upon further questioning from reporters, however, Bacon conceded that the change was requested not by soldiers, but rather "primarily from the commanders" and from "the people who represent the commanders."
Bacon said he believed the new rule was the most sensible way to balance the needs of the media and of the military.
Not a single journalist interviewed for this story agreed.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel bureau chief Frank Aukofer ? who last year produced a comprehensive report on the media and the military with retired U.S. Navy Adm. William P. Lawrence ? is a great proponent of embedding reporters with troops, but he said this rule "runs counter to the whole idea of embedding people with these troops."
"It sounds to me like they're regressing," Aukofer said of the military. "The whole point of the new way of going about public affairs in the military was to take your lumps, if necessary, and only worry about things in cases of national security."
Noting the importance of the bonding that occurs when reporters are embedded with troops, Aukofer added that "the people in the news business have to exercise a bit of discretion and not deliberately target news sources."
Aukofer also was concerned that the Pentagon unilaterally imposed the new rule without consulting news bureau chiefs or others in the media.
"You don't institute these sort of things unless it's by mutual agreement," he said. "You don't just unilaterally jump in and say, 'We don't like how that works. . . .
"Any time the military unilaterally establishes restrictions on the press, it sends a signal to all the military people that, 'We don't trust these guys,' " Aukofer commented.
"The solution is one we've always had," he said. "Sit down with the news media and the military and come to a common-sense agreement."
Wall Street Journal bureau chief Alan Murray pointed out that the reportedly troublesome comment "was a quote embedded in the story" that was reported in context and was not blown out of proportion ? and "nobody claimed there was anything inaccurate."
Calling the regulation "bad policy" and "a mistake on the part of the military," Murray commented that it is the journalist's job to report what he sees and hears.
"Sometimes people see things written they don't like, and they react. Here, they reacted by restricting access," he said.
Meanwhile, Murray said, Ricks is back in Bosnia and "doing just fine."
Hearst Newspapers Washington bureau chief Chuck Lewis called the rule "outrageous" and "not enforceable," and said instead of calling it "Ricks Rule," he refers to it as "the Fontenot Rule."
Lewis, who participated in many of the meetings between bureau chiefs and Pentagon officials to correct problems stemming from the Persian Gulf war, said there was no warning about the policy change.
"This is a unilateral change in the ground rules, and it clearly reflects Col. Fontenot's embarrassment ? that's the only word ? at being accurately quoted in a very dispassionate way," Lewis remarked.
"It's not 'gotcha' journalism," he added. "The Ricks piece was a wonderfully written slice of Bosnia, and buried down deep in it, in totally nonsensational treatment, was the Fontenot statement about racism and the Croats."
Lewis said the new rule "is going to make embedding totally unattractive to reporters, if we're expected to live up to this crazy rule, which I believe is unenforceable."
The new rule "is a total overreaction to a single isolated incident where they were embarrassed by somebody not practicing gotcha journalism," he said.
"Now, what we've done is moved from ground rules based on operational security to ground rules based on embarrassing commanding officers," he said. "The first time there is an embarrassment to a commanding officer, the Pentagon unilaterally runs out and changes the ground rules. Now, in addition to operational security, they're based on the principle that commanders should not be embarrassed in print."
Further, Lewis noted, "This policy is guaranteed to raise the use of anonymity to outrageous heights."
If the Department of Defense tries "to enforce this rule, it's going to deter news coverage, and it's going to discourage the assignment of reporters for long-term spans with a unit."
The result, Lewis continued, is that "morale on the part of the troops is going to be adversely affected."
"As every commander knows," he said, "a reporter serves as an unofficial morale officer for the unit, because a reporter's presence is a symbol to the troops that what they're doing is important and that the American public is following their presence there and their welfare."
Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz was embedded with the 30th medical brigade and said that at the outset, when he was first introduced, he explained that everything was on the record, unless otherwise agreed upon.
"I was with the unit. I was a part of the unit," Gertz said. "I thought that people were extremely candid. The way they looked at it was, if there was something they didn't want covered [such as a classified briefing] they would exclude reporters. We were able to go most anywhere," he said.
"Generally, we didn't have minders. There weren't people following us around . . . . We had free reign," Gertz said, noting that some commanders and public affairs officers seemed "very uncomfortable with that, that reporters would go anywhere with the troops."
There were "some rules for the embedded media," Gertz explained, and when he went in with the unit, they were very helpful, providing equipment such as a flack jacket and helmet, as well as allowing Gertz to use the satellite telephone and other communications.
Gertz called the new rule "really dumb" and "a step backward from the way it was. I was really high on the embedded system. I think this is going to make it a lot harder for reporters."
What will happen, he said, is that troops will tell reporters what they really think on background, but will only say positive things for the record.
"I think they overreacted to the Ricks thing," he said. "I think Ken Bacon, who's a [former Wall Street Journal] reporter, should have taken a tougher stand against the commanders.
"My feeling is," Gertz added, "that they should've done it more informally. They shouldn't have made a hard and fast rule on this. They should work it out individually."
Ironically, Gertz said he has heard from someone in Bosnia that there are "virtually no reporters there" and that the daily briefings have been stopped "because no one's there."
"This soldier said he hadn't seen a reporter in weeks," Gertz remarked.