Time for a Paradigm Shift?

If you are a cable news junkie, then you’ve probably watched BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), one the largest, if not the largest, broadcasting organizations in the world.  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to listen to Nik Gowing speak courtesy of ADM Stavridis’ 'Notable Film and Author Series’ and the EUCOM J9 Directorate.  Nik presents the BBC's flagship news program, The Hub, which reports on global news for audiences across South Asia and the Middle East.  He interviewed ADM Stavridis about operations in Marjah this past February and also recently wrote 'Skyful of Lies' and Black Swans, a study that addresses the role hand-held, multi-media technology plays in shaping public perceptions of government responses in crisis situations.

Nik Gowing Photo courtesy BBC

Throughout his presentation, Nik highlighted the fact that the media landscape is (and has been for a while now) changing in dramatic ways.  The explosion of individuals with access to inexpensive, portable and easy-to-use “electronic eyes and ears” as well as web platforms from which to broadcast their recordings, is making government (as well as military and corporate) entities more accountable.  These individuals, also known as “digital information do-ers,” with multimedia recorders in the form of mini-cams and cell phones are creating a “deficit of legitimacy” for traditional sources of power.

One example Nik highlighted was an August 22, 2008 air strike in Azizabad, Afghanistan where conflicting information emerged about civilian casualties.  U.S. forces initially said that only seven were killed whereas U.N. and NGO reports put the figure at more than 70.  A mobile phone video that surfaced two weeks later showing bodies (reports varied from 40 to 90) laid out under blankets brought doubt upon the original U.S. figures.  Although the video wasn’t posted in real time, there was no video available for release to counter the claims.  Thus, at least in part, the mobile phone video obliged GEN McKiernan, the U.S. Forces commander, to request another investigation into the incident, which in the court of public opinion, meant that the U.S. had erred (or worse…covered-up) during its original investigation.  

I believe it is true that, as Nik said, military commanders, more and more, feel they face an “increasably unwinnable battle to counter real-time media images and perceptions.”  I’ve heard many times that we (the U.S.) are losing the information battle.  Blame has been assigned to all corners of the military and government for this.  So, I am going to throw out my two cents on a way to potentially improve the situation.

Being an Army officer, I look back to the Divisional Machine Gun units of WWI and WWII to provide some context.  As you may or may not know, successful machine guns did not emerge until the mid-19th century, and more portable sub-machine guns really didn’t see their first major use until WWI.  Machine guns were a game changer, much like today’s portable multimedia devices, albeit in a different manner.  Without getting into a full history of machine gun development and employment, the point is that the machine guns were originally organized at the divisional level, similar to how the U.S. Army still organizes it’s public affairs assets, although in a much smaller capacity – approximately 25 public affairs personnel are assigned throughout a division today compared to almost 3,000 machine gunners in a division back in WWI.  We also have combat camera assets, but they too are overtaxed and managed way beyond the brigade level. 

As machine gun technology advanced and they became more ubiquitous, they were assigned all the way down to squad level.  Today’s infantry squads each have M249 Squad Automatic Weapon machine gunners assigned to them.  As multimedia device technology advances and becomes more ubiquitous (notice the parallel?), perhaps it is time that we place this asset at the squad level as well.

I am not advocating elimination of public affairs or combat camera professionals at all here. What I’m saying is that institutional public communication (to include multimedia use) training, beyond the cursory level, must be given to selected individuals all the way down to the ground (or squad) level.

We’ve got to change the paradigm.

If the task of communicating the more than one million military service members’ actions remains solely in the hands of the minute amount of public affairs professionals, we cannot succeed.

Right now, we have young service members who qualify “expert” on their M249s operating at the squad-level throughout the military.  These Gen Y “digital natives” have grown up in the “now media” age and many can amaze senior officers and NCOs with digital skills most Gen Y-ers consider to be benign.  Why should we not train them and provide the opportunity for them to be experts at communicating our military actions as well…and then make it a requirement?  It’s time to really accept the changing nature of conflict.   

MAJ Jim Gregory
SOCEUR PAO