The latest rap against the press-which can be heard from raunchy radio talk shows to the Council on Foreign Relations-is made up of three arguments. The first is that the United States was virtually forced to intervene in Somalia because of the attention the media devoted to the story. The second is that the media broke the rules and compromised a military operation, putting lives at risk. The third is that the media are a disruptive, negative influence in international affairs, especially compared with the military. Boo, press. Hurrah, troops.
If the failures of the press were food, they would feed all the world’s hungry. The biggest shortcoming of all is simply lack of perspective. On TV, Somalia is larger than Russia, China and Europe combined right now; when the troops leave, it will disappear again. (Anyone heard of drug-infested Panama lately?) While it’s commendable that Somalia is finally receiving some attention, most of the TV reporting provides little understanding of how the country fell apart in the first place. That’s the problem with the coverage. These other three much-repeated attacks on the Somalia coverage are wrong, wrong and wrong.
For starters, the intervention in Somalia was not dictated by the pictures. The painful images of starving children began to appear several months ago on “60 Minutes,” the cover of Time magazine and elsewhere, but didn’t have much direct effect. The pictures generated sympathy-and some contributions-but no groundswell for military intervention. For proof that the press is not the driving force behind military action, look to Bosnia, where wrenching pictures of starving, beaten people in detention camps touched the world’s conscience and helped put the story on the international agenda but did nothing to force President Bush or the United Nations to intervene militarily.
The decision to tackle Somalia was based on its practicality-namely the weakness of opposition forces. Bush could not intervene abroad before the election because it would have looked like a cynical effort to change the subject from the economy. Since the election, the Democrats have been supportive and the president sees a chance to leave office on a high note. Without these circumstances, there would have been no operation. Of course if the mission fails, TV satellites will beam the problems home live, reducing the military’s margin for error. In other words, TV alone can hasten the exit but not the entrance of military forces.
The idea that the media were “getting in the way” of the military on the beach ignores the facts. The Pentagon told the press last week exactly when and where the landing would take place and even offered advice on camera positions. Why? Because the brass wanted this mission of mercy well covered. With the end of the cold war and a new, less promilitary administration, it’s Budget D-Day in the Pentagon. In an era of advanced army helicopters, the amphibious mission of the Marines is in jeopardy, and they had no chance to show their stuff in Desert Storm. That means gearing up the PR machine to add the meals of Mogadishu to the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said that his “immediate reaction was one of anger” at the press. His target should have been the literally hundreds of military public-affairs officers (attention, Clinton budget-cutters). It is their dubious job assignment to protect not national security but the image and budget of the Pentagon. In neglecting to anticipate that the nighttime pictures from Somalia would look ludicrous instead of impressive, they flubbed their mission. Those who live by the sword risk dying by the tube.
In the live-action world of the ’90s, foreign-policy types wring their hands that the human emotions aroused by TV will be allowed to shape critical decisions. They shouldn’t worry so much. Human feeling is a worthy template for helping develop the foreign policy of the future. Information-especially on television-democratizes the process. After all, TV mobilizes world opinion in ways that leaders usually can’t. TV’s distortions and lack of context can still be manipulated for political ends, of course. But the motives for intervention will now be far more open to public inspection. The result is a fleeting, more shortsighted approach to global problems, but also a more humane one. The real enemies are clear: hunger, misery, bloodshed-not some cameraman with spotlights and boom microphones.
