Home
Summary
Background
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Session 4
Session 5
Session 6
Session 7
Session 8
Links
Contact

Purpose

This issue directly and indirectly impacts the day-to-day activities of the actors in a complex emergency and has broad implications for policy decisions and ultimately may affect the success or failure of a mission. It is frequently not discussed or given sufficient attention.

Background

Technology has improved access to the battlefield and to afflicted populations, and in particular, decreased the time that is required from the moment it is captured to the moment it is consumed. While journalists may feel they are influencers without power to affect operations, operators perceive that the media can and do alter policy and activities in the area of operations. On the other side of the issue, journalists are frustrated by the degree of spin or biased attached to information operations and by a general lack of access.

Discussion Points

1. What is the role of the press, the media, information operations, and information management in peace operations?
2. What is the nature of the press and its relationship to the other actors in a complex emergency?
3. How do these elements impact a mission?
4. What are some examples and what lessons have been learned or identified?
5. What role does the indigenous media play?
6. How can the relationship between the media and the actors in the mission be enhanced to the benefit of the mission?
7. Successful outcomes in peace operations require rebuilding a mass communications apparatus. How is this achieved?
8. What are the characteristics of the information and media and how should military and civilians act as they deal with the media? accomplished?

Discussion Summary

The media are there only to get the story. They are not participants in the peacekeeping mission, but can be a tool to accomplish the desired end. This relationship, however, is not two-way, but very much one-way, that is, the media is not entering into a transaction, but seek only to gain from the interaction without concern for the gain experienced by others in the relationship.

Is there a difference on how to handle the issues when it is a disaster relief situation, an insurgency problem or a peacekeeping mission? In an insurgency situation, it is very difficult to "control" the local media because of pressure. In working with national press, there is sometimes greater freedom.

You cannot control any free press. Some are responsible, some not. Some are local; others national or international, and it can be very difficult to identify absolute categories. There are times when orders are given to stay out of the media spotlight because of this lack of control over the ultimate message.

Local press consists of free private press and press run by a ministry of information, which can result in a one sided story. With local radio you can get a message more directly to the people. An example is Ethiopia, where it is not possible to use the national radio stations.

The use of the Web to get the message across to the affected population is becoming a widely used and accepted mode of delivering information.

Some UN peacekeeping missions have had poor public information campaigns. This is partly due to inefficiencies in the current structure. When the UN is forced by the rules to follow procedures, this results in three months of bidding. You discover there may be a wide disparity between your mission and the mission as prescribed in the public information campaign. When there is a need for public information units, you must introduce this need in the planning process and make sure it is in the budget. When your nation is leading the mission, you must have a public affairs unit with you.

When a propaganda machine -- be it a media outlet or one of the parties to the conflict -- is spreading contradictory information, it should be treated as a "spoiler" to the peace process. Toleration of warlords to use the media will result in a military action to eliminate it, but caution must be exercised to not destroy important elements or infrastructure needed for the country's future. An example is archives. If you have the capabilities to jam transmissions you may need to, and perhaps the decision to do so belongs to the lead nation. The UN does not have authority and capability but individual nations do.

Reinforce the positive when working with the media. The international community is sometime unaware of smoothly running missions. Big media machines will only come in to cover the story when there is controversy.

The attitude on the part of many big media concerns is that the U.S. has nothing to do with the UN, yet it is one of the most powerful members of the Security Council. Nothing happens within the UN without the consent of the U.S.

It is important for the smaller nations of the UN to speak up and be heard in an international forum. The division of East/West paralyzed the UN during the Cold War, and perhaps now it is a North/South issue.

The public within the U.S. has bias on what the UN does, and there is a difference in attitude from the European public. These views are evident in, or even projected by, the media. Perhaps this comes from the experience of international organizations serving the populace, specifically after WWII.

Accuracy and lack of speed and attention to a particular event may be the result of poor journalism, inaccessibility to the area where the event occurred or lack of funds to address the situation to the degree necessary.

Correcting mistakes can be best accomplished by going to the media's competitor, but if you want to give them another chance, try going to the reporter first, or the reporter's editor.

[Up to top]