U S Army And The Media In The 20th Century

Surveys the US Army's approach to media relations from the Spanish-American War to the first Gulf War. The relationship between the Army and the media is considered in the broader context of the US Government's approach to information management. Given the growing importance of information operations in 21st century warfare, this study provides a succinct overview of how the US Army has approached its relations with the media over the previous century. The study highlights the recurrent tension that exists in both the Army and the US Government's information management writ large. This tension arises from the need for operational security and effective deception and psychological operations and the need to provide transparency to secure public acceptance and support for military operations. The long-running debate over how the Government's information management should be organized and operated reflects this tension. Thus, since World War I a number of bureaucratic manifestations of information management have been tried in wartime, including the Committee on Public Information, the Office of War Information, the Psychological Strategy Board, the United States Information Agency, and, most recently, the Office of Global Communications. With the exception of the United States Information Agency, whose tenure spanned the period from 1953 to 1999, all the other manifestations of bureaucratic information management rose and fell during the wars in which they were created. The growing pains of these organizations sometimes colored the Army's relationship with the media. The need for units in the field to participate in information management is a major challenge for future operations. This study reminds us that those commanders who have gone out of their way to engage the media have, in many cases, had the greatest success with information management.

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Surveys the U.S. Army¿s approach to media relations from the Spanish-American War to the first Gulf War. The relationship between the Army and the media is considered in the broader context of the U.S. Government¿s approach to info. mgmt. (IM) Here is an overview of how the U.S. Army has approached its relations with the media over the previous century. Since World War I a number of bureaucratic manifestations of IM have been tried in wartime. With the exception of the U.S. Info. Agency, whose tenure spanned the period from 1953 to 1999, all the other manifestations of bureaucratic IM rose and fell during the wars in which they were created. The need for units in the field to participate in IM is a major challenge for future operations. Illus.

The country’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its interventions around the world, and its global military presence make war, the military, and militarism defining features of contemporary American life. The armed services and the wars they fight shape all aspects of life—from the formation of racial and gendered identities to debates over environmental and immigration policy. Warfare and the military are ubiquitous in popular culture. At War offers short, accessible essays addressing the central issues in the new military history—ranging from diplomacy and the history of imperialism to the environmental issues that war raises and the ways that war shapes and is shaped by discourses of identity, to questions of who serves in the U.S. military and why and how U.S. wars have been represented in the media and in popular culture.

United States Army in Vietnam. CMH Pub. 91-13. Draws upon previously unavailable Army and Defense Department records to interpret the part the press played during the Vietnam War. Discusses the roles of the following in the creation of information policy: Military Assistance Command's Office of Information in Saigon; White House; State Department; Defense Department; and the United States Embassy in Saigon.

Drawing on examples from 20th century conflicts, this study argues that the media's performance in wartime results as much from peacetime journalistic practices as from the special circumstances of war. The book concludes by assessing the impact of new communications technology.

Now that the Department of Defense has permitted the use of social media for both private and official purposes, the question becomes, can the military, the Army in particular, obtain the benefits sought from social media use without seriously compromising individual and operations security? Answering this question required an initial assessment of Army goals and objectives to determine why the Army risked the use of social media. The assessment revealed two reasons. First, the Army needed social media to communicate its inform and influence activities more effectively. Second, social media was the primary means by which soldiers maintained contact with their friends and family. Consequently, social media has become a significant element in maintaining soldier morale. If the Army did not need social media to distribute its inform message, it might have avoided the difficulties created by the personal use of social media. Thus, the security risk posed by the use of social media cannot be reduced to a simple enforcement of operations security rules. Nevertheless, soldiers who are not trained to avoid the disclosure of classified or sensitive information will, through their ingrained habits, present a significant security risk. To understand the situation and to derive the needed training required an initial examination of social media as a means of communications. That discussion along with a discussion of personal soldier use reveals that social media supports the Army inform and influence activity requirements, but introduces the risk of spillage through social media. In other words, soldiers have habits that create vulnerabilities that enemies of the United States can easily exploit. An examination of casual social media use revealed common practices that stand contrary to sound operations security. Comparing social media habits with regulatory requirements produced a list of key elements of required training. The reality is that evolutionary information changes will continue without the military's consent. All military personnel require training on appropriate use of social media now. The Army can institute training that raises awareness of these dangers for all service members. Ideally, social media will become a manageable medium with which to communicate the right messages and maintain good order and discipline within the Armed Forces.