Deceiving CNN

CNN is repeatedly reporting that the Marines probably used them to disseminate incorrect information that the attack on Fallujah was underway, when it didn't actually start for another three weeks. The Marines knew (as CNN acknowledges) that CNN's report on the beginning of the attack would be seen by the enemy inside the city. Presumably, the Marines wanted to observe enemy defensive preparations, keep them off-balance, etc.

Of course, CNN is shocked, shocked! They've demanded an explanation from the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense has assured CNN that it isn't U.S. policy to deceive the press, the Pentagon is investigating, and so on. I suspect what actually happened is someone in Iraq, perhaps below general officer level, decided to use CNN as a direct channel to the enemy as part of a deception plan.

Let's think about this. CNN is a direct channel to the enemy, as are other satellite television news broadcasts. For the price of cheap satellite TV equipment, the enemy gets good intelligence. In fact, it's probably their best source. And CNN seeks information about U.S. operational plans, unit identifications, troop dispositions, movements, equipment, and morale. Then they insist they have the unfettered right to broadcast any information they can get their hands on when and as they please.

Counterintelligence and deception operations are designed to protect and enhance the effectiveness of military operations. Counterintelligence operations find and shut down sources of enemy intelligence. Deception operations thicken the fog of war, from the enemy's viewpoint, by hiding or distorting the facts of military operations. So, since CNN is an important source of intelligence for the enemy, why shouldn't it be shut down? Or, since CNN is a reliable direct channel to the enemy, why shouldn't it be used to pass them deceptive information?

Remember that CNN, like the rest of the U.S. mainstream media, operates as though they have no obligations to anything so mundane as their country. Bernie Shaw, once a main CNN talking head, famously refused to be debriefed by the U.S. government after his return from Iraq in 1991. The debriefing was sought because Shaw had been present in Baghdad (along with CNN's infamous Peter Arnett) when the war began. Shaw's refusal was based on his belief that as a reporter he could not take sides.

In effect, Shaw's status as a reporter was more important to him than being a U.S. citizen, even though he had information that might have been valuable to his country and might have saved U.S. lives. What's worse, CNN and the media elites saw nothing wrong with his position.

Contradictions abound. The basis for CNN's attitude is the U.S. Constitution and it's guarantee of a free press. But as far as they're concerned, that freedom carries no obligations, and they can report anything they wish, when they wish, with whatever emphasis they wish to give it.

So where does that leave us? I don't think the U.S. government should deceive the press. But we must understand that they can't be trusted, and we should not let them collect and report information of value to the enemy. While the recent practice of "embedding" reporters with military units isn't a bad idea, there should be more restrictions. One of them should be an agreement that reports will be approved by the military before they are published or broadcast.

Is that censorship? Yes, and so what? If the press wants the kind of privileged and protected access the military is now giving them, they should accept some responsibility and submit to controls. Otherwise, they should be restricted from combat zones where their reporting could do damage.