When the Pentagon helps kill a news story

February 23, 2006

CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin seemed to have a pretty important scoop about Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq. We didn’t hear about it, of course, because administration officials convinced him to kill the story.

“This week I killed a story about the battle against Improvised Explosive Devices after a senior military officer told me it contained information that would be helpful to the enemy. I didn’t find his argument about how it would help the enemy very persuasive, but because there’s a war on I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve done that a number of times over the years, and each time it’s turned out that going with the story wouldn’t have caused any harm.

“It’s always a difficult decision, made more difficult by the fact that it always seems to happen late in the day when you’re under deadline pressure. When I killed the story on Thursday, it was 5:30 — an hour to air — and I left the Evening News broadcast without a lead story which they had been counting on all day. Not a good career move.”

What did Martin’s report say? We’ll probably never know the details, though he conceded that it “dealt with specific techniques and how well they were or weren’t working against IEDs.”

It’s discouraging to think this practice is common. When Martin says he’s killed defense-related stories “a number of times,” and in each instance, he later concludes it was unwarranted, it points to a real problem with journalists keeping stories about the Pentagon and/or the war under wraps just because the administration asks them to.

In many of these instances, the Rumsfeld & Co. have no doubt been spared embarrassment by convincing a journalist to hide information from the public. But drawing the line between sensitive information that could put troops in danger and upsetting information that makes the administration look apparently isn’t easy.

In war, you can make an extreme case that almost any accurate information about the U.S. military is news the enemy can use. A story about the Army being “stretched too thin” or even “broken” by the pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be said to encourage the enemy to fight on.

Martin concluded that, when it comes to news stories that genuinely include legitimate secrets, he “knows it when he sees it.” Why don’t I find that encouraging?

And here I thought the news about Rumsfeld/Iraq has been bad enough. There’s stuff we’re NOT hearing?

  • There’s LOTS of stuff we’re not hearing.

    First and foremost: WE’RE NOT AT WAR. We toppled Baghdad long ago – Bush said it was “mission accomplished” after only 139 US fatalities, 1 May 03 – which wasn’t surprising since Bush’s Dad destroyed Saddam’s army more than a decade before. We may be trying to occupy/control Iraq as capstone to our Crusade (though how we do that while hiding in the Green Zone is beyond me), but WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

    I don’t know why the press and the public buy this stuff.

  • One wonders when the press will learn their lesson.

    The Pentagon will say everything this will compromise their mission even if it was a story about the mousetraps or toilet cleaner they use. They would prefer there be no news stories mentioning the DoD or any of its people, missions, equipement, etc.

  • Hard to figure how he knows it when he sees it since by his own admission all the past cases have not really been necessary.

  • A story that contains information that helps insurgents to build better IED’s that kill our troops is an obvious story to suppress. It’s all of the other stories about missed opportunities and assorted screw-ups that Martin ought to come clean about.

    The one story that needs more coverage is the one about the large, permanent military bases that are being built in the western regions of Iraq–not to mention the fortress of an embassy being built in Baghdad with its own power and water systems. Some are comparing the embassy that is being built to the “Death Star” in the “Star War” movies.

  • Martin concluded that, when it comes to news stories that genuinely include legitimate secrets, he “knows it when he sees it.” Why don’t I find that encouraging?

    Must be confusing pornography with national security again. Happens to me all the time.

  • Well how fucking nice of the little man to admit to being a pussy and a pushover for a dick in uniform. And do we suppose that there is the slightest positive feedback from corporate for this repeat offense?

    Let’s see, the so-called correspondant makes comment about this being “Not a good career move “, but still has a job. Guess it tickles the taint of the front office whores that the help knows how to buckle.

    god bless this union of soviet fascist states we live in! And the kept press that report on the activities of our avenging angels overseas, and the enlightened leaders we have herr at home.

  • re: WE ARE NOT AT WAR

    Right on. Since 2003, we’ve been “peacekeeping” or “nationbuilding” or “troop training” in Iraq and Afghanastan. Of course, Bush doesn’t believe in those things so we must be doing something else. Calling it a “war” happens to be convenient, since it justifies silencing critics, expanding executive authority, and generally running amok without adult supervision.

    As for the “war on terror” or the “long war” or whatever they’re calling it today, I don’t know what the heck that is, but it isn’t a war either.

  • Of course, when you’re getting shot at, I’m sure semantics don’t matter much. But they do back home.

  • Not too sure I am buying this story. His words quoted here lack something, they seem scripted. Maybe a lame attempt at affecting the news cycle.

  • RE: War

    I would argue that we are at war, but as you point out the war on Iraq is long over.

    Today we are at war against the terroristsArabs.

    It really is that simple. We are xenophobic to the core.

    Well, at least our leaders are. They have learned that fear motivates us with much less work than hope does.

    You see, hope requires thought about the future, about others, and about trust. Fear is a natural emotion and is automatic. If the right conditions exist you can have 90% of the people behind you for anything.

    As FDR so wisely said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

  • These United States are going to be at war for a long, long time. The military operations in Iraq are best considered a CAMPAIGN in the Long War that America will be fighting. These United States were at war long before the Iraq Campaign. The Clinton Regime preferred to pretend to be respected abroad, so the assaults on the USS Cole, African Embassies, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the basement explosion at the World Trade Center were treated as subjects to be dealt with by law enforcement. Neither the Secret Service nor the FBI was able to bring the malefactor to justice, which was to be expected. Except for the World Trade Center, the outrages took place in foreign countries, where their writ scarcely runs. In addition, there is inconclusive evidence that “high officials” in the Clinton Regime were receiving subventions from foreign sources. Such financial “subsidies” might explain that “WALL” between Intelligence and Law Enforcemennt, erected to prevent plausible intelligence informations on official “takings” from leaking into the Criminal Justice System. President Clinton traveled extensively to foreign lands, and he was well received wherever he went, for he demanded naught of his hosts but good light and spectacular scenery for the adulatory Photo-Ops. He was right popular, Our Bill!

    • Comments are closed.