As the literature on military-media relations grows, it is informed by antagonism either from journalists who report on wars or from ex-soldiers in their memoirs. Academics who attempt more judicious accounts rarely have any professional military or media experience. A working knowledge of the operational constraints of both professions underscores Shooting the Messenger. A veteran war correspondent and think tank director, Paul L. Moorcraft has served in the British Ministry of D...
As the literature on military-media relations grows, it is informed by antagonism either from journalists who report on wars or from ex-soldiers in their memoirs. Academics who attempt more judicious accounts rarely have any professional military or media experience. A working knowledge of the operational constraints of both professions underscores Shooting the Messenger. A veteran war correspondent and think tank director, Paul L. Moorcraft has served in the British Ministry of Defence, while historian-by-training Philip M. Taylor is a professor of international communications who has lectured widely to the U.S. military and at NATO institutions. Some of the topics they examine in this wide-ranging history of military-media relations are: – the interface between soldiers and civilian reporters covering conflicts – the sometimes grey area between reporters’ right or need to know and the operational security constraints imposed by the military – the military’s manipulation of journalists who accept it as a trade-off for safer battlefield access – the resultant gap between images of war and their reality – the evolving nature of media technology and the difficulties-and opportunities-this poses to the military – journalistic performance in reporting conflict as an observer or a participant Moorcraft and Taylor provide a bridge over which each side can pass and a path to mutual understanding.
