“News is what I say it is,” said Charles Foster Kane, the legendary, eponymous, (though fictional) press baron. Sadly, today’s media bosses also dictate what is not news by failing to cover important issues that may not be visual, simple, or politically in tune with the prevailing narrative.
Recent headlines have been restrained compared to the sensational images that prompted them. First there was footage of Yazidi refugees fleeing to a mountaintop, followed by the announcement of humanitarian airdrops and the possibility of a military rescue. Then there were stills from the horrific video of James Foley just before his execution, followed by reports of limited U.S. airstrikes against ISIS vehicles.
What has been missing is any mainstream media coverage of the nation’s declining ability to undertake either of these military missions—especially in light of findings recently released by a think tank whose charter, ironically, is the study of how to wage peace.
Simply put, on July 1st, a blue-ribbon panel under the auspices of the prestigious (if little known) United States Institute of Peace issued a report saying we are inadequately preparing for war. This man-bites-dog story is notable not just for the source of the assessment but because it is far more pessimistic than any similar study in recent history. The bi-partisan group was unusually candid in its language, and said that its recommendations were unanimous.
Recognizing that the world is a dangerous place – and getting more dangerous – the Panel concluded that the Air Force is too old, the Navy is too small, and the cost of paying for military retirees’ health care is simply too high. It said that the military budget cuts – exacerbated by sequestration – “constitute a serious strategic misstep.” The lack of adequate spending and preparation “will lead to an America that is not only less secure, but also far less prosperous.”
The Panel issued its report in response to a Congressional mandate that the Administration’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) include an independent assessment. “Attempting to address America’s budget woes through defense spending cuts is dangerous and ultimately self-defeating,” said the Panel. In this “unstable world, an America less capable of global leadership will soon become a poorer America less capable of meeting its other federal priorities.” It urged Administration and Congress to address the deteriorating situation – fast.
So why has the media ignored the report?
I asked Paul Hughes, the Executive Director of the Panel, why he thought there’s been so little media coverage. “I think people are scared of confronting this issue,” said Hughes. “The sub-title of the report should be ‘Sequestration needs to be repealed.’ Everybody is comfortable with the balanced budget act that was crafted. But it ends in October 2015. Congress and the White House need to get back together again. And that is scary for some people.”
Richard Wald, the former President of NBC News and ABC News, and currently the Fred Friendly Professor at Columbia Journalism School was characteristically thoughtful in his assessment: “Never underestimate the time lag. The press tends to report what it notices. On some issues, it notices things late. That's why some outlets get big reputations for spotting things of value when others have overlooked them. But increasingly, smaller-circulation venues (including everything on the web) make up the difference. It is not today's headline issue. You are talking about the mass-circulation press. Ferguson or ISIS trumps a USIP assessment.”
One of the brighter Congressional aides I know – whose boss is well-informed on defense matters – had a similar take. “The major publications have just one or two defense/national security reporters and they've got them focused on Iraq, Ukraine, Gaza, etc. I have tried multiple times to get these people interested in the QDR but they claim they just don't have the bandwidth; they're over-tasked with the daily story. And they think there is little public interest in these types of strategy/procurement issues to justify that diversion of resources.”
Unfortunately, I also heard far less reasoned – or reasonable – explanations from so-called media experts. One journalism professor from a different “top” journalism school reacted to my question with disdain. “If I were you I would not trust anyone willing to answer that question. The number of possible reasons for not doing something approaches infinity.”
Another teacher from the same school first said, “I don’t subscribe to the panel’s conclusion.” (Even though he had not read the QDR or the Panel’s report.) Then he added, “The mainstream press is not likely to challenge the conventional wisdom.” And the conventional wisdom emerging from the Obama Administration is that significant military cuts are precisely what the nation needs.
As I pushed for credible explanations why there was so little coverage of USIP assessment, I saw television news footage of aircraft from the carrier George H.W. Bush attacking an ISIS truck, Nowhere in the story was there any mention that the Bush had been diverted from its assignment of providing support to our troops in Afghanistan. Or the fact that, until this past weekend, we had only two aircraft carriers deployed anywhere in the world. A third – the last we had available for immediate mobilization -- was just sent to the Western Pacific. Given the recent harassment of U.S. patrol aircraft by Chinese fighters, the long-scheduled deployment could not have come too soon.
Perhaps the most insightful explanation about why there has been so little thoughtful discussion about the adequacy of military funding came from William Butler, a retired media executive and long-ago graduate of the Cronkite School of Journalism: “Try this thought experiment: Imagine the USIP Panel concluded the nation was wildly over-prepared for war. What would happen then?”
Columbia’s Wald had said to me that mainstream coverage was unlikely “if you don’t have a horse in the race.” Sadly, today’s media “leaders” don’t realize that they do. What we need just one to recognize it, and devote the resources to a story that may not be sexy, but is essential to our common defense.
Steve Cohen is an attorney at KDLM in New York, and a former Director of the United States Naval Institute.
A shorter version of this piece originally appeared in City Journal
