Hungry Beast - DUST, MUD & STUFF: A SOLDIER'S LIFE

 

Just being watching Hungry Beast a new show on the ABC. They had a pretty decent interview with an ADF member currently serving in Afghanistan. Its up to you to watch it and decide if its true or not but I think it has some good nuggets in there. Video can be found on the link below.

 

“That is a story, but it’s not the story.” – ‘Tom’, Australian soldier.

 

What do you know about the war in Afghanistan? Chances are, very little. And most of what you have heard has almost certainly come via the Australian Defence Force’s Public Relations department. Unlike other coalition forces, Australian journalists find it exceedingly difficult to gain access to our soldiers. Many resort to embedding with our allies to cover conflicts we’re involved in. And while there have been a number of first-person accounts of our allies’ soldiers’ experiences published abroad, we’ve heard almost nothing from the Australian perspective.

 

When Hungry Beast decided to do a story on the war in Afghanistan, we wanted to focus on personal stories. But when we approached Australian soldiers to ask them what it’s like to fight on the frontline, we were consistently met with one of three responses: polite refusal, open hostility or a referral to Defence PR. We found it increasingly bizarre that our soldiers wouldn’t discuss even the most trivial details of their time at war, and the story became as much about the army’s control over the media as it was about the war in Afghanistan.

 

Eventually, we found one currently-serving soldier who has served in Afghanistan, who was willing to talk. He offers a rare insight into the mind of someone who, quite literally, puts his life on the line in the name of this conflict. His reasons for speaking out are telling:

 

“It appalls me that whinging frauds are able to gain the bulk of the media access and press their bogus claims… I can’t change the course of a cultural tsunami of myth making and superficial story telling, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept it.”

 

Hungry Beast spoke to ‘Tom*’ at length. In this recreation, we have edited and restructured that interview for the sake of length and comprehensibility, but all the words you hear are entirely his own. To protect his identity, ‘Tom’ has been played by actors Aden Young, Dan Wyllie, Lewis Fitz-Gerald and Rodger Corser.

 

*not his real name.

 

http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/dust-mud-****-soldiers-life

I watched the version on the TV, and i knew that a thread was going to come up.

 

Watching the video, I felt proud of our soldiers in Afghanistan, especially because of the way that they could differentiate themselves from other armed forces who did not carry themselves in a (for lack of a better word) responsible manner.

His reflections on why we are in there, I personally approved of, even though it isn't a war that we should have been involved in in the beginning.

 

Good way to run a story, kudos to Hungry Beast and "Tom" for telling the it.

this is taking forever to cache...

[edit] - after trying to view it on the HB site about 7 times, each time it froze. watched the thing on iView (says at the end the one on the HB site is suppose to be a longer version). makes some interesting points of view. i know my mate in the Army said something similar about the US as what was said about the Dutch in this. He was on an exercise and apparently their idea of 'standing to' was to just start firing...

Edited November 18, 200915 yr by Heat-seeker

I saw it. It is true that not enough personnel experience stories gets reported. But thats not unheard of in war. Its usually after that it comes out..

As someone that has been in a combat zone I really prefer not to talk about what I saw and what I did in the first gulf war.

about time we started to hear the hearts and minds of OUR bois doing someone elses INITIAL dirty work. cannot wait to give my own opinions. was a great interview and a good concept of discreational media

...and a good concept of discreational media...

 

You will find its actually vetting by ADF and departmental PR groups that define what 'media' can film and who they can interview.

 

There is a gulf that exists between media and adf. However the US and UK take a much different approach, embeds, live reporting and independant media who are there to stay with the troops in country.

 

It is true that not enough personnel experience stories gets reported. But thats not unheard of in war. Its usually after that it comes out..

 

I disagree. Not enough personal experience stories get published about ADF service men and women. But you want to know about UK US? no sweat.

 

Tom Hyland writes for the age on sundays. He often has much to say about reporting coming out of the middle east theatre. If anyone is interested to read into this topic.

 

Also. It is important to note, Hungry Beast is a comedy/informative broadsheet style show on 9:30pm ABC. The very fact we get one interview by a covered up ADF soldier on such a show goes to highlight how far we are from being up front about our commitments to the middle east theatre. This isnt prime time, nor is the audience big.

 

So for all its worth, this will do little to inform australia at large. And thats how some in the department and the ADF would like to keep it.

Edited November 18, 200915 yr by Hambang101

i'm sure they have their reasons for wanting to cover some things up like that, and i'm not in the position with all the information to make that decision, so for now i will trust that the government i voted in is doing the best they can for my country and they have reasons for doing everything they do.

Watched it on TV, found it very interesting.

...i'm sure they have their reasons for wanting to cover some things up like that...

 

but thats the funny thing. By restricting media access what your actually doing is introducing information black holes, reducing transparency and hence trust.

 

Your comment exemplifies that. That is you have reason to believe of 'cover up' because there is a lack of information.

 

one could assume it is a 'cover up' by nature of the fact we hear nothing that reduces our ignorance and gives us a balanced idea of happenings.

 

I would assume ostensibly that the ADF has nothing to 'cover up', but deeply believes media PR control is fundamentally better than full media access. But then, thats only my belief, because at least on the day to day level, as a member of the public one hears nothing publicly of the debate, save going to media conferences and listening to what journos say about how 'easy' it is to make stories over there.

 

Im better off picking up the UK's guardian if i want stories about soldiers and what they actually do, because I can read daily papers here (Age, herald, australian) everyday and I guarantee i wont read a single article about afghanistan and the ADF or civilian support serving there. We'd be lucky to get one story a month that directly applies to Australia's mission in Afghanistan...if that.

 

but then sally sara was over their recently so maybe theyll be a four corners or foreign correspondent soon so we can all watch.

Edited November 19, 200915 yr by Hambang101

like what the bloke said tho, why would the ADF give the media the time of day when the journo's who cover these things (well majority of them) have no understanding of the ADF, defence matters or anything else and have no compunction to learn either as the story will be good for what, maybe 2mins on the news? then they're off to cover the latest Ben Cousins story about how his left finger did something thats agains the AFL rules so he's going to LA for rehab again, someones dog farted walzing matilda after eating celery for half a day and that Krudd has another moral objection to All Bran because that bird is malicious . . . course they had to get out the thesaurus to try and work out what the twerp was saying in the first place . . .

like what the bloke said tho, why would the ADF give the media the time of day when the journo's who cover these things (well majority of them) have no understanding of the ADF, defence matters or anything else and have no compunction to learn either as the story will be good for what, maybe 2mins on the news? then they're off to cover the latest Ben Cousins story about how his left finger did something thats agains the AFL rules so he's going to LA for rehab again, someones dog farted walzing matilda after eating celery for half a day and that Krudd has another moral objection to All Bran because that bird is malicious . . . course they had to get out the thesaurus to try and work out what the twerp was saying in the first place . . .

 

No offence. But i think your mistaking Australian foreign correspondents with staffers from a current affair.

 

I dont know where this idea of journalists comes from. But I dont think your going to see sally sara, ben knight, liz jackson or tom hyland reporting on Ben Cousins or the latest dodgy mortgage shark in Packenham.

 

What does a good standing foreign correspondent have to do to prove they're capable of delivering an accurate story on the ADF. Or ought we leave accurate reporting on the ADF up to the ADF?

Edited November 19, 200915 yr by Hambang101

No offence. But i think your mistaking Australian foreign correspondents with staffers from a current affair.

dont forget the print journos as well. fc's which appear in ABC & SBS's news seem to be much more professional than the ones for the commercial networks in my view. Hell i still remember good ol' "Jeoff Parry . . . SEVen . . . NIGhtly news" going to Iraq when Op Iraqi Freedom got underway :wacko:

 

[edit] - by professional i mean they seem to actually check facts, know their subject matter and not report sensationalist carp you see everywhere.

i think these things are better left to the Australian Defence PR group. I for one dont like to openly speak about my time in Afghanistain and i would expect any other soldier/ex soldiers are the same. The media themselfs have no idea of the struggles we go through over there from home sickness so dam right terrified for our own lifes, you guys must understand also that all deployed personal are told not to speak to the media thats why they get directed to the ADF PR group.

The reason soldiers don't like speaking with the journalist they twist the facts and can get people killed!!!! Bottom line is the first gulf war Sadam knew what was going on because of CNN's coverage.

 

We had to feed the media false information so we could start the attack. I believe in letting the journalist have a place but I have seen units killed because of the reporting done by journalist trying to scoop stories.

like what the bloke said tho, why would the ADF give the media the time of day when the journo's who cover these things (well majority of them) have no understanding of the ADF, defence matters or anything else and have no compunction to learn either as the story will be good for what, maybe 2mins on the news? then they're off to cover the latest Ben Cousins story about how his left finger did something thats agains the AFL rules so he's going to LA for rehab again, someones dog farted walzing matilda after eating celery for half a day and that Krudd has another moral objection to All Bran because that bird is malicious . . . course they had to get out the thesaurus to try and work out what the twerp was saying in the first place . . .

 

Yeh but when do the majority of journo's (not all, just most) ever actually understand the topic they are reporting on. The amount of absolute crap I read on a daily basis, from journo's basing an entire article on some obscure quote or writing a piece on a topic they understand nothing about is astounding.

 

 

If the ADF are waiting for a group of journalists who are in line with how the army operates, and actually understand all the physical/emotional stress and can relate to the soldiers experiences then they are up a certain creek without a paddle.

I'm not arguing for compromising operational securities for stories. My argument is more nuanced than the extremes that can exist within such a media environment.

 

At the other end of the extreme is to have what is essentially a black hole whereby every journalist is treated with a cultured suspicion as being someone who is there to somehow undermine and misinform the public at large.

 

I speak from the perspective of a member of public who believes it is in the interest of both the ADF and the defence department to build a broad picture of happenings by ensuring our good independent media has access to real stories that effect real Australian citizens serving abroad on behalf of our democracy.

 

There is nothing sinister in intent here. And I make these comments only after hearing several foreign correspondents, press editors and former ADF PR people talk about the australian media relations situation in the middle east.

 

And there seems to be a tacit assumption that somehow the journalists/correspondents who travel overseas to areas of strife are uneducated/uniformed and generally dont know. As if they would be people used to reporting on cat-up-tree stories or would be unfamiliar with stress related with doing a job in a dangerous environment.

 

Like i said. Its like people think ACA are going to have people over there. No, it will be media with established correspondents, ABC/SBS, and commercials who work contracts for reuters/AP or whatever.

Edited November 19, 200915 yr by Hambang101

I love reading stories and watching media of our soldiers in training or on operations, but I'd rather a 100% lockdown on media/reporting than an operation getting blown and getting troops killed because of over zealous news reporting like what happened at the start of the invasion of iraq.

 

The troops in A-stan have enough problems with worrying about their own safety and security leaks in the ANA without having to babysit reporters, who I imagine would be a huge liability to an infantry section, which reporters seem to favor imbedding with.

Edited November 19, 200915 yr by hous_bin_farteen

...I'd rather a 100% lockdown on media/reporting than an operation getting blown and getting troops killed because of over zealous news reporting like what happened at the start of the invasion of iraq.

 

The troops in A-stan have enough problems with worrying about their own safety and security leaks in the ANA without having to babysit reporters, who I imagine would be a huge liability to an infantry section, which reporters seem to favor imbedding with.

 

Again, the tacit assumption that correspondants are inherantly distrustful, would have no idea about operation security and are a liability.

 

Somehow the UK and US have gotten over this hurdle and have as a result produced a wealth of material, documentaries, stories and in depth reports.

 

One of the best piece of reporting on the second gulf war was by a rolling stones reporter embedded with marines. But then americans have a different attitude towards media. Write an email to Tom Hyland asking him about comparing our ADF media access to US and UK media access

Again, the tacit assumption that correspondants are inherantly distrustful, would have no idea about operation security and are a liability.

 

Somehow the UK and US have gotten over this hurdle and have as a result produced a wealth of material, documentaries, stories and in depth reports.

 

One of the best piece of reporting on the second gulf war was by a rolling stones reporter embedded with marines. But then americans have a different attitude towards media. Write an email to Tom Hyland asking him about comparing our ADF media access to US and UK media access

 

How is it an assumption? Entire operations in the 2nd Gulf war were blown because of reporting. Hell just recently (IIRC) A Navy SEAL marine insertion was blown because of someone with a big mouth and reporters more than happy to exploit it. Granted not every reporter is out with no respect and acting out of their own agenda, but to say it's an assumption is wrong. It has happened before and it will continue to happen.

 

Also, I believe you are referring to Evan Wright, who was embedded with Recon Marines and wrote Generation Kill correct? Granted that was some of the better reporting of the 2nd gulf war, however, there were still many Marines who were not pleased with what Evan Wright had put to paper, and have stated that many parts of his book are embellished/dramatized or otherwise incorrect and slanderous. Now as to wether that's just griping over the portrayal of themselves (as alot of the complaints came from people who are treated as incompetent in the book, such as the aptly named "encino man") or wether it is factual and true to the events that took place, I'm not sure.

dosnt matter if even just 0.001% of reporters are like that, thats still a chance of an operation becoming uncovered, why even take the risk?

...How is it an assumption?... Granted not every reporter is out with no respect and acting out of their own agenda, but to say it's an assumption is wrong. It has happened before and it will continue to happen.

 

it is an assumption, as I state, that correspondants are inherantly distrustful.

 

I did not say 'it is an assumption that reporting in some cases has caused casualties'. But then, if this is compromising security at such a level, why is it Time, the WP, CNN, Reuters, AP, NBC, BCC etc all provide better, more in depth and detailed analysis and reporting on the conflict than ABC, Fairfax or Newscorp ever will.

 

No-one here debates about how different media access for UK US forces is relative to ADF. And no-one in the foreign correspondent and journalistic circles seem to disagree how difficult it is to provide even basic stories on ADF. I've seen the debates first hand.

 

Im not debating extremes. Im not advocating compromising security. But then im not advocating creating a situation whereby the values inherant in a free and independant press (something we think is a good right? re: China?) are compromised because of inherant suspicion and sceptisism of media.

 

Foreign correspondents also do things like. Provide information to the public. Inform the populace of our contributions to operations abroad. Provide a conduit by which people can at least on a basic level understand and level with what we do as a nation internationally and what happens in the world. They also analyse and interpret situations to inform and educate, and help us be more engaged with this international globalised world in which we all, as china t-shirt wearing citizens, are a part of.

 

dosnt matter if even just 0.001% of reporters are like that, thats still a chance of an operation becoming uncovered, why even take the risk?

 

The US, UK and Canada take that risk. Not to say we ought to, but they certainly manage their media relations in a way that is different from us. And it seems at least for them on broadsheet to be a fair compromise of information, integrity and security. This is however, just an observation.

 

Pose a counter question. What is the risk in relation to the Australian public construction of itself outside of our shores, knowing next to nothing about contributions to international situations and conflicts abroad? Is it for the historians and archivist keep the record rather than the public? Or is information about what is acted out internationally in the interests of democracies something we really ought have access to?

 

Meh. Thats one for a thesis. Ill give it away.

Edited November 20, 200915 yr by chambersAUS