<< Back to November/December Serviam

feature

The camera never blinks when it comes to media coverage, but sometimes the images are distorted.

Blackwater Takes Fire and Strikes Back

Lessons learned from the aftermath of a tragedy

Special to Serviam
By David C. Walsh

It had all the trappings for a sensational story: The Iraqi interior ministry denounces a private American diplomatic security provider as a cold-blooded murderer of innocent civilians. The guards say they responded legally to a coordinated attack on a diplomatic convoy. The security company, an icon of an unpopular war, is under a State Department gag order and can’t tell its side of the story. On the Iraqi side, a steady flow of inflammatory allegations shapes the headlines.

Press coverage is overwhelmingly one-sided.

Two weeks pass before the security company speaks out publicly, and it’s in the hot seat of a hostile congressional hearing room. By that time, pending a federal investigation, neither the company nor the government can talk about the deadly September 16 incident. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government continues with its gusher of allegations. With no recognizable criminal investigation or even autopsies of the dead to determine what types of bullets took their lives, a senior three-man Iraqi panel pronounces the security company, Blackwater Worldwide, guilty of “deliberate murder.”

What is a journalist to do when one side churns out quotes and information and the other side is virtually silent?

That’s the dilemma that Blackwater and other private diplomatic security providers in Iraq are grappling with right now. If they try to defend their reputations and provide their side of the story, they violate the letter of their contracts. If they remain silent, they look guilty as charged. As contractor critic Peter Singer of the Brookings Institute sees it, Blackwater went into “ostrich mode.”

Given the contractual constraints, Singer’s characterization isn’t fair. But that’s the way it looks from the outside.

The security firm made just two points. First, the people who had been described in media accounts as “civilians” were, in reality, armed insurgents. And, second, when fired upon, as on that day, Blackwater employees are entitled to fire back. Seems simple enough.

The details, though, were another matter. And it’s these details, or context, for which the popular media sometimes show slight regard. As ever in journalism, it’s down to editorial judgment: the choice of what to include and what to exclude.

At what point does media scrutiny become “pack journalism”?

Have the U.S. media treated the Blackwater shoot-out fairly? According to the industry, no. Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), credits this lack of objectivity to reporters’ age-old tendency toward sensation. “In general,” he tells Serviam, “the media looks for the spicy story—that is its nature.”

Brooks cites “accountability,” which for many news organizations is the most headline-worthy aspect of private security contractors (PSCs). He says the impression that the companies are “unaccountable to anyone” was far from true. Of media reports suggesting PSCs are exempt from Iraqi law, Brooks argues, “Reporters will rarely ask me during our interviews to correct this misperception. I will point out that industry supports accountability. It’s good for our business if the client is confident they can hold contractors responsible.

“I also say there are various U.S. laws that apply—the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and Uniform Code of Military Justice—and that the vast majority of PSC employees are Iraqis who are under Iraq law,” Brooks says. “But generally that part gets ignored.”

Blackwater, with DynCorp and Triple Canopy, is one of only three PSCs not subject to Iraqi law, thanks to an agreement drafted by Ambassador Paul Bremer when he turned the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis in 2004. Even so, defenders note, the Iraqi parliament accepted Bremer’s Order 17 and, at least until now, never sought to modify it.

Skewed Reporting

Brooks compares editorial selectivity to “a fantasy New York Times headline: ‘Logistics in Iraq Works Great!’

“Who would read that? Boring. Reporters get Pulitzers for finding the Big Lie, not the Big Truth.” Indeed, according to a recent IPOA study, 71 percent of PSC-related stories in the first 3 months of 2007 were “unnecessarily negative,” 21 percent “balanced,” and just 8 percent “positive.”

Bloodshed and mayhem do provide fodder for the best leading headlines. An old journalistic saw states, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

What is sometimes dubbed “pack journalism” marks a good deal of “Blackwater Sunday” and similar coverage. Hungry reporters get a story’s scent, then converge on it as one. Coveting a piece of the action, they home in on what instinct says are the tastiest parts, ignoring the rest. The other parts, nonetheless, are important; the “supporting bones” of a story, so to speak.

Not that industry executives entirely oppose incomplete or unfriendly reportage. “Often,” observes IPOA Journal Editor-in-Chief J.J. Messner, “Negative stories bring to our attention matters that need urgent action, and allow the industry to confront problems where they exist.”

That’s what happened after the September 16 incident. In Congress, political opponents of the war seized the moment for their own reasons, with House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) announcing a hearing even before a joint U.S.–Iraqi team could meet to determine the facts. Warned by the Justice Department that his hearing could jeopardize a planned FBI probe, Waxman changed the subject of his hearing to “accountability.”

That change suited the industry just fine. Testifying for more than three hours before Waxman’s panel on October 2, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said he welcomed the oversight and urged Congress to fill gray areas in the law so the PSC industry could work more effectively. He endorsed a bill by Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) that would tighten accountability. The Blackwater-backed legislation quickly passed the House by an overwhelming margin. IPOA also endorsed the bill.

(Not) Reporting the Good News Excoriation of Blackwater was unrelenting for at least the first three weeks after the September 16 tragedy in Baghdad that claimed 17 Iraqi lives. But when Blackwater was caught on video doing something positive, did all the major critics show balance by reporting the story? more >>

Inflammatory Language

Speaking to the media is one thing; persuading them to eschew emotion-charged terms, another. “Private security contractor” and its “PSC” acronym are terms whose meaning ordinary Americans seem not to grasp. PSCs do not form “private armies,” but from a mainstream journalism perspective, the word-pictures provide a shorthand way of telling the story.

“Mercenary” is often thrown around by reporters and editors who are unfamiliar with PSCs or overseas contractors. An epithet suggesting base motives and a lack of patriotism, the loaded word “mercenary” is also an easy way for a biased journalist to whip up public distaste and disdain toward the industry. “Mercenary” packs an emotional wallop.

For some suspicious news organizations, armed civilians are akin to renegade soldiers, practically brigands of the developing world. There, “mercenary” often connotes imperialist occupier, murderer, sadist, drunkard, or rapist. “Private army” has an unsavory scent for the same reason.

Professional journalists know better than to use inaccurate or misleading terms in their reporting. As applied to American PSCs in Iraq, the word “mercenary” is simply incorrect. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a mercenary is “one that serves merely for wages; especially: a soldier hired into foreign service.” The Random House Dictionary defines a mercenary as “a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.”

Among other things, an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions identifies a mercenary as one who is recruited “in order to fight in an armed conflict” and is not a national of a party to the conflict. The American PSCs in Iraq are recruited not to fight but to protect, and they are certainly nationals of the United States, a party to the conflict.

One journalist, documentary filmmaker Nick Bicanic, seems to have attained a rare balance. His award-winning film “Shadow Company,” his Web site of the same name asserts, has been hailed by outfits as diverse as Amnesty International and Blackwater, and by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). And yet as an average American, Bicanic had a caricature image of PSCs: “My immediate association—was what I imagine most of us might automatically envision—Rambo-like men with knives between their teeth overthrowing foreign governments in remote island paradises.”

The general media aren’t alone in sowing confusion. The industry, some say, contributes to misunderstandings of its role and missions. Firms are, of course, free to call employees whatever they choose: contractors, operators, guards, enablers, armed escorts, actors, and so on. And yet, since media attention during controversies often appears suspect if not hostile, managers frequently display a bunker mentality that guarantees them bad press.

This is understandable, based on what Brooks related earlier. But just as words can have serious consequences, so can their absence. Something must fill the lexicographical void, and in the case of PSCs, the informational vacuum sometimes is filled with a harsh mix of fact and fancy. Hence, the industry’s “message” is easily obscured.

Until the Blackwater issue really broke in October, much of the coverage was based on pronouncements from Iraqi officials and on critics who barely disguised their dislike or resentment of PSCs. The faulty coverage reflected soldiers’ and PSCs’ different roles. Troops seek out and engage the enemy; security contractors protect their charges, including diplomats, civilian agency personnel, foreign government officials, and other VIPs. They are to engage if and only if they or their charges are in immediate danger. “Shoot and scoot,” so to speak.

It must be hard for reporters to appreciate the distinction. So, despite the industry having mechanisms to help ensure that tragedies like Nasoor Square aren’t repeated, it appears that a new era of more open communication from within the industry is appropriate.

A Call for Greater Industry Transparency

Today’s news media, competing in a cacophonous environment for regular readership, have often declined in professional quality. Former Los Angeles Times editor Shelby Coffey tells Serviam that he sees a good deal of “adjective inflation” today in the journalism profession.

In Iraq, even the most peaceful street scene can erupt into violence at a moment’s notice. Photo by E. Poole.

IPOA leader Brooks is concerned that overcharged adjectives make for “more ominous,” less reliable coverage.

If anything, that adjective inflation makes a more compelling argument for the industry to open up further to the press. Otherwise, PSCs risk being left stranded by a tsunami of negative publicity.

Brooks concedes the industry has its work cut out. One of the biggest challenges, he said, is making news organizations realize that Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy who are all on the State Department’s diplomatic security contract are overwhelmingly staffed by experienced professionals. The IPOA leader suggests that security managers should be proactive, emphasizing the training and experience of their personnel and the self-governing and oversight mechanisms that keep the industry accountable.

“Educating the media, and thus the public, is just that important,” he says.

Alex Neill, managing editor of the renowned Army Times, disagrees with the idea of media intemperateness. “Coverage of contractor operations in the war zone,” Neill tells this reporter, “certainly is not sensationalized. The … alleged shootings of innocent civilians sparked a diplomatic crisis that raised legitimate questions about how private security firms operate, by what authority and under what rules. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked staff to get him answers to these questions.”

Conversely, says Neill, “coverage of private security contractors in the war zone is incomplete. That is largely because the contractors don’t exactly invite coverage, so attention to their operations tends to surface when there’s controversy.” 

This, he adds, is “partly due to the nature of much of their work, providing security for people who would be targets for enemy forces, and field operations that are sensitive in nature. That said, I think it would be in the interests of security contractors to open their operations to increased media coverage so that a three-dimensional picture of the work they do, much of it critical and valuable, would emerge.”

That’s just what Prince did after his October 2 testimony. Following his successful appearance before Waxman’s panel, Prince got State Department clearance to speak to the press in greater detail, invited top reporters to Blackwater headquarters, and generated unprecedented positive media coverage for his company (see sidebar, “Opening the Door”).

Given “the huge size of the contracts going to some of these firms,” Neill says, “I think the public has a right to greater scrutiny of how that money is being spent.”

For his part, Prince challenged lawmakers to compare costs to determine whether government forces or outsourced private contractors make better fiscal sense for the taxpayer.

IPOA advocates a policy of openness. “Our policy is talk to anyone for any reason,” Brooks asserts. “And since founding IPOA, we have been great proponents of our member companies being as open as possible with the press.

“Much of our business is paid for by taxpayers, and they have every right to demand a competent and professional product—and the transparency to prove they are getting value. To put it another way: If our industry is NOT providing quality, cost-effective, professional services, we should not be in the business. And yes, the public has a right to know.”

Moreover, if industry leaders like Blackwater don’t want to be raked over the editorial coals, they must find a way to step forward and engage journalists. And in a way, of course, that doesn’t compromise operational security or their clients’ confidentiality. This is a supremely daunting challenge. As Nasoor Square suggests, however, the time is overdue for reporters and editors to become experts on PSCs so that they can report accurately, and for PSC companies to become more open and proactive so that they can better educate the press and the public.

_______
David Walsh is a Washington, D.C., area writer and photographer. He last reported for Serviam about the Pentagon’s newest theater command, AFRICOM (see “AFRICOM: Stabilizing a Region in Chaos,” September/October 2007.)

From the November/December 2007 issue of Serviam.