New Army/media strategy?

After eight years of being part of a war in Afghanistan, it seems the Norwegian Army has realized it may not be the best strategy to try to keep it a secret. Contradictory to political speaches and the traditional Norwegian obsession with "openness" the Norwegian army has tightly controlled which journalists could visit the troops, and under what circumstances their reporting could be done. Pretending to be secretive special forces, name- and facelss warriors, the Norwegians have shunned media attention. Unless they happened to do "something humanitarian" or shake hands with a minister. Combined with the fact that the Norwegian soldiers have been placed in a reasonably stable region (at least compared to other parts of the country) the resulting reporting has been mostly tranquil postcards from Northern Afghanistan. Interesting mostly to four wheel drive enthusiasts. This strategy has been different from other ISAF countries, who for years have allowed reporters much better access. And their soldiers actually have names and faces (even before their name appeares on a press release as killed in action).

Now the strategy seems to be changing. As their their area of operations has changed for the worse, with enemy "contact" on average every third day, the Norwegian army has done an apparent 167 (sic) degree turn on their media policy. In April 2010 Norwegian TV2's team was the first (as far as I know) who were allowed to do a "proper" embed and follow Norwegian forces into combat. For the first time since troops were deployed to Afghanistan (possibly since since WWII) journalists were able to witness and photograph soldiers in real life and death situations as they fought the Taliban. It only took eight years to pull that rabbit out of the hat: Norwegians kill and get killed.

(Below: wounded soldier being transported. Photo: Lars Kroken/Norwegian Army)


It hasn't exactly opened the floodgates of in depth reporting, or groundbreaking photojournalism. We are still far from seeing emotions or getting under the skin of the soldiers during stressful times, like this story by Erin Trieb, or this by Tim Hetherington. But at least it now seems the Army has realized its ostrich media strategy has backfired. The public has become indifferent to the soldiers and their mission. One, in an interview with Dagsavisen, puts it this way:
"– Here in Norway I don't feel appreciated as a soldier. There is no joy in wearing the uniform in public. (...) I am afraid not to get accepted when I get back - afraid people will have the wrong impression from what they have heard. I am glad the Army now allows the soldiers to speak to the media - so we can make our voices heard. I think it will lead to more support from the society around us."

(There is still residue of the old media strategy in the story, none of the five soldiers interviewed were identified by anything more than their first name.)

I can understand the soldier's concern, and I think he is right. But my main concern has been that the Norwegian Army is representing all of us back home, something they seem to have forgotten at times. We have chosen the politicians that sent them there, so for all practical purposes we sent the soldiers there. For many it is much more personal: they sent their own son or daughter into harms way. So to let everyone back home know what is going on, what our soldiers are doing - right or wrong - shouldn't be treated as such an inconvience for the Army.
After all, the Norwegian public is the employer. WE are your superior officers.

In a democracy free flow of information is an obligation. And media is the vehicle for information to the public. We need information to base our choices on when we elect politicians to act on our behalf. The soldiers deserves it too, how can we appreciate what they are doing if we are not informed about it? And no, a press release from the PIO doesn't qualify as keeping the public informed.