Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Deadly Embrace: McChrystal and the Media

By Robert M. Citino 
Originally published under Front & Center Blog. Published Online: June 29, 2010 
Print Friendly
1 comment FONT +  FONT -

It's an occupational hazard of being a historian.  I've been living in 1943 the past few months, and readers of this page know about my most recent obsession:  the battle of Kursk.  But while I've been thinking about the Germans and the Soviets and their great armored clash, there have been big doings in the present.  Our own current war–one of them, at least–just witnessed a command implosion. 

Or perhaps I should say a "commander implosion."  Anyone reading a paper recently should know about General Stanley McChrystal.  He's a four-star general, a special forces guy with an impressive resumé and no lack of guts.  Unfortunately, if that recent portrait in Rolling Stone magazine is accurate (and it hasn't yet been challenged), he and the lads on his staff also like to talk like ninth graders at an all-boys high school.  And I should know–I attended one.  Once the article appeared in print, with the general dissing his own commander in chief, the vice president, the French ambassador, and some other folks I'm probably leaving out, his days were numbered.  An attempt to show that he was regular folks had effectively ended his career. 

The more I thought about it, however, the more it reminded me of another war.  Generalship and the media have gone hand in hand since the dawn of the modern era, but that relationship came to a sizzling perfection in World War II.  That war was crawling with reporters eager to make their mark, and the way they usually did it was to find some general and profile him in glowing terms for an audience of avid readers back home.  What we think we know about Omar Bradley, for example–the humility, the common touch, the aw-shucks folksiness–is largely the result of assiduous work by the greatest journalist of the war, Ernie Pyle.  Bradley, as he currently exists in our consciousness, was in many ways Pyle's invention. 

But it went deeper than that.  Sometimes it seemed as if the war and the reporting of the war were one and the same.  Reporters could make and break careers, and the generals soon learned it.  The press knew about General George Patton's "slapping incidents"–in which he physically struck a couple of shell shocked soldiers in hospital–well before the rest of the nation.  They decided to sit on the news after the first one, so as not to injure the war effort, then decided to report it through channels after the second.  The story eventually broke in the states anyway, courtesy of muckraking columnist Drew Pearson.  Likewise, General Mark Clark rubbed a lot of people the wrong way in this war, but none more so than the reporters who had to cover his campaign in Italy and who chafed over having to write a byline that always included the phrase, "General Mark Clark's 5th Army," as if it was some sort of personal possession. 

The best example of the media/general symbiosis has to be Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.  Everything about him–his rugged good looks, his just-so poses, even his designer goggles–stamp him as someone we modern folk recognize instinctively:  a star.  Nazi propaganda painted him not only as a garden variety hero, but as a model National Socialist and Aryan, a man who could overcome materially stronger enemies through the sheer force of his will.  Nor was he a passive bystander to the creation of his own myth; he was an active accomplice.  He loved nothing better than having a camera crew along with him while on campaign, and he would regularly order scenes to be re-shot if his posture was insufficiently heroic or the lighting had not shown him to his best advantage.

It's a very old game, in other words.  As General McChrystal has now discovered, however, even the friendliest, best-cultivated relationship to the media can be as self-destructive as it is self-serving. 
 
For the more discussion on the war, the latest news, and announcements, be sure to visit World War II Magazine's Facebook page. 
 


One Response to “Deadly Embrace: McChrystal and the Media”


  1. 1
    Perry says:

    See Douglas MacArthur and "Bull" Halsey. Two great examples that demonstrate that the media giveth, but it also taketh away, see Korea and Leyte Gulf respectively.



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History Group

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2013 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy