It’s been nine years now since “on the ground” burst over the cliché horizon with blinding effect. In that time people have swallowed the white noise and the impression it gives: That the person who writes or says it is in the know, or has spoken directly to someone who is (and supposedly is presenting an unbiased perspective).

It has the same intellectual force once ascribed to the concluding phrase, “Think about it.” (Most effectively conveyed by removal of eyeglasses as it’s about to be uttered.)

Both are hogwash for different reasons, but “on the ground” is a province of the news media its handlers, most often connected with the uniformed services. It also speaks volumes about how they work these days, together and separately. Oh, the phrase got a workout during Hurricane Katrina at a point when Bourbon Street was beyond reach. But “on the ground” really gained the veneer of legitimacy in the aftermath of 9-11 when the U.S. responded with invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

It’s a given that the phrase can be removed from almost any news report (other than football game coverage) with no loss of substance. The situation on the ground in Kandahar is the same as the situation in Kandahar, especially if the teller actually knows what that situation is. But that’s the key.

News media are supposed to know or tell you why they don’t, in the pursuit of truth on your behalf. But with news bureaus closing worldwide and domestic staff slashed to ribbons by corporate ownership, journalists were more at the mercy of news handlers (PR staffs) than ever before in 2001, and have become more so.

Much of the “on the ground” reporting in these wars came from embedded reporters who were necessarily compromised by covering the event from one side. Yeah, yeah, a truer picture could emerge if you read their stuff and the non-embeds’ reporting, but when you put a reporter in boots you’ve got “boots on the ground,” and when you hype your coverage you make the most of that.

More often “on the ground” refers to places reporters do not have access to — Palestinian refugee camps, battle scenes where embeds are for some reason not invited, places where no one speaks English or likes Westerners, or it’s just too dangerous for them. So it becomes a reference for second-hand information coming from someone with an agenda, someone who speaks clear English and has a friendly, thriving PR operation. If the U.S. military knew the situation “on the ground” in Northern Pakistan, Osama bin Laden could only wish he was cranking out license plates in Joliet, Ill.

Now let’s say you hear “on the ground” from someone who was actually there. What exactly are they conveying? Why, that they’re actually not getting a handout, that they’re doing their job.  That’s a good thing, and everybody likes to be stroked. But self-stroking in public is, well, just a little embarrassing, isn’t it?

Think about it. 

_____________________________________________________________________
Further observations on credible communicaton appear at www.datzmedia.blogspot.com