Military reporting in Lehmans language can be understood as that beat of journalism, be it electronic media reporting or print media, wherein

the domestic or the international media covers those events on the domestic or international frontier that cease to effect a countrys defence, its military, the governments and the citizens , whether in a positive or negative way. According to Judy Silverstein Gray , each military service has its own public affairs specialists or journalists. Professionally trained, they are skilled in media relations, photojournalism and writing. They are the conduit to stories, subject matter experts and can help you flush out a story idea. Taking time to cultivate a relationship with them could mean getting to the guts of the stories no one else has thought to write. Military coverage isnt hard its just harder to penetrate the surface. Like good narrative journalism, the stories arent always obvious; theyre lurking a bit beneath the surface. While in the field of military reporting, the just should Know the law before covering any story. Learn how the military justice system works. In addition to cultivating relationships with the public affairs officers, when you first arrive on the beat it is a good idea to ask for a meeting with those running the military justice system on base. Always be prepared to object. Stay in contact, cultivate relationships with civilian military attorneys because they are more likely to tip you off. Have reference materials. Play all sides. If the government denies you access, Crawley suggests talking to the defence attorney. And most importantly be persistent.

A few examples of military reporting in India may be Bharkha Dutt whose reporting of the Kargil War got her both accolades and criticism at the same time. Her reporting of the Kargil conflict in 1999, including an interview with Captain Vikram Batra, brought her to prominence in India. Brijesh Pandey of Tehelka wrote a hard hitting piece on the war games that threaten our defence establishment. Word by word he lets the entire story unfold that makes you realise the forgotten importance of military in some articles and in the others about its authoritarian power in a few states.

Gen. VK SINGH-ACCUSED OR THE VICTIM?

KITCHENER VERSUS Curzon, Thimayya versus Krishna Menon, Vishnu Bhagwat versus George Fernandes and now VK Singh versus AK Antony and Manmohan Singh: in the past century, these have been the biggest military commander-political boss battles in Indian history. But the VK Singh versus AK Antony and Manmohan Singh story seems to be the best from journalistic point of view and the worst from defenc e point of view. This story started when General Singh fought and asked the government to clarify its position on his year of birth 1950 or 1951 he was the subject of sympathy. Many believed that he was indeed born in 1951 but that army records had deliberately not been corrected by some of his predecessors to ensure he retired in May 2012 and not a year later. This was done, it was said, to ensure a certain line of succession to the top job in the Indian Army. The culprits thought that the matter would be over once he would retire this year, but what followed jolted the Indian democracy from its root. In sheer frustration as it appears ,on March 26, Singh told The Hindu newspaper that a retired three-star general had come to his office and offered him a Rs 14 crore bribe to clear further purchase of Tatra trucks. Singh said he was flabbergasted and found it hard to comprehend what was happening, eventually asking his visitor to get out of his office. Singh then told Antony about the incident, something Antony admitted in Parliament where he identified the alleged bribe giver as Tejinder Singh. What followed this was a series of the most unexpected comments and incidents, making the military versus government relationship hit rock bottom. To turn the matter into a blame game , Singhs to the prime minister arguing that the army was severely incapacitated and not in position to defend the country should there be a war. This top-secret letter then made it to the press, only intensifying the conflict between the general and the government that appointed him. If it is established the general leaked the letter, his sacking is inevitable. If the prime ministers office leaked the l etter to discredit the general some of the points he makes in the letter are grossly exaggerated . A small issue of age showed the world the ugly fight of the military and the government.

Firstly, Singhs disclosure on the 2010 bribe is shocking. But whatdefies explaination is why ke kept quiet for for 2 years! his attempt to get back and knife the system does not give him justice. Both the parties are guilty of inaction. Instead of raising this issue at the fag end of his career , Singh should have done it when the bribe was offered.As or AK Antony he is just picking up on the technicalities that Singh did not give his complaint in writing. It is a matter of shher negligence on the part of AK Antony who dispit e knowing the fact didnt take action even when Singh decided not to take the case further. It is not a simple matter like a police station complain where the victim withdraws his case but a matter of national security that was turned a blind eye to. For the first time in his history, an arms lobb yist has walked up to the chief and offered him a bribe. Whats worse is that the same set of people feel that they have such backing that they can hold the chief to ransom and the government has backed out. What is most tragic is that after a long time we had an army chief of impeccable integrity and a defence minister nicknamed the Saint for probity in public life. It is indeed very sad that the chief will be forever remembered as a man who fought just for his own honour and thought nothing of the institution that made him what he is and not as a soldier of the Indian Army. Those who love India and cherish its army will nod vigorously and shed a tear in pain.