If you’ve done any reporting on national security issues in Washington DC, you probably already know JJ Green. He’s been covering national security for the city’s most popular radio station, WTOP, for 15 years now. As you can imagine, he’s seen a lot of changes in that time.
The Cipher Brief sat down with Green recently at the National Press Club in Washington to talk about how national security reporting works, how reporters and correspondents gain access to news and policy makers and how journalists today navigate the differences between reporting and ‘analysis’ which oftentimes, leads into opinion on headline stories.
ED Note: This version of the conversation was edited for length and clarity for print purposes. You can listen to the full audio conversation on the State Secrets podcast.
The Cipher Brief: You began with WTOP 15 years ago. What changes have you noticed in that time when it comes to how reporters approach reporting?
Green: There are less chairs at the table (today), and unfortunately those chairs have essentially been given to larger organizations that represent a good chunk of the country, but quite often, they don't represent us here in the ‘local area’. Being a national security correspondent at a local radio station is a different kind of animal, but I've discovered over the last few years that folks simply have not been interested in radio, and that's really a weird thing because you have two million people who either work at the Pentagon or in the intelligence community. They work on the Hill, they work at the White House or they're a diplomat.
The Cipher Brief: And they're listeners?
Green: And they're listeners. They're in their cars. This is, I think, the worst commute in the country maybe save for Los Angeles. I think some of the people who actually are news makers or people responsible for putting news makers out there, have either lost sight of that, or don't seem to care about that and that's the biggest change I've seen.
The Cipher Brief: When you say fewer chairs at the table, are you talking about access and the common practice within some organizations to pick and choose the journalists they grant interviews to or invite in for background briefings?
Green: That's right and I will actually give you a really good anecdote about how that was presented to me, surprisingly, ten years ago when I was interacting with a young twenty-something official who was in a very, very influential position at the White House. I was requesting an interview with his principal and this principal had said, "Yes. I'd be interested in doing this." But later, talking to his handler, I was told, "You and your station are not a good use of our senior leader's time."
That is, exactly what people have said to me over the years. I've never forgotten it and I will not forget it because that sort of set the stage for a period of about eight years of no access or limited access. That was an alarm for me because I started to see more and more people take that approach. We only need what we think we need to get our message out, and I think the thing that that young man missed, and a lot of people over the years have missed, is that having journalists there regardless of whether you pick and choose them or not, having them there gives you credibility. And having people that you don't choose gives you even more credibility regardless of what they say. But having people that you only choose is propaganda. I'm sorry.
I could spend hours talking to you about the number of disappointing and just very difficult scenarios that came up over the years, but I'm just going to give you a scenario about what this leads to, and hopefully present something that people can choose to learn from. Same place, the White House. One day, I called regarding a story that had taken place. There was some very negative coverage that had taken place regarding this particular principal, not the same one I was referring to earlier, and I ended up getting in contact with a young woman and I asked her if I could get a response from the White House regarding the situation and the official reaction. This person referred me to a competing news organization.
She said, "Check their coverage. This is what we're saying." And I said, "I'm sorry but that's not what I get paid to do. I don't get paid to use competitors' coverage for my coverage. I get paid to come directly to you. And I'm hoping that you understand that you're saying to me by extension that this particular news outlet is a proxy of yours. I hope you understand that." I don't think she understood it. I think her supervisor did, who later tried to smooth it over but the point I'm making is that situation kind of got to a place where it should never have gotten to.
The Cipher Brief: It's so fascinating because I think you're really pulling back the curtain on a lot of how this stuff works when you're trying to cover institutions like the White House or DOD or any of the intelligence agencies and people just don't think enough about sourcing, how reporters get their information, why some reporters seem to have a lot of access when others don't. I just think America doesn't understand really how that works.
Green: Yeah and so this is not sour grapes because I've had a terrific run since I've been national security correspondent and the host of my own podcast. There are a lot of people who get it, and there's been a consistent flow of people who got it, but there's been this trend over time that seems to have shaved off the number of people who got it or they've gotten tired or they've just moved on and they're doing other things. And I'm concerned that the danger is you don't have those experienced voices and experienced engagers there who can tell a young person or even an older person who may not be familiar with the process. "Hey, we really do need to do this differently."
Our job is to be to act in the public interest and for the convenience and necessity of the public because they can't be everywhere and they can't do the things that we do to cover things for them.
The Cipher Brief: How difficult is it to be a correspondent in Washington these days and stay apolitical?
Green: Well for me it's very easy, and I'll tell you why. It's because I absolutely completely detest political reporting because I know what's necessary to do it and I simply don't have it.
The Cipher Brief: But politics creeps its way into national security.
Green: Yeah it does, but I know people who are really good political reporters and really good national security reporters but the thing that I try to do at all costs is to figure out what it is that I'm covering each day and looking at what it has to do with national security. It's easy to strip away the politics. The politics makes an impression on you and sometimes it pushes you- to want to say or do things but at the end of the day, I think about the fact that I can't do that because that's going to eat away at my credibility if I say that or if I do that. That's the thing that's on my mind when I get up in the morning and when I go to bed at night. I really don't want to do anything political. Being apolitical sounds hard but it's easier said than done if you understand what's at stake because some people some people just lose understanding of what's happening in the moment and say and do things.
You can listen to the full interview with JJ Green on the State Secrets podcast, including details of a recent reporting trip JJ took to Africa, where he covered operation ‘Code Name Lion’.
