After reading the thread about lack of international news available in the U.S. I started wondering about censorship and then about freedom of the press during wartime.
The coverage of war by the press or media has changed overtime. It seems to swing back and forth from almost total freedom to censorship. In 1898 when the U.S.S. Maine blew-up, the press helped start a war by printing stories that blamed Spain for the incident.
During WWI the U.S. government created an agency specifically to promote war - the Committee on Public Information. In WWII posters like this one advertised that careless talk had deadly consequences.
During Vietnam, it seems the news crews lived with the soldiers and were sending stories and images back to the U.S. in real time. The government allowed the press much less access to the Gulf War, which didn’t stop the reporting - it just increased a lot of speculative reporting. The same strategy was used in Afghanistan. I’m assuming that the people in power felt that showing war close-up like in Vietnam would contribute to anti-war sentiment.
The reason for censorship that is still given-out is national security. So this is my question, has there ever been a case of loose lips sinking ships? Does anyone know of documentation that shows proof of a case where a reporter caused the death of U.S. soldiers by his news story?
Are you looking for a direct causual effect or would inderect effect suffice. The US Civil War is rife with examples of the latter. Newspaper accounts were one of many methods Lee (for example) used to determine the future movements of the Army of the Potomac. Censorship was notoriously lacking during the war. In many early battles press dispatches included not only the intended target of a movement but estimates of forces as well (Cite - Expedition against Fort Henry & Donelson, Catton: Grant Moves South). My interest has been more at the strategic level, so I can’t say offhand if there are more specific directly causual examples. OTAH, Grant’s position regarding censorship was that he simpy didn’t want his movements revealed in advance, and left it at that.
I think the basic point is that the most effective military movements are those which involve surprise. If your plans (or in the case of the “loose lips” motto, the location of your supply lines) are revealed to the enemy prior to their being executed, they will fail, or be harder to achieve (read: more casulties). While not directly causual, there is certainly a relationship.
Finally, a point that may stray outside your intended question, I think the better question in this area is not that coverage is censored prior or during an operation, but when has an operation been completed to the point that it can be fully reported on without risk to operational security.