Journalists : Embedded or in-bed(ed) with the soldiers

Journalists have a history of changing public opinion against a war.

All throughout the Vietman war, Americans and people watching television around the world saw first hand events of the cruelty and violence happenening during the war. Some say that this is exactly what turned public opinion against the war. The “television war”, or better seen in the media as the war that was lost due to journalists was the battle where many critics blame the media for loosing morale and public opinion for the war.

The U.S vowed to never let this happen again….
and then came the Gulf war..

“coverage was thin and journalists, who were miles from the action, found it almost impossible to check the facts they were being fed by the military”

-War Correspondent during Gulf War

During the Iraq war, the way in which the media covered it was very different to the Vietnam and Gulf war.

Embedded journalism showed it’s face

In 2007, the Department of Defense (DOD) emerged with a new strategy to regain public support for the Iraq war (Murphy, Ward & Donovan, 2006). The DOD began to recruit reporters from both national and international news organizations for the state sponsored “embedding” program (Murphy et al., 2006)
Embedded journalists ate and slept alongside the soldiers thus allowing them to bring live reports into the living room.

But is embedded journalism the correct form of journalism?

“it means viewers get a better understanding of what’s going on,” says Adrian Van Klaveren, the BBC’s head of newsgathering.

One could argue that embedded reporting is necessary in times of war. The BBC article of “How Embedded Reporters are Handeling the War” discusses the positive aspects of this type of journalism. Unlike in the reporting of the Gulf war, “there has been no censorship,” says Van BBC’s Van Klaveren.

The article states that embedded journalism offers protection to journalists in times of conflict. There have been many deaths of journalists during times of war due to insufficient protection… so what better way to protect ones life then with a trained body guard with you at all times.

To move anywhere outside central Baghdad, it was wise to embed

– David Ignatius, Embedded journalist during the Iraq war

The NBC article ” The Benefits of embedding reporters” tells us how important it was to embed journalists in the Iraq war. Embedded journalism changed the way in which we saw news. The embedded journalists had access to the reality of the war zones and could capture every moment, bringing immediecy to the public watching the news.

“Fascination turned to fear as we became riveted to our televisions when the embedded reporters broadcast the gunfire, the explosions, and the screams.”

The American population felt like they were inside the war..hearing the gunshots and explosions letting themselves be moved by emotion.

According to the NBC article, the news delivered to the public was not too censored and news broadcasters made sure of that. “Our editorial producers and anchors constantly patrolled our broadcasts and scripts for phrases such as “we attacked,” and “enemy soldiers,” which they revised to “the U.S. military attacked” and “Iraqi soldiers,” says David Verdi, the Executive director of NBC news.

David Bloom, an embedd journalist for the Iraq war had an idea that changed the representation of the Iraq war. For the first time ever, live footage was shown as Bloom rode with soldiers, reporting with a date-line in the war zone. This type of coverage allowed people viewing to connect with the soldiers who were risking their lives to fight for their country.

The embedded reporters, and the stories they told, drew us all closer than we had ever been before.

too close perhaps

-David Verdi

But some may say that if we are reporting on the same people who are protecting our lives, we owe them. Not in terms of money but in terms of positive coverage.

If your safety is in the hands of soldiers, the argument goes, you will be unwilling to criticise them.

After all, you can’t bite the hand that feeds you now can you.

The embedding program was set in place for journalists to work with soldiers and report back to the media in a way which reflected the war in a positive manner. According to an article in the Politics and Life Sciences Journal ,the DOD-sponsored embedding program of American and international press during the Iraq war was nothing more than a political strategy to “maintain [the public’s] approval, maximize positive coverage, and minimize the negative portrayals of the American military.

We live in an embedded world, in which journalists are often required to take sides, or to see things from only one side, as a condition of doing their job

In a report by NBC embed Kerry Sanders, viewers where shown uncesored footage of a bloody aftermath.”At no time did the commander in the field limit Sanders’ access or ability to broadcast, beyond the agreed-upon restrictions. But we can’t tell if this was always the case.

I do agree though that embedded journalism can taint the truth in reporting.It’s only natural.

Therefore, embedded journalism should not be a form of reporting.

The war in Iraq offered reporters unprecedented access to the battlefront, but according to an article in the Journalism and Mass communication quarterly, the images and stories being published by American Reporters were overly pro military in tone.

“There’s a larger narrative, beyond the facts, that is conditioning how a story is covered,” says David Ignatius of the Washington Post.

The article by David Ignatius in the Washington Post tells his first hand account of what embedded journalism really is. ” embedding comes at a price. We are observing these wars from just one perspective, not seeing them whole,” says Ignatius.Embedded journalism creates a bubble for journalists where it becomes difficult to see the other side of a war. Journalists cannot explain “the story”, if they only see one side.

During the war, reporters wanted to become embedded journalists.. Being so close with the soldiers meant that journalists could see what was happenening live. The proximity is what erased the lines of truth versus biased reporting.

After all ..

We live in an embedded world, in which journalists are often required to take sides, or to see things from only one side, as a condition of doing their job

The coverage from the embedded journalists that the media showed, was only a small picture of what was really happening. I think that if we want news to be truthful and un-biased, reporters need to stay away from embedding, even in this “blood sells” filled world. True journalism is when journalists don’t just sit next to the soldiers, but get off that truck and go speak to the people left behind, to the people hurt in the bombings and broken cities. Reporters must get their information from the people and not from a soldier or general.

The problem with embedded reporting is that the government uses reporters as a sense of “advertisement”, where the viewer doesn’t receive an unbiased opinion.

It is impossible to report with truth on events when drinking tea with one side of a war. This type of reporting might as well be a commercial for every reason why the enemy is in fact, the enemy.

We all need to break away from the caravan and the special access it allows — even that venerable caravan in the center of the highway — and try to get the story right.

-David Ignatius, reporter for the Washington Post