Embedded Journalism

I was watching a bit of CNN this morning and they frequently used the word "embedded", as Aberfoyle had mentioned in the New TV Show: The Great Oil Robbery thread.

Originally posted by Aberfoyle More news from the humour frontline... American journalists are embedded with the combat troops. Now there's an Orwellian word and half if I've ever seen one!

Besides being a great pun and a chilling "Orwellian" concept, I was curious to hear what other Bowlers thought of the state of wartime journalism. I suppose it is a companion thread to my earlier An Honourable War? thread. Is there any honour left in journalism? Have news corporations simply become press release delivery boys?

I rarely read newspapers or watch TV news anymore, unless I'm trying to get a sense of the current spin that the powers that be are selling. For me, forums such as this one have transcended any commercial sources of opinion. Forty years ago Arthur Miller wrote, "A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.". Newspapers, good or bad, ceased providing that function some time ago. They also no longer provide true investigative journalism of the type that Woodward and Bernstein used to unseat American President Nixon in the 70's - as a matter of fact Bob Woodward has joined the cheerleading squad with his latest book, Bush at War.

Is there any hope left for journalism?

I don't have a problem with journalists being embedded in military units. But, there is certainly a problem with the good-times "let's party" attitude that a lot of them seem to have. Journalling a war is not intrinsically a bad thing, but it's not being done properly.

I don't think you can look to one source for anything. You have to look for sources that you trust as a "this is what's happening" source, and then you have to parse the information yourself and form an opinion from that. You can get off to a good start by not watching CNN or reading the Toronto Star. I'm not sure what looking to this Bowl will give you. It's a bit like reading the Toronto Star. For the most part, you'll just be looking here to get confirmation of what you already believed and make yourself feel like you were right all along.

An important thing to keep an eye on is the "initial report". Many initial reports report truth fragments here and there and are later buried when they are framed as part of "the story". If you can properly assemble the "initial reports" in your mind as they are reported and not forget about the loose ends when they are overwhelmed by "the story", you have a better chance of painting a reasonably informed picture of what is really going on. But, it's not enough by itself.

Now... how can a good newspaper be a nation talking to itself? That assumes a lot, perhaps most importantly that the nation has the information it needs to make any kind of informed decision. I'm not sure that that information is readily available, and you will never get it from one source (and I consider the great unwashed population to be "one source"). It assumes that various levels of government and other "people in the know" are contributing to the conversations inside the nation and this isn't the case.

The plumbing that would have allowed a nation to freely converse had a brief window of opportunity when the Internet began gaining popularity, but most of the forums of discussion are now controlled or moderated to some degree (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but ideally open, centralized forums of discussion such as Usenet are being buried so as to be inaccessible to a lot of people. The forums are now scattered, under various degrees of control and have no useful level of interconnection).

I really do not like the thought of journalists in with the combact troops. Journalist have no business being there. This is highly dangerous place and the reporters have no training or do they know when to keep their mouths shut. One little slip and positions, routes, tactics, etc. are out. And if they think that the enemy - now Sadaam- is not watching CNN they are crazy.

Yes the good guys use the media. Propoganda, wrong stats, things they want the enemy to think but there is the chance that the wrong information is reported. And that is deadly for the good guys.

The reporters will not let the miltary edit their stories - that's sensorship. And deadlines must be met, so no delays in reporting something. I am sure that some journalists are respectful and mindful of all these things but breaking a story is foremost in their minds.

Do we need to know every detail, when it happens, as it happens? No.

(edited for spelling errors)

check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2870361.stm ... less bias than american media sources, and very up-to-date information.

Originally posted by mbg An important thing to keep an eye on is the "initial report". Many initial reports report truth fragments here and there and are later buried when they are framed as part of "the story". If you can properly assemble the "initial reports" in your mind as they are reported and not forget about the loose ends when they are overwhelmed by "the story", you have a better chance of painting a reasonably informed picture of what is really going on. But, it's not enough by itself.

One such "initial report" that was quickly buried, was a photo of American troops taking down the Iraqi flag in Umm Qasr and replacing it with the American flag. For about an hour they showed it on CNN briefly yesterday and then someone noted it seemed like the practice of a country on a conquest for territory, and now I can't seem to find a single copy of the photo anywhere online...

(One can only wish the Americans well on their altruistic mission to liberate the innocent oil fields from the Iraqi people!)

Originally posted by Aberfoyle now I can't seem to find a single copy of the photo anywhere online...

here are a few pictures about the incident:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../170/3kxwa.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../170/3kxjy.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../170/3kxn5.html

Originally posted by brabb I really do not like the thought of journalists in with the combact troops. Journalist have no business being there. This is highly dangerous place and the reporters have no training or do they know when to keep their mouths shut. One little slip and positions, routes, tactics, etc. are out. And if they think that the enemy - now Sadaam- is not watching CNN they are crazy. Yes the good guys use the media. Propoganda, wrong stats, things they want the enemy to think but there is the chance that the wrong information is reported. And that is deadly for the good guys. The reporters will not let the miltary edit their stories - that's sensorship. And deadlines must be met, so no delays in reporting something. I am sure that some journalists are respectful and mindful of all these things but breaking a story is foremost in their minds. Do we need to know every detail, when it happens, as it happens? No. (edited for spelling errors)

Journalists are trained by the millitary for thier safety. They know the risks, they are adults, and they can make the decision to go or not to go.

The "one little slip" thing is pretty implausable. Commanders have to approve the use of comm. equipment. The story is then reviewed before being broadcast.

With embedded journalists, who likely develop a friendship with the unit they are with, probably value the lives of the men more then a "deadline". As if a deadline means anything in a war zone.

Here's a little post-game analysis on the quality of war reporting we received during the "war"...

Iraq? What's Iraq?



"Funny", we don't hear too much about that place anymore. What a thorough scam that was!

©2000-2009 GoldfishLegs - Because Fish have lawyers too!
www.GoldfishLegs.ca