Posted on 03/27/2003 7:32:35 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Mar 27, 2003 (Knight Ridder Newspapers - Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service via COMTEX) -- Anyone who has watched a measurable amount of television war coverage over the past few days has been privy to the vicarious thrills of "embedded" reporting.
We've rumbled through the desert atop armored vehicles. We've been plopped on the flight decks of aircraft carriers as U.S. jet fighters return from their bombing raids. We've even found ourselves in the middle of fiery gunbattles that look like something out of a Bruce Willis action film.
Not surprisingly, this kind of you-are-there access has spawned lots of wide-eyed awe. It's an "unprecedented view of the battlefield," crows ABC's Ted Koppel. It's "extraordinary," marvels CNN anchor Aaron Brown. It's "historic," insists Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who added, "I doubt that in a conflict of this type, there's ever been the degree of free press coverage as you are witnessing."
But lost in the fog of these rave reviews are some valid journalistic and ethical concerns. One has to wonder, after all, if the embedding system, fragile as it is, will hold up as the conflict intensifies. Even if it does, are the participating TV and newspaper reporters tethered too tightly to the military?
In other words, is the coverage all that "free"?
Even before the war started, the term "embedded," used to refer to journalists bunking with fighting units, conjured up a slight feeling of unease. Perhaps that's because it too closely mimics sounds of "in bed" - as in the media is in bed with the military. That's not the case, of course, but perceptions can take on a life of their own.
Actually, the concept of embedding isn't new at all. Legendary war correspondent Ernie Pyle, famous for his intimate accounts of World War II, routinely shared a foxhole with American soldiers. Even Vietnam, described by writer Michael Arlen as the nation's first "living-room war," featured plenty of unfettered journalistic interaction with the troops.
What makes the latest form of embedding so cutting-edge are its quantity and immediacy. Never have this many journalists, more than 500, from such a vast array of media outlets participated in this kind of up-close coverage. In the case of television, never have their reports been relayed to viewers so quickly. (During Vietnam, networks couldn't get their reports on the air until several days after the fact.)
After Vietnam, the relations between the media and military frayed and wartime access significantly waned. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, journalists raised a vociferous ruckus over being forced to cover the battlefield maneuvers from briefing rooms, and of the sanitized reporting it spawned. Similar complaints surfaced last year in Afghanistan.
Make no mistake; the Pentagon's surprising decision to lengthen the media's leashes for this war is not an act of total altruism. The military hopes to benefit as well. For example, when networks fill their screens with armadas of tanks and fighter jets, it makes for a riveting display of U.S. military might. When righteous young soldiers speak in interviews of dedication and pride and love of country, it's the best recruiting ad imaginable.
Of course, a journalist has an obligation to sidestep the pitfalls of boosterism and maintain objectivity. This would seem very difficult to do, however, if you're not only sharing living quarters with, but being protected by, the troops that have taken you under their wing. After all, how aggressively critical can a reporter be of a soldier he or she is bonding with?
This was a sensitive issue before the war started and will continue to be one as the war unfolds. There have been concerns, too, of the restrictions that come with an embedded existence. Unlike Vietnam, where reporters could move from place to place as news warranted, embedded journalists must stick with their units. In addition, there is often tight control on when reports can be filed.
Said former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw, reporters "effectively become hostages of the military."
As for the embedded TV coverage, it has been a mixed bag thus far. On the plus side, viewers are gleaning remarkable insights into warfare strategy and getting a better sense of the conditions in which military personnel live and fight.
Some of the video footage has been absolutely breathtaking. Even skeptics of the embedding process would have to admit that this coverage marks a major step forward from wars of recent years.
On the other hand, much of the coverage has been riddled with a feeling of sameness and at times, the networks have exhibited an over-reliance on the embeds even when they have nothing new or particularly interesting to say. And taken collectively, the interviews with combatants typically contain as much substance as all those reality-show confessionals. Think "The Real World: Iraq."
It is obvious, too, that a few of the embeds have become so swept up in the awe of the moment and the thrill of the access that they come across looking like sideline reporters at a big-time sporting event. "How do you feel about your performance tonight?" CNN's Frank Buckley asked a pilot after returning from a bombing raid. Ahmad Rashad would have been so proud.
Perhaps the most legitimate complaint against embedded TV coverage is that even as the casualties mount, the journalists have failed to adequately convey the grisly horrors of combat. We see the awesome U.S. war machinery in action, but hardly any of the human damage those actions produce.
As a result, this war, as seen through the prism of television, often feels less violent and visually gritty than a big-budget cable series. No blood. No civilian victims. No messy carnage.
And the military probably doesn't mind that at all.
---
Chuck Barney can be reached at 925-952-2685 or cbarney@cctimes.com
The embeds have been excellent, the anchors and editors back home largely pathetic.
Uh, did it ever occur to the journalist complaining about embedded reporters that they have seen no "civilian victims" because our soldier are trying not to injure civilians?????
I believe that this article underestimates the substantial effect embedded reporters will have on journalism well after Operation Iraqi Freedom. All the embedded reporters will have their personal experiences. They will have the friendship and possible respect of the troops and the Iraqis they encounter. They will have generated an amazing amount of documentation and anecdotes of all that happened during their tour of reporting.
Later after the war is over, the embedded reporters will return to their newsrooms. They may write books or produce TV specials about the war and / or their experiences. Most importantly when their co-workers talk about the war and make factually incorrect assertions, the embedded reporters are in a position to say, “No, that’s not how it happened. I was there.”
The embedded reporters could be a subtle corrective force in the newsroom on the home front. This idea is bigger than just reporting the war.
That's what happens once one gets exposed to a professional military operation. The veil of ignorance gets lifted. And the lefty Media doesn't WANT that veil lifted.
Michael
Gee, Bernie, feel free to embed yourself with a Republican Guard division.
Oh, the horror! the horror!
Beats working for a living.
I think she is "embedded" with Saddam.
Just wanted to see that repeated!
The anchors back in the States are pretty pathetic in most instances. In fact, Fox could do us all a favor and can the Hannity/Colmes show until after the war. Somehow having Colmes on TV at night debating is not worth watching. I have no desire to see any RATs and when they appear I turn them off.
I switch around between Fox and MSNBC but never to CNN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.