Embedded Patsies: Suddenly Leftist media doesn't want journalists to get close to their subjects

American Prowler ^ | Thursday, March 27, 2003 | George Neumayr

[JohnHuang2]

In the last Gulf war, liberals complained about a lack of media access to the front lines. In this Gulf war, they are complaining about too much access to it.

The "embedded" reporters are "patsies," says Neal Gabler of Salon. "The White House certainly knew that reporters would bond with their units and identify with them."

This is obviously a troubling development. We wouldn't want American journalists bonding with the American military who protect them. Back in their cubicles with Gabler, these reporters could return to the leisurely anti-military, anti-American coverage of Vietnam yore.

Liberals usually approve of reporters getting close to their subjects. But not in this case, because the subject is the American military, and liberals equate good journalistic coverage of it with knee-jerk criticism.

That embedded journalists are reporting American military success makes them "P.R. flacks," according to Gabler. Would it make Gabler happier if they reported falsehoods about Iraqi military success? What he calls "cheerleading," others might call telling the truth.

Gabler longs for the journalistic days of Vietnam. The "current generation of reporters, unlike the skeptical Vietnam generation," he says, doesn't "challenge the conventional wisdom." They are "reliably docile."

If they only returned to their cubicles, they could provide less "information" about the American military and more "context" and "texture" for the war, say liberals. Liberals are back in the odd position of complaining about too much information. We need the "larger picture," says Gabler, by which he means his picture.

Gabler speaks of the "rigid control of images" by the administration. But all that means is that a small group of liberal journalists aren't controlling them anymore.

Liberals seek a "rigid control of images" by others liberals. It bothers them that Americans are receiving new sources of information without it having been filtered by liberals first.

Some liberal media columnists are even trying to tutor readers in "understanding" information. "Readers who want to work toward understanding by assembling their own collage of journalism from the war can read all the better British newspapers on the Web. The Guardian, for example, is available at www.guardian.co.uk.," says Los Angeles Times media columnist Tim Rutten. San Francisco Chronicle media columnist Jon Carroll also wants us to know that The Guardian is "available online." Thanks guys! Now we can finally understand the war.

What we shouldn't do, according to them, is watch the patriotic pornography of Fox News, unless you like that "sort of thing," to use Rutten's phrase. "In the U.S., Fox News simply has wrapped itself in the flag and makes no effort to distinguish between its journalism and the U.S. war effort," says Rutten. "Fox executives can be pleased that their approach has allowed the network to hold the lead in cable news ratings; the rest of us can be relieved that viewers who want that sort of thing will be too busy having their prejudices confirmed to bother the rest of us."

What vile creatures those Fox viewers are. How strange and appalling that they would tune in to an American network that is pro-American.

Rutten's paper recently reported the horror that "hundreds of reporters placed with combat units continue to generate largely sympathetic stories…" That won't do. In classic Times form, the paper advanced its criticism of embedded reporters through the phrase "some critics" and questions such as "With Media in Tow, Does Objectivity Go AWOL?"

The crisis of journalists being too close to the facts has the L.A. Times deeply concerned. "Some critics" -- read: the editors of the Times -- "say these policies raise questions about the balance and sensitivity of wartime media coverage: How independent are reports from journalists whose very safety depends on the soldiers they are covering? And what stories are missing from American television screens -- such as the reaction of other countries to the conflict and antiwar perspectives -- as military analysts describe the latest action?"

The Times found an expert, not on the front lines, to navigate it through the crisis: "Even before it began, the placement of reporters with troops was 'an experiment of unprecedented size and scope,' said Cinny Kennard, a former CBS correspondent who teaches journalism at USC. "I just don't know if it's a good arrangement." Kennard is "concerned about the question of independence, suggesting that 'a bond develops when you're in a situation like that. You're talking about people who form relationships with people who keep you alive. It's an extraordinary Catch-22.'"

Get journalists away from the story! They might report American military success and find weapons of mass destruction. Above all, they might identify with their country. We don't need "patsies" like that to muddy the "context" that the Gablers and Ruttens alone can provide.


George Neumayr, a writer in southern California, is a frequent contributor to The American Prowler.

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, March 27, 2003

Quote of the Day by jwalsh07

[Enterprise]

Such a dangerous concept. Having reporters travel with the troops who are doing the fighting and dying and reporting the truth. This cannot be allowed!

[ladtx]

I've thought this was an excellent idea from the "git-go". They took journalists, many of whom had no particular liking for the military or what they represent and stuck them amongst the most patriotic of Americans. Methinks some minds have been changed in this "coming to Jesus" of the media. The reporters in the front lines will become the top dogs of the media elites a few years from now. From these will come the future anchors and news producers. And in their formative years, for some of the youngers ones, they will have the imprint of patriotic Americans doing their duty, and doing it with honor.

[EternalVigilance]

The Left just can't catch a break, can it...

...proving there is a God of Justice in Heaven.

[Mike Darancette]

The "embedded" reporters are "patsies," says Neal Gabler of Salon.

How much easier it is for "journalists" to label U.S. troops as monsters and criminals when you are sipping Starbucks with your leftie friends 10,000 miles from the action.

[zeugma]

I heard a report on the BBC bemoaning the same thing. From a propaganda perspective, this 'embedded media' thing was a stroke of genious IMO. Journalists are a lot less likely to be nasty to fellows who just saved the journalist's ass.

[KarlInOhio]

Embedding also eliminates the problem of the reporter stating "... the battalion is vulnerable to X, and will certainly be destroyed if the Iraqis attack that way." because the reporter will likely be killed or wounded too.

[two23]

Embedded reporters will also BE THERE if WMD's are discovered.

[bigfootbob]

Well said, I've been thinking similarly.

[Enterprise]

I wouldn't be surprised though that WMDs have already been discovered and concrete proof is waiting pending testing. I bet reporters are being asked to hold any reporting for the moment until the proof is obtained. That is a very good point though. When mainstream reporters are on scene when WMDs are discovered there will be no way the liberal media will be able to cover it up.

[mombonn]

Neal Gabler has a better smile than Jeff Cohen, and is slightly easier to listen to on Fox Newswatch. I'll bet neither of these creeps has what it takes to be an embedded reporter.

I would LOVE to embed a good swift kick where it hurts to all of these liberal whiners.

[Maringa]

If things continue to take a positive turn over the next few days, weeks...look for the embedded reports to drop to zilch...especially in the CNN, ABC, BBC, reports...I think Fox may be the only one showing any field reports...

[Conspiracy Guy]

What can you put on an embedded journalist to prevent infection until it can be safely removed? Preparation H comes to mind but we need to be sure.

[Constitution Day]

The crisis of journalists being too close to the facts has the L.A. Times deeply concerned.

Daschle-speak!
I propose a moratorium on the words "concerned", "disappointed" and especially on "QUAGMIRE".

Buy a thesaurus, nattering nabobs!

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Who is it that will still be with the military when the chemical weapons start falling.

Who will have the "exclusive" and get the pulitzer and the byline when we finally find WMD's enmasse?

Who will walk with the soldiers documenting the torture chambers?

Who will be the witness for the world if not the press?

Should it be completely up to the military photojournalists to show the end?

If these people aren't there for the middle after leaving at the beginning, they cannot be there at the end.

Just like the first night, many had left Washington and gone home when the real story broke. It was a surprise.
It really shouldn't be a surprise when we find WMD's. At least to the smart ones.

Somebody's name will be made when this is all over and they will be the one's there when these things are discovered.

I hope it's a FOX reporter.

[meowmeow]

I love the idea of the embedded reports - maybe there is a chance that the seeds of reason and truth will be planted in these "objective" reporters. Apparently some of the media is concerned over the same idea.

[texasbluebell]

I guess Georgie Steponallofus got tired of being a patsie, or just got tired of the hardships there...

On the Don and Roma radio program (WLS Chicago) this am, they were talking about some of the reporters who apparently just can't take it in Iraq and have quietly slipped out of there.

George was mentioned as one who hasn't been seen in the past couple of days -- this was disclosed by Tim Schell [sp?] of ABC.

Maybe he just ran out of hair spray though.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

I saw a posting the other day about Move-On's influnce on reporting. Perhaps this is a way for them to have some effect on the reporting. Only, not what they intended. If FOX is the only embedded reporters left, who will be watching the others?

[Faraday]

The leftist stranglehold over the electronic and print media is beginning to be broken. The embedded reporters are our Special Forces operating behind the socialist media lines.

[Snake65]

Everyone knows that the most trenchant, perceptive, unbiased analysis and reporting is done in and around Georgetown watering holes, thousands of miles from the dust and blood.