Posted on 05/12/2006 5:39:30 AM PDT by Fintan
Wade Zirkle is a combat veteran of the Iraq war and cofounder, with David Bellavia, of Vets for Freedom
While many journalists were embedded with U.S. military units during the initial invasion of Iraq, today such deployments are few and far between. Today instead, what is often portrayed as reports from "on the ground" are more often what we veterans call "balcony reporting."
The embed program allowed journalists to live, eat, sleep and patrol with a company- or platoon-size unit for an extended period of time. Reporters got to know the soldiers personally and learned to evaluate the battlefield from their perspective - the good, the bad and the ugly. This unique vantage point gave journalists a sincere understanding of the decision-making process in full view of the combat implications as they occur in real time. It also gave them insights into the areas of operations and contact with Iraqis.
As a platoon leader, I was at first uncomfortable with the program. Soon, however, the courage and professionalism of the journalists erased my doubts. They took the time to get to know the men and women engaged on the battlefields, to understand their roles and responsibilities, and to examine the broader implications of the mission. I didn't always agree with them, but I respected their dedication to report events from the same vantage point as those who are fighting this war and the Iraqis who will live with the consequences.
As we have moved from invasion to fighting an insurgency, this perspective has largely been abandoned. We've gone from 692 journalists embedded with coalition units during the invasion to 32 today, according to the Defense Department. The result is an information void from which the American public cannot fully evaluate the mission.
Some dedicated journalists still feel it imperative to journey out with those fighting this war to see what they see, hear what they hear, and live through what they must live through. And some have paid the same price, through death and injury, that so many of our colleagues in combat have paid. Such committed professionals should be commended and honored.
Yet, with increasing regularity, some in the media position themselves in Baghdad's secure Green Zone or bases established outside of "hot zones." They attempt to interview troops not in the field, but only as they return from missions. Grunts call it the "vulture syndrome," with reporters going from one returning patrol to another hoping to find a unit that has recently been engaged in combat. If there was violence, or there are deaths to be reported, there's interest. If not, if the news is positive, it's of little use and thus not reported.
Make no mistake: Death and violence are products of any war, and this will be a long war. However, without firsthand accounts of what is actually taking place in and throughout Iraq, the media can provide only secondary and limited perspectives on the challenges and opportunities that continue to unfold.
With a national unity government forming and security forces becoming increasingly capable, Iraq is at a crossroads. Yet it seems that the media are generally more intent on a hindsight review (WMDs, disbanding the Iraqi army, invasion-force troop levels) instead of covering current events on the ground. It's almost as if they've given up on the mission, and are now merely penning its obituary.
However, for many of us who have recently returned from Iraq, we view much of the media coverage the same way as someone who has read a novel and compares it with its film adaptation: the movie is usually dramatic and sensational, but often not loyal to the integrity of the book's storyline.
Wade Zirkle (wzirkle@vetsforfreedom.org) plans to return to Iraq this summer to report from the front lines.
|
|
To hell with the MSM cr@p.
I had a Special Forces captain tell me this about the media coverage in Iraq:
"If it bleeds it leads and reporters do not report on buildings that aren't on fire."
He said that he attempted to get reporters to do stories on the water facilities, schools, power facilities and other things that were being built in the area he was in and they would just evade the requests.
He said that basically what happens is most of these journalists sit in the bar of the palestine hotel in Baghdad drinking martinis and waiting for something to go "boom." Then they will send an Iraqi stringer and an Arab camera crew out to take footage of the fire and report from inside or near the hotel as if they were on the scene.
Shades on Dan Rather covering a hurricane with some clown sparying him down with a garden hose because it had not started to rain yet.
We used to refer to the mosque behind the Sheridan/Palestine Hotels as the "CNN Mosque". Seldom would the journalist leave the complex we guarded; but near always did they have this mosque as a backdrop to their reporting. Sad-
It’s also very interesting to see the huge difference in reporting between a reporter who first hand reports, imbedded with the troops and one who just sits in a hotel and writes about stuff he heard or read second hand.
|
|
Vets For Freedom website... |
I thought embedded reporting was cool when I first saw it, because they could get the stories out right away. But then afterward, I saw these damed reporters interviewing THEMSELVES as the "heroes" and feeling free to keep those uncouth soldiers away from their delicate cameras.
Screw that. We need to go back to the days of the real "war correspondents." If you've got a camera and a gun, then I'll listen to you. Otherwise, just get out of the damned way and let me listen to the people who actually ARE the story for a change.
When Media Report, Truth is a Casualty.
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.