Embedded reporter comes away from front lines torn

Boston Globe | 4/22/2003 | Scott Bernard Nelson

[cake_crumb]

"Did a dozen reporters actually die in combat?"

I caught that too. As far as I know, three or four reporters actually died in combat, one died of an embolism, one stepped on a land mine at an abandoned Fedayeen military facility, two were murdered by a homocide bomber (one was a reporter, the other a cameraman), and two (? or was it one??) died in the crossfire at the Palestine Hotel during a heavy firefight between US and Fedayeen forces. That doesn't come out to a dozen, but there may be some I missed. The media tends to forget the public might be concerned with dead coalition soldiers as well as media people.

The deaths are no less tragic for the fact that they weren't all from combat. Looks like combat hasn't entirely cured Nelson of leftist hyperbole. He should have left that out, but maybe this is his way of proving to his bosses that living and facing death with evil US soldiers didn't taint his 'objectivity' after all.

[Stone Mountain]

At least he went further than the pansy in this thread:

Pansy huh? I take it your wartime experiences are more heroic?

[harrym]

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

[Search4Truth]

The Liberals will be blaming these battlefield conversions on the Stockholm Syndrome.

[harrym]

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

[Ramzi]

"Did a dozen reporters actually die in combat? I don't remember reading that anywhere before. It will be interesting to hear how they are memorialized compared to the military. Gee, I'm so cynical."


Are they counting Bagdad Bob?

[Little Bill]

I was interviewed by Michael Prager of the Boston Globe, in early March for an artical that appeared on March 26, 2003. Mr Prager came to us and asked for an activist, Lev emailed me, and me being me said O.K.

In this artical there is no mention of FRee Republic or that they came to us for the interview, I have better things to do with my time if they can't State where they got the resorces. I talked to a lot of the Enlisted people at the Globe and they are with us, drop the rag a Line.

[mil-vet]

Over time, it was inevitable that we would begin to view at least some things from the grunt's perspective.

Like, this is a BAD thing?? "Stockholm syndrom"?? How 'bout REALITY?? Why isn't he PROUD of ponting out the point of origin of the ambush instead of apparently questioning what he did (or did I miss something - am I just being overly sensitive about a media type??)?

Seems to me he is trying to defend his actual grasp of the reality of what he was reporting with the liberal, touchy-feely BS of his know-nothing liberal media scum peers (much worse than "rear-echelon" types!).

VERY interesting post - thanks!!

[honeygrl]

"There were a number of journalists of other nationalities, mainly European or Aussie, who were killed. "

And I think most of the ones killed were not embedded reporters.. they were just there on their own.

[jlogajan]

Did a dozen reporters actually die in combat?

Not embedded. But there were lots of reporters running around by themselves, not associated with any military units.

[lepton]

Quite a title. However, the story seems to tell of a liberal reporter who suddenly realizes how noble the military really is.

And decided that he hates himself for having understood it - even if but briefly.

[Plutarch]

We'll all await with bated breath to read a journalist's navel gazing story about whether they are getting "too close" and perhaps biased in favor of liberal activist groups.

[rabidralph]

"Did we sell our souls as journalists for access to the death and destruction at the front lines?"

Funny, they're not as introspective when cozying up to Hollywood and liberal politicians.

[lepton]

Did a dozen reporters actually die in combat?

That depends on how you define combat. There were a few ambushes, the two that died in the hotel, and some few I haven't heard details on. I'm not aware that any embedded reporters were killed in combat oe while part of a unit as the author implies.

[RonF]

This young man is learning what the word "objectivity" means. He has likely been taught that it means avoiding direct experiences and emotions, so as to keep them from coloring your reporting.

What he's found out, though, is that not having experiences keeps you from getting the first hand knowledge necessary to truly report what happened. The challenge of being objective is to have those experiences, but then to use your reason and judgement to recognize where your emotions are coloring your observations, and edit your report accordingly.

This is very difficult. It takes maturity and self-knowledge, something that takes more than 4 years in journalism school to attain. A good editor helps, especially if he or she is one who's smelled the smoke themselves.

[nicmarlo]

Funny that no reporters have ever been worried that by being embedded in liberal news organizations that they would identify with them and that their reporting would be tainted.

So very true. Excellent point.

[RonF]

The moderator should then have revised the question:

"O.K., Dan, now let's suppose that you were walking in the middle of the group of soldiers when you looked up and saw the snipers before anyone else did. Now what do you do?"

[Maigrey]

The question is whether the coverage I provided during the war was tainted as a result.

There is nothing wrong for a embedded reporter to question his objectivity. Where I have a problem with it is thinking that his employer is objective.

I hope that this reporter also saw the good that the US military did, and can appreciate the cost of the freedoms afforded those that were freed, and the continued freedoms we have.

[sean327]

That is so true. It goes to show that you can never get the real feel until you get down in the dirt and experience it for your self. My uncle went to boot camp 4 years before I did. He told me all about the yellow footprints, the DI's screaming in your face and the instant culture shock you endure when you step aboard MCRD. I thought I would be good, my uncle gave me a heads up, I know what to expect. I was dead wrong! You have to live it before you can know it! That is what happened with the embedded reporters. It was one of the best ideas to come out of the Pentagon in a long time. Semper Fi

[Redcloak]

The term you're looking for is "cognitive dissonance".

There have been a number of articles like this in the past week or so. One of the most interesting was from an Anglo writer working for an Arab news service who was with the US Marines. She left her unit just before they pushed in into Iraq because she felt conflicted about her job. She had become so attached to the Marines that she couldn't bear to watch them go into combat argainst Arabs. She wrote "it would be like watching my brother fight my cousin".

She was in for an even greater surprise when she ran into a Marine from that unit later on. She was aboard a hospital ship when a wounded Marine recognized her. He was overjoyed to see her. The unit thought that she had been killed along with several photographers she'd been embedded with.

Much of the piece revolves around how surprised she was at how the Marines treated her and looked after her. Though she doesn't say so explicitly, you can tell that she was expecting something more in line with Iraqi propaganda.