Posted on 03/27/2003 7:01:26 AM PST by 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. |
By SamAdams76:
To: flying Elvis
I fully agree. This "embedded reporting" is a fabulous concept. In previous wars, where a total "blackout" was in effect, it was easy for anti-war liberal types to portray our military as a faceless, merciless, killing machine.
This "embedded" reporting puts the lie to that. It humanizes the military. Our soldiers are portrayed as the professional and dedicated people they are. Our soldiers are shown liberating a country and freeing it's people from a brutal regime. Whoever thought this concept of embedded reporting up is a genious.
Posted on 03/20/2003 9:07 PM PST by SamAdams76 (California wine beats French wine in blind taste tests)
=================
To which I replied.............
To: SamAdams76
Precicesly.
Further to that... can you imagine these reporters, who have lived through this and seen what REAL PATRIOTISIM is all about up *close*, and know what it takes to protect the values of liberty... who have seen bravery, seen honor, felt the protection of the brave band of brothers....
....can you just imagine, once they get home, the next time they interview Madonna, Sean Penn, or any other of those mamby-pamby self-absorbed Hollywood idiots? When they have seen these brave boys and lived amongst them.. can you imagine their disgust with these idiots? I can't WAIT until they get home!!! Ha!
Posted on 03/20/2003 9:40 PM PST by In The Defense of Liberty (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
I recall an original estimate of 600, which may be closer to 700 by now.
There was a story on NBC news last night, Brian Williams was traveling with a CH47 lift carrying bridge material in S. Iraq....lead ship takes small arms and RPG fire, everybody unasses their payload and sets down hard in the MIDDLE OF THE desert.
Fortunately, a platoon of Mech/Armor TF was nearby and closed in to secure the choppers.
Mr. Williams was VERY happy to see those tanks and infantry, and wasn't shy about saying so...especially after they repelled an after dark dismounted attack.
Winning hearts and minds, you betcha. Smart PR move, and a phenomenal experience for the reporters.
"inappropriate" should be added to your list...
But I assure you, I will never endeavour to race against him.... it would be an unfair race.. after all, he carries his own 'tail wind'.
How independent are reports from journalists whose very careers depend on liberal editors they must kiss up to?
How independent are reports from journalists whose very safety depends on the soldiers they are covering?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!
You know, I think I'd personally volunteer ride that missle like Slim Pickens! Yeeee Haaaa!!!
Just think of it. They could wear day-glo suites to distinguish them from the other mere mortals. That would allow them free flow through the lines. It's an exciting concept that may have arrived.Imagine: an omniscient pool of reporters, all seeing, all reporting. We could bask in their knowledge like tourists on a nude Greek beach.
Even money says some idiot will try something similar before it's all done.
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.