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

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

[Chancellor Palpatine]

And don't forget - as time marches on, and they get new assignments, they will always remember the basic humanity and decency of the warriors they bunked, ate, and shared danger with.

Even when they move into management.

[Consort]

The Embeds are with real Americans for the first time in their lives. When they get back to their liberal enclaves, they will see the shallowness of the liberal elite.

[YOMO]

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?
....................................................................................................................................................................................

If you will walk in my ways, and if you will keep my counsul, then you shall judge my house, and you shall keep my Courts, and I will give you a place to walk in among those who stand by the side.

Eat dirt with the GIs and you will be one of the Band of Brothers.

[JoeSchem]

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

Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who may have American citizenship but is an Australian. Come to think of it, the star of the movie The Patriot, Mel Gibson, is also an Aussie. Tells you about the hammerlock that the Useful Idiots have on education and the media in this country when we have to go overseas to find someone who'll stand up for America.

[Consort]

...also, Embeds who are exposed to real Americans on the battlefield may face a backlash when they return to their enclaves.

[Steve_Seattle]

This is just a classic case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If the reporters had been excluded from the front lines, critics would have said we were trying to hide something, that we didn't want the press to see what was really going on. But now that we have "embedded" journalists, the criticism is that they are too close to the American military and are losing their objectivity. As far as I'm concerned, all these critics can shut up and/or go to hell.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Mel Gibson is an Aussie."

Are you sure of that? I never heard that before, and he sure doesn't sound like an Aussie.

[HanneyBean]

Technically, Mel Gibson was born in America. He moved to Australia when he was a teen.

[Political Junkie Too]

There was a fascinating discussion the other night on FNC. The anchors were talking about how the imbedded journalists were simply reporting what they saw and what they were experiencing. There was no attempt to "spin" things, they just pointed the camera and talked -- "objective" reporting at its purist and simplest.

However, others were complaining, arguing that "objective" reporting is itself a bias. I'm still trying to get my brain around that concept.

-PJ

[Kenton]

It seems the anti-American news establishment is afraid of losing their stranglehold over the hearts and minds of journalism. How about that, folks, a whole new generation of newspeople with a bond to our troops forged in combat. This is significant. Many things are changing with this war, and from what I can see the preponderance of it is positive.

[Enterprise]

I laughed listening to Limbaugh today. It seems that ABC's Stephanapolous went home. I guess he thought he wasn't getting enough information from CENTCOM. Maybe if little Stephie were a real man, and not a poof poof commentator, he would get out with the troops and see what the war was really about.

[Salvation]

**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.**

Poor liberals!

Also watch liberal Gabler on Fox NewsWatch on Saturdays.

[steve-b]

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.

OK, so now where do I find a link to Page 3? I hear they have better pictures there....

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Does anyone know the number of "embedded" journalists in Iraq?

I recall an original estimate of 600, which may be closer to 700 by now.

When I read the question, I thought "Great question--how many journalists are embedded in the Iraqi Army?!!"

But we'd probably have to use scientific notation to express such an astronomical figure . . . </sarcasm>

[handy]

The press loves to brag about how "objective" they are (even though 90% are registered as Dems). I am sure the embedded reporters will retain the high level of objectivity we have all come to admire & respect. </sarcasm>

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"objective" reporting is itself a bias.

"Objective" has a dictionary definition, and according to that definiton it cannot be a "bias." But misusing the term "objective" is, in-and-of-itself, a most egregious form of bias.

The ersatz "objectivity" of journalism is nothing more than journalism's internal concensus--enforced within journalism with all the zeal and fanaticism of a Fedyeen Saddam keeping Iraqi soldiers from surrendering.