Combat Embedded Reporting

Post-9/11 Era Forum

The question has been raised time and time again: how necessary and/or desirable is embedded reporting in combat? Some people think that it poses a risk to the safety of soldiers whose concentration may be divided. Some have demonstrated that blunders may disseminate critical field security information to the enemy. What do you think?

Consider this discussion while making your decision. This is a current, unfolding situation made possible only by combat embedded reporting.

Here's another spin that could be taken for positive or negative:

PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror

There are two points to consider for this report. The first is the use of media to relay misinformation to the enemy right along with reporting to the public. The second is the nature of the follow-up story that explains to would-be criminal master-minds exactly how our misinformation/psy-ops campaigns work.

Let the reporters report from afar.

Not right behind a soldier in live combat action.

The soldiers don't need their distractions or reporting. It's not a training test. It's for real.

I can't print what I would have done to that traitorous reporter and his cameraman.

]

Embedded reporting for shock sake should be removed. If embedded reportes want to report the news, then report all the news. Both sides. not just their biased reports. When is the last time you saw children going to a new school in Iraq or a farmer who has irrigation for the first time. How about people who actually have electricity that they never had with Saddam?
It's just too one sided to me. Get rid of them.

Why doesn't the US authorities in Iraq just outlaw journalists from entering the country all together? They could ban all media and freedom of press and once it's all over the military could just let us know how it went. Perfect.

This would allow us to carry on with our lives unburdened with the troublesome nuisance of a war we payed for and gave the go-ahead for in a land - lets face it - a long long way away and where no one knows where it is anyway.

Report both sides of the story. Period.
As I said in a previous post, things would be viewed a lot different if they would.

A followup from today on the misinformation:

Pentagon debate rages over 'information operations' in Iraq

h@ts, your sarcasm is unmistakable, but you don't address any of the real issues that we are faced with when it comes to embedded journalism. If you support it, then how do you justify or rectify some of the problems that are presented?

Good points, indeed. I thought perhaps you were trying to imply that we need the embedded reporters to keep us informed when in fact they've given us little of anything other than single-sided presentations. I suppose the Iraqi insurgents could have enbedded their own reporters from Al Jazeera and reported of the atrocities from their point of view...

I would allow it with the following conditions:

1. the troops who are with the reporter agree to it.

2. the military has a right to see the video and edit out any video it does not like. Not words, or reporters opinions, but video.


I would hate to take a bullet in the head while fighting, but it would be so much worse if it was filmed, made it back to the states, for morbid hungry curiousity freaks to watch over and over again.

Not to mention the shock of family members seeing their loved one blown away on the evening news. It's just wrong unless the troops agree to it or the military can edit the video and take out any gruesome shots of our troops getting killed or wounded.

Censorship? Yep, you bet.

Censorship of some things is a good thing.

I would add a condition:

3) That the troops are told to keep their mouths SHUT, not talk to and befriend the media reps. That they are observers and interacting with them disrupts their observations. And that the media is reps have the same made clear to them, that they are not to interact with the troops outside of official, scheduled "interviews" and that they are to do EXACTLY as they are told by the troops.

Sounds good to me.

Embedded Reports are fine as long a the GI's know and understand that they are being filmed and also as long as the reports follow some basic rules about filming. When it's ok to film and when it's not ok. There have, at least in the modern world, always been people documenting the battle, whether it be in photos, film, paintings and drawings. I think it's a good thing to document both the good, the bad and the ugly. (you should like that phrase whidden).

However we now live in an age of being able instantly beam an image to the other side of the world. Anytime you broadcast something out into the airwaves during war, there is a potential that the enemy will pick it up. Thus compromising your position or your intentions. This is something very basic that is learned by every American GI.

Now how do we prevent the enemy from learning of our position and/or intentions? The problem is complicated with the invention of Cell Phones and micro small digital cameras. Now as an Army, the Generals can say to the troops, No Cameras, Cell Phones or Pagers or say when they can or can't use them. Those products in the hands of a GI comes down to discipline, which our troops seem to be lacking of late.

Those products in the hands of a reporter is not so easy. However If I was a General my policy would be, all electronics will be off until it is deemed safe to operate. Photos and film can be taken at anytime unless told otherwise.

Simple rules must be followed. Use the products at the wrong time and be charged with spying. Remember Geraldo Reveria during the war, that was a prime example of a reporter in doing his job, giving out too much information.

What I really think is it's the difference in opinion of WAR between the right and the left. War no matter how you look at it is violent and mostly one sided. Where ever the war is faught innocent people will die. It's the hard cold facts. If the war was in the United States, a lot of American Civilians would die. Also during war, warriors do what it takes to win. Sometimes it's not very pretty and not very ethical. I think those of us on the Right understand war and the horrors that go along with it and that you can't have a NICE war. Also you can't send children, (and when you get our age those who are going to war are children) to war and expect them always make the right decision.

The Far Left is for Peace at all cost, they see that no war is good. And take every opportunity to show us how bad it is to try and sway our position on war. But as I have said in the past. There have always been wars, and there will always be wars. If you are not in a war, just wait a bit and you will be.

The problem with always being a pacifist is that not everything is solved by Peace. At some point in time you will lose because some will want to fight for their cause will want to win at all cost.

I TiVo'd Fox's Breaking Point about Greg Palkots embed with India Company. India Company was the first Marines into Fahlujha. These Marines were 19 and 20 year olds except for the Officers and they were still for them most part in their mid 20's. If you get a chance to see that episode, please watch it. It will show you what they are dealing with. Like the Lieutenant who was killed by a 1 in a million shot by an insurgent. He left this world with a new wife and baby born just hours prior.

I don't get fox, but I'm hoping to see some stuff for sale in Walmart, like CNN does. You can buy a dvd and see the election coverage from 2000, etc.

I'm hoping Fox comes out with a Iraq dvd, so I can catch up on some things I have missed with the major 3 networks.

You can read about it and view some pictures here. Not quite the same as seeing it as it was happening.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140445,00.html

You know, this whole issue strikes me as a moot point-since our news is so filtered. Why risk the lives of reporters/journalists if the American public is only going to see what the propaganda machine wants them to? I think investigative journalism (and I think, at its heart, thats what this is) is one of the most important aspects of the media...but in today's political world of silence and secrecy, I wonder if its really nessesary. In fact, let's just cut out the media all together, and simply rely on the government and big buisiness to tell us what's happening in the world. And screw those stupid, freedom hating foriegn news sources! ok, that was my frustrated venting for the day. sorry.

you know where I can get some good solid research for this subject? I am wanting to write an aurgumentive paper on this.
Thanks