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?
On the evening of Oct. 14, a young Marine spokesman near Fallouja appeared on CNN and made a dramatic announcement.
"Troops crossed the line of departure," 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert declared, using a common military expression signaling the start of a major campaign. "It's going to be a long night." CNN, which had been alerted to expect a major news development, reported that the long-awaited offensive to retake the Iraqi city of Fallouja had begun.
In fact, the Fallouja offensive would not kick off for another three weeks. Gilbert's carefully worded announcement was an elaborate psychological operation — or "psy-op" — intended to dupe insurgents in Fallouja and allow U.S. commanders to see how guerrillas would react if they believed U.S. troops were entering the city, according to several Pentagon officials.
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.
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.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
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.
Amid a debate over the use of misinformation by the U.S. military, the Pentagon says it is investigating an October incident in which a Marine spokesman gave CNN misleading information about an attack on the Iraqi city of Falluja.
[...]
A senior Pentagon official told CNN that Gilbert's remarks were "technically true but misleading." It was an attempt to get CNN "to report something not true," the official said.
[...]
CNN management has asked the Pentagon for an official response to a report in the Los Angeles Times that identified Gilbert's comments as a possible case of deliberate misinformation of news outlets. The newspaper reported that the interview was part of a broader effort to manipulate the media to achieve U.S. goals 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?
Sean Kelly said this in post #9 : 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?
I think the majority of reporting from Iraq is poor. I don't blame the journalists but the military is doing a good job of getting the story out the way they want - most of the time, especially on the TV news. I think Fallujah showed how well the military is keeping a cap on the media showing what is really going on in Iraq. Consider the amount of violence and then think how much you've seen.
Embeding plays it's part in this and is the best option for the military as it gives them some control over where the journalists operate, who they're with, and therefore what they see. There's also the often mentioned relationship that builds up with embeds and soldiers where the journalist start to see themselves as "on side", again less chance of journalists showing their "buddies" in a bad light. As for the mosque incident, so rare is footage like this that there's no way, unless of course the journalist is forced to hand over footage, that they are not going to try to get it shown.
The main problem I see with Embeds - and they have little choice in being embeded because of kidnapping - is that we are not seeing the true picture of what is going on in Iraq because the military is controlling the story. It's why when people heard in a recent report that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, no one believed it. Embeding's been a great success for the military.
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...
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.
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.
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.
12-01-2004 06:05 PM
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.
