Woods talks about the embedded reporters sanctioned to be present in Iraq while the war is being conducted. The writer broaches the incident wherein Geraldo Rivera, engaged in an on-the-spot report, draws a sketch of the location of U.S. troops. Thereafter, according to the writer, Rivera was sent packing.
The writer suggests a potential for bias favoring how the war is being conducted when embedded reporters get to know the troops.
On the other hand, this bias from friendships may also turn into stories glorifying troops rather than telling the stories around them. Gretchen R. Wood, Daily Courier, Saturday April 21, 2007
The writer suggests there could be repurcussions on the reporters when they report the truth about the war or the troops.
Sometimes even if a journalist does tell the unfortunate truth about the agenda of a military unit, the unit can retaliate against the reporter by cutting him off from any future information. Gretchen R. Wood, Daily Courier, Saturday April 21, 2007
I recall watching as Geraldo etched the location of our troops in the sand. It was a wonder to me that the man wasn't charged in mere minutes with giving away military secrets and aiding the enemy. If it were one of us bloggers who came upon info that revealed the location of troops in a time of war, we'd have already been scooped up as an enemy combatant. Geraldo got a pass primarily because it would've been really bad publicity to charge him with providing such info that could potentially jeopardize our troops.
At any rate, there is a difference between providing even sketcy details of location of troops, and providing accurate information regarding the amount of injured and killed.
Even so, if there is more of a steady diet of the costly side of the war and none about how many deaths have been prevented by the presence of our military and the conduct of the war, the "news" about the war cannot be said to be balanced.
It is probably a matter of where one is coming from politically as to whether one thinks the war is being covered fairly.
I agree, everything should be revealed as far as deaths of our military men and women. Nothing should be covered up. But whether one agrees or disagrees with the war, some things simply have to remain secret from the public until after the war has ended. Revealing locations of troops can't in any way be conducive to the object of winning the war. That's the goal - whether one "supports" the war, or not.
Objectivity & embedded reporters
By Gretchen R. Wood
Saturday, April 21, 2007
In April 2003, Fox News war reporter Geraldo Rivera did a television report during which he drew a map in the sand identifying where he and the 101st Airborne Division were situated in Iraq.
On March 24, 2003, Joe Eddins, chief photographer for The Washington Times, wrote about an incident in his Marine unit during the Iraq war in which two men drowned after being ordered to swim across a canal in full battle gear without a safety line.
John Burnett, a NPR correspondent based in Austin, Texas, was one of several journalists embedded with a Marine unit in Iraq. He became pressured by the unit commanders to focus on the men's acts of valor and courage rather than the events surrounding those acts.
When the government instituted the notion of "embedded reporting" during times of war to allow reporters to travel with troops, it was viewed as a way to allow the media to report on wars -- even if they were tightly controlled.
On the surface, the program made good sense: Journalists lived and traveled under protection with military forces and to witness firsthand the horrors of war, even though military officials carefully edited or censored what could and could not be reported
This was a big change from reporting during the Vietnam War, when journalists could report what they wanted with little restriction, and during the attack on Grenada, where the media was shut out. It almost seemed like a balance between the two, giving journalists a chance to report and the government the authority to censor what it felt necessary.
Today, some of the restrictions on journalists include that they are not permitted to report details of a mission or the location of a unit unless given permission, nor can they report U.S. casualties until 72 hours have passed from the time of the incident or it can be confirmed that the soldiers' families have been contacted.
These all seem like obvious rules, all geared to protect our own troops in battle. If a journalist fails to comply with these rules, there are consequences for their actions.
After Rivera's report it was determined that he potentially jeopardized the safety of the entire unit. His mission was canceled and he was sent home shortly thereafter.
A negative point to the embedded system is that while living with their military units, journalists undoubtedly form friendships and close bonds with their fellow comrades. This can develop into a strong bias influencing journalists to become less inclined to write stories that would shine poorly on the unit regardless of how true they may be.
Sometimes even if a journalist does tell the unfortunate truth about the agenda of a military unit, the unit can retaliate against the reporter by cutting him off from any future information.
On the other hand, this bias from friendships may also turn into stories glorifying troops rather than telling the stories around them.
Burnett and the other journalists reluctantly obliged to follow their commanders' orders and told stories about the heroic acts preformed by the unit. When a photograph of the unit preparing for battle became a color spread for Time magazine, a press officer appreciatively commented on it, saying, "Money can't buy this kind of recruitment campaign."
So in the end how effective is embedded reporting? Who is it really benefiting? Americans? Or the American government? Only without a biased journalist and resistance of military pressure can the American public really know the truth of their county at war. Which is the intention of war reporting after all, isn't it?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/guestcolumn/s_503328.html
Related
Ashleigh Banfield slams war news coverage
World Net Daily
April 25, 2003: NBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield slammed her colleagues in television news over coverage of the war in Iraq, saying the realities of the conflict never reached American viewers.
Banfield, in a speech at Kansas State University, lashed out at "cable news operators who wrap themselves in the American flag and go after a certain target demographic."
The dig was a veiled swipe at Fox News Channel, whose war coverage included a patriotic tinge. Canadian-born Banfield hosted "MSNBC Investigates" on the No. 3 cable news network, MSNBC. While MSNBC's ratings improved during the war, the network still came up short in the ratings game behind No. 1 Fox and CNN.
http://celebrate10.wnd.com/?q=node/32
http://celebrate10.wnd.com/?q=node/32
No comments:
Post a Comment