Embedded Journalists and Bias

Michael Drapcho
md605011@ohio.edu

As someone who is pursuing a career in sports journalism, it’s difficult to think that the actions of journalists can be so powerful that they affect the outcome of a war. Realistically, the outcome of a game is extremely unimportant when it comes to the grand scheme of things, and I am fully aware of that.

It’s that reason that the work of embedded journalists is impressive. They have the power to educate, enlighten and keep the public up to date on current military conflicts.  However, they also have the power to potentially compromise military missions and operations.

Because of the consequences of their actions, embedded journalists walk a fine line. They must report the news, but at the same time, they must take the safety of the military into consideration.

This responsibility is undoubtedly a heavy one and one that draws the journalist and the unit he or she is stationed with closer, which isn’t always necessarily a good thing.  

                                          Image courtesy: NBCNews.com

Seeing Both Sides

Given the amount of time that embedded journalists spend with the military, it would be understandable if the general public saw the war through their perspective and their perspective alone. The embedded journalists are getting a closer look at war than anyone else after all.

However, the issue with this is that embedded journalists can only provide the perspective of the military. Embedded journalists are not out with civilians seeing how war and conflict affect them.  

There is no doubt that embedded journalists have access to information and sources that no one else has access to, but there is also no doubt that the information comes from sources with a certain amount of bias. The reporter himself will likely even develop the same bias as his sources simply because he is not being exposed to anyone on the other side of the story.

Obviously this bias is an issue, as it is the media’s obligation to inform the public wholly, meaning giving both sides of the story. Washington Post writer David Ignatius pointed out in 2010 that people cannot understand a conflict if they only know about one side of the conflict.

Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

Although embedded journalists get an up close look at military conflicts, they do not always get an up close look at the right military conflicts. In his 2004 article for The Independent, Patrick Cockburn explains among other things that the conflicts that embedded journalists get to cover at times are not even the most important ones.

Journalists can only cover the battles that the unit they are embedded with take part in, which means that crucial battles can and do go unreported when there are no reporters embedded with the units in the major battles.

A Necessary Evil

There certainly downsides to embedded journalism. It only provides the general public with one side 

of the story, and it sometimes inadvertently prevents journalists from covering the important battles.

However, even with those downsides, embedded journalism is still a crucial part of the coverage of a war. Without embedded journalists, there would likely be no way to in depth accounts of conflicts. 

Even if reporters could get in depth reports without embedding, they likely wouldn’t be safe thanks to the tactics of extremists groups like ISIS.