Media military relationships and embedded journalism

Corttany Brooks
cb970011@ohio.edu
Make up blog 10/22

In times of war, there is a delicate balance between government censorship of war correspondence and the right of the press to produce unregulated news stories. In essence, both rely on each other for propagation of war sentiment and both have the power to destroy each other’s credibility with the American public. 

The mistrust between the military and the media that was established in Vietnam is a sentiment that continues to be felt by both sides today. In the war in Iraq, the media and military continue to look for a balance between censorship and free press. 

Embedded journalism

Whether to alleviate tension or to gain political and militaristic control, the Pentagon decided to be proactive about setting up safe media relations for the war in Iraq. Unlike previous attempts to keep the press away from the battlefield, the Pentagon established a system of “embedded” reporters, which by definition are "media representatives remaining with a unit on an extended basis.” 

Embedded journalists in Baghdad (via BBC)

For the journalist there is a trade-off. Embedding will get you closer to the front line but often, it is at the price of editorial independence. And in the same way journalists use militaries to get news stories, militaries use journalists to get their story out, which proved throughout the war two agendas on a collision course.

Critics have also argued the embedding program was the administration’s attempt to build popular support for the war in Iraq. Several influential members of the Pentagon leadership and the administration believed the media contributed to defeat in the Vietnam War by demoralizing the American public with coverage of atrocities. They hoped to avoid a similar result in Iraq by limiting journalists’ coverage of darker stories on combat, the deaths of Iraqi civilians, and property damage. 

Alternatives to embedding

Although the embedding program was the dominant form of reporting during the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, two alternatives did exist. Though slightly more expensive than embedding, some news organizations opted to station a reporter in Baghdad. These journalists bunkered down in central Baghdad and watched as American “shock and awe” bombing raids wrought death and destruction on the city.

The second alternative—funding an independent reporter with the freedom to roam—was far more costly and largely the province of elite news sources, like The New York Times and other national newspapers. While ground commanders interacted positively with independent reporters, on several occasions Pentagon officials criticized what they called “four-wheel-drive” and “cowboy” journalists for operating outside of the embedding program.

War reporting in perspective

The relationship between the mass-media and the army is a special relationship due to the many elements that may form. For this reason, we must always remember the importance of professionalism, our ability to show impartiality, fairness, and responsibility as journalists. Both elements, the military and the media, are pillars of society; a good cooperation between the two is essential.

Military Leaders Address the Media (Via Wikimedia)

Media construction and crime reporting

Corttany Brooks
cb970011@ohio.edu 
Make up blog 10/13

Crime reporting has risen dramatically in newsrooms across America, and some studies suggest viewers want more of these stories. As fascinating as crime may be for some viewers, is it right that a local news station air the gory details of a tragic event, possibly jeopardizing an ongoing police investigation, and violating suspects' rights? How much does the public need to know?

For reporters, the struggle over how far to pursue a story may present serious ethical and even moral complications. Investigative reporting, on any level, requires asking invasive and sensitive questions of people who may not want their privacy invaded. 

Aside from the moral and ethical objections of some reporters to acting with disregard for suffering victims, there is a far more practical reason for exercising restraint. In-depth crime reporting and investigating depends upon reporters and producers cultivating and sustaining relationships with well-placed, informed sources, like employees of the police department or other city, county, or state agencies. If a reporter burns those bridges by revealing confidential information that impedes an investigation, those sources may, in the future, refrain from sharing information.

Unfortunately (I use this adjective as a personal belief), a basic fact in the news media is that, if a story involves a brutal death or injury of some kind (or the likelihood of it), it is likely to get higher ratings. The more lurid the story, the better its chances of being the ratings leader. Natural disasters, bank robberies, shootouts, rapes, serial killers, and school violence all draw an army of news vans the same way that a limping gazelle draws a pride of lions. 

This mantra is deeply ingrained in journalistic norms. Newsworthiness is determined by several factors, and destruction fulfills many of them a lot better than news about society working its wonders another day. Also, because getting information on them is easy (through the police or government agencies via press releases) and since they take place on public streets where permits or business permission are never required to film near, they are generally rather cheap to cover. They also tend to provide flashy visuals.

Some have suggested that coverage like this, focusing on negative stories of war, death, and destruction rather than the positive things that are happening in society, is responsible for making people cynical about the world around them. People who watch the news start to feel that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and give up on the idea that society's problems can be fixed. In addition, when the media obsess over violent crimes, deeper problems with society (such as cities running out of money) go ignored, leaving the public uninformed.

Even further, this type of coverage is even being glamorized by Hollywood blockbusters like ‘Nightcrawler’, which chronicles the life of an aspiring video journalist who spends his nights cruising the streets of L.A., hunting and prying to capture violent crimes or accidents on his video camera, in order to sell the footage to news stations. Although this film presents an extreme and stylized reflection of the news industry, people love the narrative, and our industry phrase, “if it bleeds, it leads” remains at the front of the news scene. 

'Nightcrawler' Official Trailer (Via Youtube)

Social Media: Helpful Aid for Journalists or Hindrance Towards Credibility?

Meredith McNelis

mm132010@ohio.edu

Social media has shaped and changed the way news is received in the past decade. It is not only a platform that fosters personal creativity and promotion but has become a tool for journalists as well. However, if not used properly, journalists can fall victim to false Facebook posts and tweets. Lines can be blurred when they decide to use content found online.

User-Generated Content

Most social media sites allow their users to post freely without prescreening content. It has created a platform for people to voice their opinions and feelings while practicing their freedom of speech. Because of this freedom people often post exaggerated or false information to just to get attention or a rise out of their friends and followers. False reports are generated every day, and one must have a critical eye of whether to trust a story.

Twitter gives users instant gratification. Eager tweeters get a hold of a breaking story before news stations can, thus, coining the term “citizen journalists.” Its timeline has become many people’s main source of news.  It is real-time news that can be obtained anytime, anywhere.

This has become a helpful tool for journalists and news stations to get breaking information. It can provide them with useful facts and quotes to use in both print stories and broadcast news segments. But because such content is not prescreened for validity or credibility, journalists have to be careful what they use. Separating fact from fiction is necessary and essential to producing a credible news story. They have to wade through the false stories and information to find the hidden gems of real news.

Groundswell wordpress

Websites have even been created to help people knowingly generate false social media content. For example, LemmeTweetThatForYou provides a template that looks just like a tweet but you can enter in whatever screen name and tweet what you want. Average Joe could go on and create a tweet stating he is Rihanna.  

Journalists must go through important steps before deciding to publish content generated on social media sites.

Contact the Source

Calling the person who generated the content on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media site is important to establish credibility. A simple phone call can clear up any confusion the journalist may have on the post and will help erase any confusion. Discovering one's true identity is key to finding out if the content was deceitfully made or not. Figuring out the “who, what, when, where and whys” of the story creates a solid foundation for a usable story.      

Fact Check

Just because something is online does not make it true. People post false information all of the time just to get a response. Comparing posts to credible sources and fact checking will help validate information.

Journalists must present the public with factual information. Collecting as much information possible to make comparisons between social media content and other facts is key to making sure the post is accurate. Publishing news that is not 100 percent true will create skepticism towards the media.  

Human Rights Should Never be Bias

Meredith McNelis

mm132010@ohio.edu

Abortion rights have always been a hot topic in the news and media. Whether you are anti-abortion or pro-aborition rights, passionate feelings surround both sides. Because of such strong apposing arguments, the issue is hardly addressed without causing great animosity between the two beliefs.

Pro-Human Rights

Abortions happen every day; this is not news. Nevertheless, what sets this story apart from others is the gruesome methods that Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell performed. His actions were not one of a routine abortion procedure but of murder. Yes, people who are anti-abortion consider all abortions to be wrongful murders, but anyone with a moral compass would consider Gosnell’s actions sickening.

truthdig.com

The legality of the issue is what makes this story news worthy on a national level. The news should not focus on whether abortions should be legal or not but how Gosnell chose to execute them. Under Philadelphia state law, abortions are not to be performed after 24-weeks of pregnancy. While this is one law Gosnell broke, it is not his most troubling charge.    

Some believe that his story has not been in the forefront because many liberal media outlets are ignoring the story. This has nothing to do with it. Both sides of the spectrum failed to report on Gosnell’s clinic, so everyone is to blame. Biased reporting has nothing to do with this issue. Being liberal or conservative should not be the deciding factor of who covers this story. Everyone should take interest in it and care about such a crime because it is dealing with human rights. Gosnell's story has received gross negligence.  

Bias or Lack of Reporting?

Compared to national media sources, this story has been greatly covered in Philadelphia, which is home to Gosnell's clinic. Most stories do break on a local level. For example, if a crime was committed in Athens, Ohio, it does not automatically gain the attention of USA Today or The Washington Post. Stories must establish themselves within their community before receiving national attention.

However, it was not as if news companies were not aware of the initial story. Gosnell’s arrest was covered when the story broke but few stations continued its coverage. Millions of crimes happen everyday, so how can a news station cover all of them equally? This is the only defense that is plausible for the lack of coverage. They simply cannot abandon a story’s coverage just because another one comes along. Jodi Arias’s trial occurred during the same time period. This crime was far more “glamorous” than the murders Gosnell committed.

There may have been a lack of reporting because they did not have as much material to share with the public compared to the Arias case. For instance, it is extremely unethical to present the public with graphic pictures of mutilated babies, as opposed to a bloody sink in the Arias home.

Despite all the reasons that could be used to explain why there was a lack of coverage on the case, it should have been emphasized way more than it has been. This is a human rights issue, not one of abortion. The media and the people must put differences aside and report on such a horrific crime.   

You Can't Handle the Truth: A College Junior's Ramblings on WikiLeaks

Amanda Hagley
ah725510@ohio.edu

What do I think?

You can't handle the truth! That's what I sometimes think of individuals who criticize whistle-blowers and information leakers.  Although I will recognize the fact that certain information being publicly released can lead to conflicts involving national security and our country's safety, I'm conflicted because I also believe that our nation's citizens have the right to know about certain information and the things that our government is doing behind our backs.

Let's put it like this, everyone's seen the movie Mean Girls right?  Of course you have, it's pretty much a classic at this point.  At one point in the movie Regina George, popular queen bee, releases pages of the Burn Book to the entire school. This burn book was basically just a bunch of crude comments about other students at the school.  Although these girls may have believed that the hateful comments they wrote were not all true, it still created havoc throughout the entire school.  Okay, so maybe this isn't the most appropriate example because half of what was written was just petty high school drama, but you can see the comparison, right?

The question we have to ask ourselves is "What does the public really need to know, and whose responsibility is it to decide this in the name of protecting a nation?"

The Populars.

So where are these leaks coming from?  Why are they even taken into account?  I'll be honest and say that I had to do some research on this popular site called WikiLeaks that I kept hearing about prior to composing this blog.  Although I understood the basic idea, I couldn't honestly say that I was knowledgeable about how the whole thing actually functioned.

Here's a run down of how it works:

WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization that publishes secret and leaked information provided by completely anonymous sources. If you need more information than that you can check out Wikipedia's page on the topic if it so fancies you.  There have been several big cases of government information leaked through WikiLeaks including the popular news stories covering individuals like Bradley E. Manning and Edward Snowden, both of who are facing serious legal repercussions for their actions of releasing government information.

So were these men right in their actions of alerting the public of seemingly private government action? Although it may come as a shock, I don't know that I have a solid opinion on this topic for you.

Manning Left. Snowden Right.
Photo Courtesy of Media.Wired.It   

The Final Say.

The questions we have to take into account when deciding whether or not to publish released confidential information is whether or not the positives will really outweigh the negatives.  Maybe it's controversial that the government has been reading our emails, but are you willing to give up your sense of national security in order to find out about this occurrence and to maintain that right to privacy?

Was it necessary for Manning to release half a million government reports to the public at the expense of a possible threat to the country?  Maybe and maybe not.  I guess what it all comes down to is what you hold to be your highest concern:  the truth or your country's well-being.