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)

Journalism: Not a public service--a consumer service

By Robert Guliano

rg116107@ohio.edu

What we are seeing in media and journalism is an inherent conflict of interest. It is our noble journalistic values facing off against the competitive nature of the industry. With ethics at the heart of this conflict, it provides a slippery slope on both ends of the spectrum that could eventually lead to an individual journalist or media outlet's demise.

The most bothersome cliche that is associated with journalism may be that it is a public service. Sure, this sounds dignified and can easily serve as a rallying cry for trailblazing journalists working in all mediums. However, solemnly swearing to such a statement may not be the brightest thing for a media outlet or individual "journalist" to do--because for the most part it is wrong.

All NPR aside (and that may be a generous omission), media outlets are not an agent of the government. Right there, the idea that they are a public service should be up for question. Media, like several other sectors of the economy, is a business. This makes media not a public service but a customer service.

The customer in this case is twofold: the media consumer and the revenue generating advertiser. They are interlinked. They also share similarities. Both are relatively impatient. Both are what keep media outlets in business. And both do not always put a premium on journalistic values.

In fact, it can be argued that they often prefer entertainment over straight journalism. A racy photo in a magazine--hello, new readers. A revealing but controversial investigative report--goodbye advertisers. The business still ultimately comes down to economics. Which leads to this thought:

There may be diminishing returns to ethics in media.

Journalists likely hate hearing this. But it may be a reality. Certainly there is a point where misguided ethics can be the demise of a media outlet or journalist. However, that means there has to be a point of ethical compliance that renders that outlet or journalist no longer competitive.

Business is sort of a greedy realm. Even if perfect ethics were to be accomplished and the outlet were to be afloat, there would definitely be room to improve profit-wise. Changes to drive profits may compromise ethics. And worst of all to those who cling to that creed, it may be perfectly okay with audiences.

Remember, audiences are the consumer not the public. Fox News does not sweat too much when liberal consumers criticize and boycott their broadcasts. Certainly these liberal consumers are members of the public. The reason Fox doesn't care, though, is because they are not their consumers. Media is a consumer service.

Do advertisers have the right to screen editorial content? As paying customers, it is hard to argue they don't. Do media outlets have the right to tell advertisers no to such requests? They do indeed, but it may come at a cost.

So, when examining whether media should cater editorial content to the desires of advertisers, the answer lies in between advertorial content and editorial content. It is the challenge of finding where that happy medium is that will determine the success of a media outlet.