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)

Objectivity and other Impossible Endeavors

Meg Omecene

@megomecene

mo403411@ohio.edu

We all have bias. A project I did in high school sought to illuminate that bias.

For me, I found that I had a weak spot for environmental issues. I found it very difficult to criticize religious leaders. I found my weak spots -- and man, there were a lot of them. Everything from loving stories about babies, to being terrified at the sight of a gun plagued me as I tried to write my report.

And while I try to patch up the weak spots, the older I get, the stronger I find that my bias grows. For example, this summer I spent about six weeks in Israel. They were the best 39 days of my life, but now I have major bias about that section of the world. Before, I was very “Rah rah rah yay Israel,” and to an extent, I still am, but now I see the validity in the Palestinians plight. While I have a weak spot for my fellow students who had to live their lives in fear for so long because of terrorist attacks on their schools and bus routes, I also saw how painfully the Palestinians suffered from being constantly hounded by Israeli military, and I could not, in good conscience, ever condemn or praise one side over the other ever again.

Another large bias that I have is toward the Democratic party. When I was younger, I referenced the Affordable Care Act in conversation with my mother by using the term Obamacare. She corrected me: “That’s what ignorant people call it.”

I did not understand her reasoning; if something were called “Megcare,” I would be all for it. I think it is important to care for one another, and so does out president.

Obama’s spin masters saw this advantage. After a couple of years of shrinking from the term Obamacare, president Obama acknowledged the term during a presidential debate against challenger Mitt Romney. “Obama cares!” he exclaimed.

(Video courtesy CNN)

I think that the "Rethinking Objectivity" article brings up a good point. While journalists strive to have some sort of magic objectivity, that is often an impossibility. Like the article says, some writers do not even vote for fear of bias creeping into their work.

However, is that the most effective way to try to be a good journalist? Everything that we read tells us there is no such things as Truth (with a capital T). Should a journalist bypass one of the greatest American principles to try to find this elusive, or possibly non-existent, quality?

I think journalists should try to eliminate their most weighted bias as much as they possibly can, but they should also acknowledge that they are human. Just because I am voting for Obama does not mean that I will not criticize him for his inconsistencies, nor does it mean I will not praise Mitt Romney for his strong moral fiber.