The American news media has made great use in recent years of a practice called embedding, in which journalists travel with the U.S. military to cover wars...
But embedding comes at a price. We are observing these wars from just one perspective, not seeing them whole. When you see my byline from Kandahar or Kabul or Basra, you should not think that I am out among ordinary people, asking questions of all sides. I am usually inside an American military bubble. That vantage point has value, but it is hardly a full picture.
I fear that an embedded media is becoming the norm, and not just when it comes to war. The chroniclers of political and cultural debates increasingly move in a caravan with one side or another, as well. This nonmilitary embedding may have a different rationale, but there's a similar effect that comes with traveling under the canopy of a particular candidate, party or community. Journalists gain access to information and talkative sources, but also inherit the distortions and biases that come with being "on the bus" or "on the plane." ...
More at The Washington Post.
Reporters on the Battlefield: The Embedded Press System in Historical Context - Christopher Paul, James J. Kim , Rand.
Clear differences between the missions and goals of the press and those of the military, particularly centering around the issues of access and operational security, make historical tensions between the two unsurprising and complete avoidance of tension unlikely. However, significant overlaps, including core goals of professionalism and public service, make cooperation a reasonable possibility. This book traces the back-and-forth interactions between the press and the military over the past several decades. In Vietnam, the press enjoyed high levels of access to events, largely because of the relatively amicable relationship that had developed between the press and the military, particularly in World War II. However, this relationship experienced a significant shift during the Vietnam War-news coverage critical of both the war and the military engendered tensions. The legacy of these tensions significantly influenced military-press relations in later operations in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War. Another notable shift occurred during the first Gulf War, however, establishing the basis for new kinds of press access, which ultimately led to the embedded press system used in the second Gulf War. The outcomes and goals for the press and the military are also explored in relation to each other and those for the public.
Read the entire monograph at Rand.
Comments
Beyond recommending Dr Paul's essential study of military-press relations (perhaps the best history of the subject yet published), one should make an obvious point that Ignatius wouldn't consider: Every war correspondent, no matter now independent, is ALWAYS embedded with one side or another.
Anyone who has covered civil wars as an independent (or unilateral, or cowboy) reporter will tell you that the most dangerous moment is when one moves from one side to the other, across the cultural no-man's land that is often the seam of violence in these irregular conflicts.
Once one is established within the new group, new and different rules apply to one's access. So one always is embedded.
The trick for news organizations is to mix several voices into the news "product." Depending on the nature of the conflict, sometimes one reporter can handle this. But these sorts of wars also don't usually excite American readers because we fail to have a dog in the fight.
The larger problem is one Ignatius doesn't consider at all, and that's the long history of counter-revolutionary wars. Throughout time, the lies, assumptions and ginned-up justifications for pacification have been designed not to convince the conflict's "population" about whichever euphemism is necessary to describe the coercive operations, but rather those back home.
Too many reporters today aren't simply embedded overseas. They've embedded in the echo chamber of cant used to describe best practices in these endemic wars. In which case, they're little more than PAOs.
Mr. Ignatius has a good point and he articulates well the journalist's point of view. But from the point of view of a public affairs officer who is working to get the commander's information to the public about what is happening in his AOR, there is a disconnect.
First and foremost is the need to separate "news" from the container it is wrapped in. News, as Mr. Ignatius suggests, is a public service; however, we speak of it in terms of a product. I've always had a problem with the term "consumer" when it comes to information and news. My ability to receive the news does not in any way inhibit another's ability to receive it. To "consume" it means I take it away and leave nothing for anyone else. A "newsPAPER" is consumable.
News is communication and once you communicate you cannot take it back or erase it. You cannot unspeak a word. You have to build from it because the speaking (or publishing) of it changes things. The news devices themselves: newspapers, broadcasts, etc. are ephemeral.
So what does that mean for journalists searching for truth among a limited set of facts in a highly and hotly contested environment? Perhaps in collaboration with like-minded journalists who find themselves on the other side of the concertina wire understanding may arise.
The State of the News Media Annual Reports http://www.journalism.org/ are very telling indicators of this new communication environment and what it means for news organizations and, in turn, what that means for government organizations.
My 2004 report, "Reporters on the Battlefield: The Embedded Press System in Historical Context" (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG200/) deals with many of these same issues for those who are interested.