The Middle EastEmbedding: Does the practice infringe on or expand press freedom and access to information?

Two views of embedding in Iraq

Why cover a war?Military needs the press

to “defuse enemy propaganda.”

Serves as a conduit of information

Rally support—a war that lasts more than a few days requires the support and consent of the public

The press is necessary as a check and balance on the military

Serve as an “impartial” conduit of information

It’s a great story—it sells newspapers, draws viewers to the television set—or it used to.

Covering WarAmerican war correspondents become a fixture of

the Civil War, aided by the telegraph.

Frequently, journalists have been “embedded” with troops. General Grant allowed a New York Herald reporter to travel with him.

Since then, the two institutions—the military and the journalists and media that cover war—have had tense, but necessarily symbiotic relationship.

Why?

Source: The Media at the Tip of the Spear, by Kevin A. Smith, Michigan Law Review, May 2004

From Civil War to the Iraq War In World War I, journalists sometimes were military

officers themselves.

In World War II, journalists were “embedded,” but it was not as formalized as it was in the Iraq War. Edward R. Murrow flew in military plans that bombed German cities. He arrived at concentration camps with American soldiers.

Vietnam was a turning point for the press and the military—and by extension the government and the American people.

Early years of the war, the battlefield was unrestricted.

From Civil War to the Iraq WarEarly on, most press was supportive of

administration, even if they were critical of the methods.

In 1968, Walter Cronkite declares the war “unwinnable.”

The military—which had supported the journalists, fed them, housed them, protected them (the military was reimbursed—decided that it needed to control access.

In Grenada, the military used press pools to control media access

From Civil War to Iraq WarPress pool offers limited access to the

frontlines. In Grenada, the military refused to transport

reporters to the island, and shot warning shots across the bows of the boats the reporters were using to gain access.

Only after the fighting was almost over that the press was allowed on the island.

The mishandling led to changes that were then to be used in the next military conflict—more access and aid to journalists to get to the conflict

From the Civil War to the Iraq WarBut in Panama, the press and the military once

again went to battle.

Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense delayed activating the press pool to prevent coverage in the initial stages of the invasion.

Afterward, the pool was restricted to the local military base.

Operation Desert Storm creates even more anger and resentment.

From the Civil War to the Iraq WarDick Cheney says

during that time: “I do not look on the press as an asset. Frankly, I look on it as a problem to be managed.”

Operation Desert Storm restrictions

Prepublication review of media reports—in one case, a reporter was required to change the word “giddy” to “proud” when reporting on the return of troops.

Press blackout during the first day of the information

Prolonged use of press pools.

There was an appeal to censers in place, but in general reporters agreed to the censorship and changes so that they could get their stories out on time.

From the Civil War to the Iraq WarOther controls included:

Excluded from the frontlines unless they were registered

Signed an agreement to comply with the military rules

Worked in a pool

Had a military escort

Walter Cronkite said afterward to a Senate committee that he advocated a return to the freer days of Vietnam. “I don’t know if (the public had received complete news coverage) because the American press is not able to go everywhere. We have no independent monitor on whether the system is working or not.”

The Embedding of Journalists in Iraq

Journalists agree to abide by the media ground rules

They do not determine what military unit they will embedded with.

They are embedded only with the U.S. military—what about the residents of Baghdad or the Iraqi army

Agreed to go through media training exercises—ostensibly to learn how to be a quasi-soldier

The Pentagon revises its rules to create access without security review—which is a classic prior restraint issue.

Pentagon agrees to provide reporters with transportation, equipment, rations, medical care, and assistance in filing stories.

From the readings: Can there be democracy

when the public is fractionalized? When the public has no “collective presence?”

Can there be a public when the public agendas are routinely predetermined by “unseen engineers?”

Can there be a democracy when the tools of communication are neither democratically distributed or democratically controlled?

What is your view of embedding?

After reading Sig Christenson’s piece “Truth and Trust.”

Good or bad stories?

“Blogging the War Away” from “Embedded: Weapon of Mass Deception.”

War as propaganda?

War as a TV show?

From the readings: Would you go to a “boot

camp” like the one journalists were required to if they wanted to “embed?”

Would you abide by the media ground rules

What do you make of Dan Rather’s comment: George Bush is president, he makes the decisions. Whereever he wants me to line up, just tell me where?

What are your thoughts/opinions of Judith Miller’s reporting?

Do we want to think of embedding as “the home run” that Rumsfeld calls it?

Do we want journalists to become “Marine like” or in the case of other “embedding” do we want reporters to become like their sources?

The final questions

Which is worse for press freedom: government censorship or media corporatization?

Is access to information a basic human right? (particularly in a region where information

can keep you safe and keep you alive)

Does embedding expand or infringe on press freedom? (What do journalists give up when

they give into demands in return for access?