Embedded or 'Inbedded' Journalism

Embedded journalism is a political strategy to control content flow in the Iraq war resulting in limited skewed coverage. The limited coverage ranges from loss of objectivity due to uncontrolled assignment locations to the dependent and fraternal nature of the relationships of reporters and soldiers in their assigned units. Reporter’s views are altered and their empathy increased when their dependency to survive is solely based on the soldiers in their units, whose psychological and emotional states may be affected by what is reported.

“The embedded reporters depended on the men and women in the units they were attached to for food, water, companionship and indeed for their survival at times. Gordon Dillow, a reporter for the Orange County Register, wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review, that he found himself falling in love with his subjects. ‘I fell in love with ‘my’ Marines.’ In some stories, he said, “I wasn’t reporting the truth; the point was I was reporting the Marine grunt truth—which had also become my truth.” There was no misrepresenting of facts, just an empathetic tone, reports that often lacked a skeptical edge” (Pember, "Mass Media Law," p.87).

Bob Steele, from the Poynter Institute, says the access "has allowed reporters and photographers to get closer to understanding (the complexities of war), to tell the stories of fear and competence, to tell the stories of skill and confusion. I think that's healthy." But, Steele cautioned that “while closeness can breed understanding, journalists must remain objective and not write about ‘we’ or ‘our,’ but about ‘they.’ There's nothing wrong with having respect in our hearts for the men and women who are fighting this war, or respect for the men and women who are marching in the anti-war protests. The key is to make sure those beliefs don't color reporting” (Pros and Cons of Embedded Journalism on www.pbs.org).

In the process of embedding journalists the war coverage may be distorted or even shaped to protect the troops. However, Journalism ethics demand objective coverage so to perpetuate and promote open and honest communication with the audience in contrast to shifting the news to protect the soldiers.

Syracuse University Professor Robert Thompson warns, “When you are part of the troops that you’re going in with, these are your fellow human beings. You are being potentially shot a together, and I think there is a sense that you become part of that group in a way that a journalist doesn’t necessarily want to be” (Pros and Cons of Embedded Journalism on www.PBS.org).

Some critics felt that the level of oversight was too strict and that embedded journalists would “make reports that were too sympathetic to the American side of the war, leading to use of the alternate term ‘inbedded journalist’ or ‘inbeds’” (Embedded Journalist on http://en.wikipedia.org).

The embedded journalists feel pressure to adhere to the agenda of the unit their assigned, and often times feel the repercussions of reporting ‘negative’ stories differing from the views or intentions of the members in their unit.

“When journalists working for the Washington Times revealed that two U.S. Marines had died when they were ordered to swim across a canal in full battle gear without a safety line, they were blackballed by the unit with which they were embedded, cut off from all information. They eventually joined another unit” (Pember,"Mass Media Law," p.86).

In addition to reporting empathetically, being subjected to only a fixed area and unit may alter the reporter’s perception of the war. Part of the process of embedding journalists is to unite them with a particular unit whom they will be with for the duration of their report. The unit’s location assignment is now the reporter’s, and the reporter’s experience and perception of the war is based on where he is assigned. This strips the reporter of an objective opinion because it controls his experience to a limited, fixed area.

“Even reporters who supported the system [embedded journalism] admitted that it provided viewers and readers with only a tiny slice of what was happening in the war. New York reporter Vincent Morris said, ‘This war is whatever piece of dirt you are sitting on.’ He was attached to a helicopter unit, so the war is about helicopters, he said. Reporters were not permitted to leave their units to look outside, at what was happening elsewhere. Eric Sorenson, president of MSNBC, estimated that the embedded reporters saw far less than 10 percent of what actually was taking place, and that is what they reported” (Pember, "Mass Media Law," p.87).

Embedding journalists may have been part of a political strategy to reconcile bad publicity generated by past military conflicts for allegations of censorship, such as in Deseret Storm. In contrast, some critics feel the government during the Vietnam War resulted in to much freedom for the press. Embedded journalism may have been a strategy to balance war coverage by allowing press free reign within certain boundaries and guidelines. In this technological age, where computer-mediated communication allows anybody to post comments and opinions it may also have been in the government’s best interest to control the flow of information by embedding journalists in actual military units. Regardless the reason embedded journalism results in worse news coverage and is a form of censorship that violates First Amendment rights:

“The objectivity of embedded journalists has been repeatedly called into question. This is often raised not so much as a direct violation of the First Amendment (in the sense of a law prohibiting journalists from reporting certain issues) as it is a violation of the free speech principles behind the First Amendment of preserving the independence of a watchdog press. Usually the charge is not that embedded journalists have deliberately become government propaganda machines, but that by unconsciously associating themselves so closely with a military unit, they have become unable to objectively report on the war without placing themselves on the military’s side” (National Security on the Press on www.ezinearticles.com/?National-Security-and-the-Press-Part-Four---The-Risks-of-Embedded-Journalists&id=83556).

If embedded journalism results in worse coverage, then what is ‘better’ coverage? In order to act as ‘gatekeepers’ and ‘watchdogs’ of information journalists adhere to ethical standards so to promote the best possible news coverage. “
Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice” (Code of Ethics on www.spj.org).

If embedded journalism results in limited skewed coverage and represents a subjective or empathetic tone then, according to the Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics, it doesn’t meet the high standards of journalistic practice, and therefore, results in worse news coverage. The standard for war time journalism has also been set.

“Several months after the Gulf War, a committee representing most of the nation's major news media issued a report stating that ‘independent’ and ‘uncensored reporting’ should be ‘the principal means of coverage’ for all future wars and military operations. The report also proposed some battlefield press rules, including the following:

1. The Pentagon should accredit independent journalists, who must observe ‘a clear set of military security guidelines that protect U.S. forces and their operations.’ Violators of these guidelines should be expelled from the combat zone.

2. Press pools should be used only during the first 2-36 hours of any major military operation.

3. Reporters should have free access to all major military units.

4. The military should not monitor or interfere with press interviews or any part of the reporting process.

5. Written dispatches and pictures from the field should not be subject to any ‘military security review."
The press argued that these rules would ensure press freedom and offer security to our military forces” (Press Freedom vs. Military Censorship on http://www.crf-usa.org).

‘Better’ news coverage is the adherence to the ethical standards of practice and exhibiting this responsibility by reporting the news fair and objectively. Embedded journalism, by nature, restricts the reporter to a limited sector of the news and instills a brotherhood loyalty to depict the war empathetically to those you see it with. This conflicts with the journalists code of ethics and results in worse news coverage in juxtaposition to the intended ‘gatekeeper,’ objective point of view initially sought for.