# Embedded journalism = State run TV? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273 "2003-04-03T18:52:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hinten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecd19e/32.png) [@Hinten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hinten)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/21 "2003-04-05T02:47:37Z")
No, you are right. Human interest stories can be interesting. As well as more detailed looks at operations and interactions between soldiers and locals. I am not trying to ridicule that. One of the most interesting scenes I can remember of the top of my head was a shot of a US soldier that was completely exasperated, not understanding why he wasn’t received with open arms by the locals. I have to admit, that was fascinating on so many levels. As much as I find it interesting when the camera switches to the onboard camera in a car race. I guess my frustration stems from the overall coverage that I can see on TV. The Embeds and how the material is being used is just one piece of it. I seriously found that checking the TV news only every other day or, if I were stronger willed, only once every week, I would be as knowledgeable as the war porn junkies that watch 24/7. That led me to think that despite the 500 Embeds I am getting as much information as during Gulf War I. **Eva Luna** I never did say that the material is propaganda. I am wondering how the exact same material can be interpreted in so many different ways by different reporters from different nations. Also, not all Embed material is shown here. Does that equal censorship? Probably not. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/22 "2003-04-05T08:39:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > \*\* > > 1. Which of the above-mentioned US-based networks is owned and run (in actuality, not metaphorically) by the US government? \*\* In actuality, the networks are owned by publicly held companies, and are run by the following giant corporations [FOX](http://www.newscorp.com/report2002/2002_annual_report.pdf). Chairman: Rupert Murdock (Australia happens to be a member of Iraq Invasion Coalition). [CNN](http://www.aoltimewarner.com/corporate_information/turner_broadcasting.adp). President: Jim Walton (has three levels above him up the chain to AOL Time Warner big guys). [NBC News](http://www.nbc.com/nbc/header/Executive_Bios/). President: Neal Shapiro, reporting to GE. They make good things for life, including 30mm gatling guns used on the A-10 and F-16 aircraft to kill people. [ABC News](http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/2739/). President: David Westin. Reports all the way up to Disneyland. [CBS](http://www.viacom.com/pdf/Viacom10KWExhibits3-27-03.pdf). Chairman: Summer Redstone. Part of the giant Viacom Corp. [Talk Radio shows](http://www.clearchannel.com/ci.php). Clear Channel Corporation running over 1200 talk shows throughout the US. Non of these are, in actuality, run by the US government. But, how would you like to run for election without the help of these guys? Come on \*\*El\_Kabong \*\*, get real. If you need to know how the main stream media and the government are tied together in the US, try attending this [introductory seminar](http://www.zmag.org/aboutzmi.htm) next June. I also suggest you read a book by Noam Chumsky called: Manufacturing Consent. He will be talking in Culver City this Sunday, 5 April 2003. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > 1. How effective do you think government control of US media is, if it in fact exists? That is, approximately what percentage of stories on the war in Iraq run by the nets mentioned above do you believe have been placed by the government? > > \*\* Very effective. Read the book “The Great Video Game” to see how our presidents and congress people are elected. As for the Iraq war stories by the nets, as **big\_yellow\_kingswood** said above: “The embedded media are only there as long as the military permits them to be there. If a journo starts filing reports that look very bad for the government, that journo would find their ‘embedded’ status quickly removed”. Now, you figure out how this translates to percentages. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 3. Why are you only considering TV news (and talk radio), generally considered to be the shallowest and least informative of media, in your OP? Why not print media? > \*\* The latest polls show that 70% of Americans are pro war. Out of this 70%, I bet most of them form their perception and belief system based on what they see on TV or what they hear on the talk shows on their car radios. You are not saying that over 50% of Americans are shallow, are you? Do you know a cite where I can find what percentage of the 70% read the print media or books, versus relying on the TV and radio sound bites for their information on the war. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 4. Which news sources in the US (name as many as you please) do you consider to be more trustworthy than the above-mentioned nets, and why? \*\* I personally try to get my news from sources outside the US. You can do that with the Internet and Satellite dishes. Of course, having some foreign language skills (beside English) would help. But if you are stuck with English language and have no access to Internet, I suggest trying[NPR](http://news.npr.org), or the corporate free [Pacifica](http://www.pacifica.org/) network. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 5. What alternative would you propose to the current system? \*\* Create a viable third party. One that can really challenge the “Business as Usual” of the Democrats and the Republicans. A party that a vote for it would not be a wasted vote. ---
**Author:** ![fiztig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f19dbf/32.png) [@fiztig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiztig)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/23 "2003-04-05T14:36:57Z")
Whilst I will maintain my faith in journalistic integrity and believe that most embedded reporters will at least make a cursory attempt to report the facts as they see them, an article in a Sydney newspaper today offers a few insights (bolding mine): [Link to entire article](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962935172.html) > [@](#): > > _report from Lindsay Murdoch as published in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’:_ > I see a small town about 500 metres to the east. There’s a mosque with a white-domed roof, the most striking building in view. I want to interview the town’s residents, to find out what they think of Saddam Hussein or the sudden arrival, in the middle of the night, of hundreds of marines in this irrigated land of central Iraq. > > But if I leave the marines’ protection I lose, under US military rules, my position as an embedded - assigned - reporter with Rhino artillery battery, a unit attached to the 5th Battalion, 11th Regiment of the US Marine Corps 1st Division. > > … > > **But I report the war only from the marines’ perspective.** I have been shot at when they have been shot at. I wear the same US-supplied chemical warfare suits as they do. I carry a US-supplied gas mask, eat the marines’ rations and sleep with them in holes we dig ourselves. If I stay much longer, shedding weight, perhaps I will even look like them. > > Being embedded to a marine unit has given the _Herald_ a free ride to the war in a Humvee and a close-up, often frightening, view of it. **But it is a restricted view.** So although we are perhaps getting more factual news from reporters in the field than we would if access was completely restricted, we should remember that the stories we are getting are still not the whole picture. Judith Matloff, a war correspondant who has reported for _The New York Times_, _The Economist_, _Newsweek_, and the BBC makes some poignant comments in the same newspaper as the previous article: > [@](#): > > Ms Matloff said it was “absolutely understandable” that a camaraderie had built up between the reporters and the units they travel with. She added: "If something terrible does happen, the reporters who have grown close to their units will be practising self-censorship without even knowing it. > > “So all you get from some of them is propaganda, and I can see why. If you are sleeping and eating with the military, and those soldiers are protecting your life in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances, of course you are going to bond with them.” More comments by Matloff, along with Marvin Kalb from _Meet the Press_, regarding ‘embedding’ can be found [here](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962935267.html). Some interesting points to ponder the next time you see that ‘embed’ report on your TV or read it in the morning paper. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/24 "2003-04-05T14:46:03Z")
**Asylum** : The news media should be able to report whatever the hell they want to report. It’s called free press, and that’s what it should be. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by El\_Kabong_ > > 1. Which of the above-mentioned US-based networks is owned and run (in actuality, not metaphorically) by the US government? It doesn’t matter. If all they are reporting is the government line, then they might as well be owned by the government. However, ownership has little to do with it. For instance, in Australia, one of the networks consistently most critical of the government is the government owned ABC. However, the privately owned Nine Network tends to take a more pro-government line. A media source is not censored just because it is government owned, and conversely a media cource is not independent just because it is not privately owned. ---
**Author:** ![fiztig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f19dbf/32.png) [@fiztig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiztig)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/25 "2003-04-05T14:54:57Z")
Of course I forgot to add in how all of my above post relates to ‘state run TV’. As a history teacher, I teach my students to verify sources, and then to re-verify and cross reference them as much as possible to get the fullest picture they can. If we are in a position where most of our information comes from reporters that present a story that is restricted to such an extent that journalists cannot venture out to interview the local populace to gauge their reaction to particular events, then surely we have to question just how much our information is being controlled by the state. We should all try to be good history students and obtain our information from as many sources as possible - including those from other countries - so we can get a fuller picture of what’s going on. When World War I broke out propaganda was rife (and in fact used superbly by the British - a lesson the Germans learned well for WWII). Reports such as the ‘Nurse Hume incident’ and those of German soldiers nailing kittens to church doors in Belgium were widely believed. Thankfully we now live in a time when stories can be better verified by news agencies around the world - we just need to open our browsers. State-run TV can only be an influence if we decide to close our minds to other sources of information. As good citizens of whichever country, we should always strive to find the truth before automatically believing the ‘kitten reports’. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/26 "2003-04-05T16:29:34Z")
Go back to sleep. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wake up call \* > In actuality, the networks are owned by publicly held companies, and are run by the following giant corporations > … > > Non of these are, in actuality, run by the US government. But, how would you like to run for election without the help of these guys? Your conspiracy theories are tripping over each other. Rather than suggesting these corporations are controlled by the government, you imply the government is controlled (or at least heavily influenced) by these corporations. If that was the case, the whole idea of “state run TV” is moot. > [@](#): > > As for the Iraq war stories by the nets, as **big\_yellow\_kingswood** said above: “The embedded media are only there as long as the military permits them to be there. If a journo starts filing reports that look very bad for the government, that journo would find their ‘embedded’ status quickly removed”. I don’t know if byk _or_ you has any evidence of this. A reporter who was removed at the whim of the military would immediately start screaming “censorship!” and this would be more of a hassle than just leaving him in embed. That said, it wouldn’t surprise me if a journo gets kicked out because he’s acting like a jerk. > [@](#): > > Create a viable third party. One that can really challenge the “Business as Usual” of the Democrats and the Republicans. A party that a vote for it would not be a wasted vote. And that will do what, exactly? Bring the press to heel? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by gex gex_ > The news media should be able to report whatever the hell they want to report. It’s called free press, and that’s what it should be. Yes, but certain common-sense limitations should apply. Picture an embed report along the lines of: > [@](#): > > “This is harvey Nosepicker, reporting live from the outskirts of Baghdad. I’m standing here beside the 3rd Infantry Division commander at the corner of Abdullah and Jamfar streets. General, what steps will the 3rd be taking in the next… wait, I’m getting reports of incoming artillery fire…” ---
**Author:** ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/27 "2003-04-05T20:27:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wake up call \* > \*\* > [NBC News](http://www.nbc.com/nbc/header/Executive_Bios/). President: Neal Shapiro, reporting to GE. They make good things for life, including 30mm gatling guns used on the A-10 and F-16 aircraft to kill people. > > \*\* Minor nitpick- the F-16 has a 20mm gatling gun, not a 30mm one. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/28 "2003-04-05T22:03:21Z")
**Wake up call** , thanks for replying, but I’m unclear on why you feel it necessary to adopt such a hostile tone towards a reasonable request to clarify the point of your (let’s face it) rather cryptic OP. Why so defensive? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wake up call \* > In actuality, the networks are owned by publicly held companies, and are run by the following giant corporations… What, if anything does your list of corporate CEOs have to do with your premise: that the government is controlling TV and radio news? As an example of the near-total irrelevance of your comments to your own premise, I’ll take just one example: > [@](#): > > [NBC News](http://www.nbc.com/nbc/header/Executive_Bios/). President: Neal Shapiro, reporting to GE. They make good things for life, including 30mm gatling guns used on the A-10 and F-16 aircraft to kill people. GE also makes light bulbs, DVD players and railroad locomotives, amongst other things. What you seem to be saying here, (correct me if I am wrong) is that someone at GE issues directives to NBC as to what stories to run on their various nets, apparently in order to ensure more orders for goods from GE’s military divisions. Since this is a fairly serious claim, could I trouble you for some specific evidence that what you say is so? > [@](#): > > Non of these are, in actuality, run by the US government. But, how would you like to run for election without the help of these guys? OK, so that confirms it; actually, in your own words, it’s the media that are controlling the government, not the other way round. > [@](#): > > Come on \*\*El\_Kabong \*\*, get real. If you need to know how the main stream media and the government are tied together in the US, try attending this [introductory seminar](http://www.zmag.org/aboutzmi.htm) next June. I also suggest you read a book by Noam Chumsky called: Manufacturing Consent. He will be talking in Culver City this Sunday, 5 April 2003. That’s Noam _Chomsky_, you know, and I do in fact know quite a lot about how the government and the media are tied together. But of course you don’t know the slightest thing about me, do you? Perhaps you should work on explaining your premise rather than trying to divine my background and motives for entering this discussion. I’d be happy to answer publicly any questions you may have about why I’m discussing this with you. > [@](#): > > As for the Iraq war stories by the nets, as **big\_yellow\_kingswood** said above: “The embedded media are only there as long as the military permits them to be there. If a journo starts filing reports that look very bad for the government, that journo would find their ‘embedded’ status quickly removed”. Now, you figure out how this translates to percentages. During the first week of the conflict, reporters filed hundreds of stories that made things look “very bad for the government”. Sandstorms slowing the advance down, underestimating Iraqi resistance, etc. So, again, what’s your point? > [@](#): > > The latest polls show that 70% of Americans are pro war. Out of this 70%, **I bet** (bolding mine) most of them form their perception and belief system based on what they see on TV or what they hear on the talk shows on their car radios. > You are not saying that over 50% of Americans are shallow, are you? Do you know a cite where I can find what percentage of the 70% read the print media or books, versus relying on the TV and radio sound bites for their information on the war. Actually, I believe it is you who are claiming that most of the population is shallow, assuming as you seem to that most of the American public form their “belief system” based on TV news. I certainly haven’t formed my “belief system” that way. > [@](#): > > I personally try to get my news from sources outside the US. You can do that with the Internet and Satellite dishes. Of course, having some foreign language skills (beside English) would help. But if you are stuck with English language and have no access to Internet, I suggest trying[NPR](http://news.npr.org), or the corporate free [Pacifica](http://www.pacifica.org/) network. I Lived in France for ten years and am fluent in the language, I can follow Spanish-language broadcasts, and I listen to the Houston Pacifica outlet at least an hour every weekday. But of course, you are once again presuming all sorts of things about me and the rest of your audience without actually knowing a single detail about us. Also, I have a very serious question for you and I would like a serious answer: what basis do you have to believe that Pacifica Radio is any more truthful and objective than any of the corporate media outlets? As a follow-up which you are welcome to answer or not as you wish, would you like to claim that Pacifica has no underlying agenda at all in the sorts of stories they choose to pursue? > [@](#): > > Create a viable third party. One that can really challenge the “Business as Usual” of the Democrats and the Republicans. A party that a vote for it would not be a wasted vote. Uh, since, according to your premise, the media are likely to prevent this party from being heard, shouldn’t we focus on media reform first? That was the substance of my question, how one might reform the domestic media to give a more balanced airing of opinion. Look, I asked the questions I did because was curious whether you actually had anything to contribute to the discussion. Imagine my disappointment that all you can seem to do is parrot a number of Chomskyite talking points. Frankly, you sound quite a lot like another poster, named **Chumpsky** , who left the boards few months ago. You wouldn’t be him, would you? ---
**Author:** ![Asylum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@Asylum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asylum)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/29 "2003-04-06T07:20:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gex gex \* > **Asylum: The news media should be able to report whatever the hell they want to report. It’s called free press, and that’s what it should be.** I suspect you misunderstand my position. I agree with your statement with one caveat: the press should not report information that has the potential to endanger human lives or in other ways unreasonably compromise the safety of a people or nation. IOW, go ahead and report that a U.S. president financed a break in, or our soldiers have commited war crimes, just don’t sit down and draw a map in the sand of our current troop deployments and their next destinations. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/30 "2003-04-06T14:09:59Z")
**Asylum** , no, they shouldn’t but they should make that call themselves, rather than being told by the Government what they can and can’t say. ---
**Author:** ![Daniel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Daniel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daniel)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/31 "2003-04-06T15:21:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hinten \* > **The value of embed reporting is like attaching a camera to a soccerball and report on the progress of the game that way. Another example, reporting on a car race solely via an onboard camera. Even if you put an onboard camera in every car, as a viewer you still do not get what is happening in the race** Eh, not always. An embedded reporter might find himself sheltered, isolated from the true story by an over-cautious military unit. He might also earn their trust, pay attention to what he sees, and discover something unique that you couldn’t get from the so-called “Five O’Clock Follies”. In the New York Times last week, there was a front-page article about US forces finding that when they tried to take prisoners, a lot of the Iraqi soldiers were dead or dying from gunshot wounds to the back of the head. It seems many of them were being forced to fight at gunpoint, and the ones that hesitated were shot by their unit’s commander. The editors applied this experience to the war as a whole, but if you know what you’re looking for when you read the article, you’ll realize that the bulk of the reporting is something experienced by a single embedded reporter. While perhaps the Pentagon would have mentioned this in a news release one day, what really makes the story is the reporter who actually saw with his own eyes the Iraqi prisoners being separated from their commander for their own safety. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/32 "2003-04-06T15:48:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Asylum, no, they shouldn’t but they should make that call themselves, rather than being told by the Government what they can and can’t say. Right. Now that would be an improvement alright. Let’s trust the good nature of TV reporting. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/33 "2003-04-07T03:23:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wake up call \* > \*\*our Corporate run media is OK on FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and Talk Radio shows. \*\* We have the right to not patronize their sponsors. That doesn’t work with government run media. ---
**Author:** ![Asylum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@Asylum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asylum)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/34 "2003-04-07T04:16:17Z")
**Gex Gex** , I would love to give reporters free reign everywhere without worrying that they’re going to do something immoral, but that’s just not going to happen so at least a few restrictions are necessary. Also if you agree that reporters shouldn’t be reporting such information as troop movements (for either side) then why would it be unreasonable for the military to prohibit them from doing so or lose their official sanction to be on the battlefield? Wouldn’t you agree that a military should have the right to eject anyone who is making their job more difficult? ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/35 "2003-04-07T05:37:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > \*\* > What, if anything does your list of corporate CEOs have to do with your premise: that the government is controlling TV and radio news? As an example of the near-total irrelevance of your comments to your own premise, I’ll take just one example: > > GE also makes light bulbs, DVD players and railroad locomotives, amongst other things. What you seem to be saying here, (correct me if I am wrong) is that someone at GE issues directives to NBC as to what stories to run on their various nets, apparently in order to ensure more orders for goods from GE’s military divisions. Since this is a fairly serious claim, could I trouble you for some specific evidence that what you say is so? > > OK, so that confirms it; actually, in your own words, it’s the media that are controlling the government, not the other way round.\*\* I assume you have read and understood [Dwight Eisenhower](http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)’s position on Military Industrial Complex. I think GE is no less or more proud of their refrigerator division than their defense business. But one thing for sure is that Raytheon will be building more Tomahawks, Boeing will build more JDAMs, and General Atomics more Predators as a result of this war. Surely that has an impact on their profits and stock prices. I think when Eisenhower was talking about the Military Industrial Complex, he was not trying to pinpoint whether the Media Corporations were calling the shots or the government was calling the shots. He was referring to the collusion of the two entities to the detriment of ordinary people like you and I, and all others that suffer and do not have a vested interest in the outcome of events such as this war. > [@](#): > > \*\*Also, I have a very serious question for you and I would like a serious answer: what basis do you have to believe that Pacifica Radio is any more truthful and objective than any of the corporate media outlets? As a follow-up which you are welcome to answer or not as you wish, would you like to claim that Pacifica has no underlying agenda at all in the sorts of stories they choose to pursue? \*\* Dear **El\_Kabong** , in your previous post you asked me to suggest alternative media. I did. Pacifica was one, among others. I thought I was doing you a favor by showing you some alternatives. If you have an ax to grind with their agenda, I suggest you call them and discuss it with them. > [@](#): > > \*\*Look, I asked the questions I did because was curious whether you actually had anything to contribute to the discussion. Imagine my disappointment that all you can seem to do is parrot a number of Chomskyite talking points. > > Frankly, you sound quite a lot like another poster, named **Chumpsky** , who left the boards few months ago. You wouldn’t be him, would you? \*\* O.O., **El\_Kabong** , you dropped an “I” between “because” and “was”. Sorry if I typed a “u” rather than an “o” in Chomsky’s name. I thought SDMB protocol had no pickings on spelling as there is no spellcheck. And, NO, I am not the old poster “Chumpsky”, whoever that was. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/36 "2003-04-07T06:37:51Z")
I saw a report on BBC World just yesterday in which embedded journalists complained that they were only seeing what the military wanted them to see, in other words they were exposed only to selected locations/neighbourhoods/conflicts, etc. It was immediately acknowledged that these limitations might be due to physical risk or the possibility of reporters getting in the way of the military, but the original objection remained strongly in evidence after this point was made. Here’s some links from the BBC Web site. The BBC is one of the very few media who have gone about reporting the war in an objective way: [The pros and cons of “embedding”](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2919229.stm) > [@](#): > > _From the BBC link above:_ > Back in HMS Ark Royal ward room there is talk that they will turn off the rolling news satellite feed. > > They are fed up with the speculation and what some say is a negative picture of what is going on in Iraq. > > They [the media] should be supporting us, one member of the crew told me. That is not necessarily a commonly held view here but it does underline the tension between media and military. [Reporting the war](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2903807.stm) This is the legendary John Simpson providing some observations > [@](#): > > _From the BBC link above_ > True, the “embedding” system has provided superb coverage of the war so far. > > It has shown us graphically how strong the Iraqi resistance has been, and how different the course of the war has been from the original American blueprint. > > For this reason, I suspect that if there should be another war of this kind, which we must fervently hope there won’t, the generals will prefer a much more limited form of “embedding”. > > But free-ranging independence is the quintessence of good journalism. > > It is of the greatest importance that we should also have unattached reporters who rove around no-man’s-land, searching out their own stories, bearing witness to the truths that can’t be found by people who are restricted to one side. [How ‘embedded’ reporters are handling the war](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2885179.stm) > [@](#): > > _From the BBC link above_ > The new practice of “embedding” reporters makes compelling journalism, but some warn of the dangers of losing independence. > > \ > > But by and large, both sides have been rubbing along amicably, with trust intact. > > That won’t satisfy the toughest critics though, who say the mere fact journalists are so enmeshed with the military makes it difficult for them to think objectively. If your safety is in the hands of soldiers, the argument goes, you will be unwilling to criticise them. As for the state of media in the US, I’ll note that it’s one big bowl of disorganized spaghetti, badly in need of reform. I don’t think blanket statements such as “the government controls the media” apply, because there are differences in opinion, objectivity, and alignment on several levels throughout a medium (from the publisher, to the editors, to the reporters, to the target audience, and the sponsors). I would not say that the situation in the US is as suspicious as that of, for example, Italy a few years ago, where the leader of the country is a media tycoon who pretty much owned the largest segment of Italian eyeballs before being elected. Nor is American media as obviously sad as, for example, Chinese media, which unanimously failed to provide serious coverage of the current SARS pandemic (viral pneumonia) and which only recently admitted that the scale of the AIDS problem in China may be a tad worse than the 200,000 cases that was the old party line. I will note though that some TV media definitely appear to be on board with the US government in a manner that is nothing short of shameful. For example, I don’t know what the hell FOX news is supposed to be, but it’s little more than bullshit propaganda. Then again, FOX are known for spouting nonsense in most fields, from their idiotic documentaries packed start to finish with falsehoods to their jingoistic coverage of the current war. The most the network is good for is a chuckle, and I pity those who get the bulk of their information from FOX. CNN, to cite another network, is one that in my opinion does occasionally try to present a balanced view, though failures and relapses are not uncommon by any means, and the network’s image suffers frequently in terms of objectivity. They also tend to experience problems when foreign languages are involved, making some of their global coverage rather inferior (or, sometimes, absent entirely). In my opinion CNN could really raise their international profile by providing more dissenting views, a wider angle in other words. A note on CNN: thank goodnesss they don’t broadcast internationally quite a bit of the trash they air domestically, or they would not have a shred of reputation left. As far as American television goes, I would put my stock in PBS and little else, and too bad they don’t have a dedicated news channel. They do, however, have an interesting series called _Media Matters_ that (this season) explores the role of the press in the attack on Iraq. Their Web site, which has some material for download, is [www.pbs.org](http://www.pbs.org) In a perfect world we could demand publishers/owners that remain aloof from the subject matter, and editorial staff who feel a moral responsibility to present a balanced and objective report every time. For those with such a dream, I recommend sticking to the BBC, although it’s not readily available in the US – PBS does carry it for half an hour a day or so, in case you simply can’t get what amounts to the only reliable world-wide news channel. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/37 "2003-04-07T07:31:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrotherCadfael \* > \*\*In Gulf War I, the media critics complained that the military wouldn’t let reporters near the battlefield. This time around, the complaint is that they do. > > You can’t win. \*\* Um, no. There is a difference between letting reporters near the battlefield and hogtieing them to the back of a military unit to make sure they see ‘the guys’ in action. In case you didn’t hear about it, the US troops are not particularly friendly to non-embedded journalists. Like, beating them up, accusing them of being spies, threatening to kill them, and locking them up in a Humvee for 36h ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/38 "2003-04-07T12:53:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Dear El\_Kabong, in your previous post you asked me to suggest alternative media. I did. Pacifica was one, among others. I thought I was doing you a favor by showing you some alternatives. If you have an ax to grind with their agenda, I suggest you call them and discuss it with them. The question remains unanswered: why do YOU personally believe, as you apparently do, that outlets such as Pacifica are more trustworthy than the outlets you mentioned in your OP? Obviously, for some reason you don’t seem to like that question, but I thought I’d try again anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Hinten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecd19e/32.png) [@Hinten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hinten)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/39 "2003-04-07T20:11:11Z")
Here is what Bill Moyers thinks about American TV news corporations and Embeds specifically. Quoted from [www.salon.com](http://www.salon.com) "How do you feel about “embedded reporters,” a phrase that’s now, I guess a permanent entry in the journalistic lexicon? It’s not as good as what we did in the Vietnam War. Remember, I was in the Johnson White House at that time. We made a very conscious decision that reporters were to go where they wanted to go. Sometimes they had to go with the military because there was no other way to get there. But Johnson was actually presented with a recommendation from the Pentagon – we didn’t think to call it “embedded,” but it would have created the same situation. He said we shouldn’t put that kind of limit on them. He railed against the press! He loathed the press, when they reported information that was at odds with him. But it was an important moment in journalistic history, because we didn’t try to manage the press. We challenged the press, and we would snipe at the press, but we didn’t try to manage the press. Of course things got worse after that: the incursions in Panama and Grenada, and Gulf War I. It was total censorship. So this is an improvement over what has been happening. But it’s not as good as Vietnam, where reporters had total and unrestricted access. Morley Safer was out there filming GIs torching huts with their lighters. He wasn’t embedded; he just went along. Or Peter Arnett, who was then working for A.P. out of Asia; he could go where he wanted to. So this is an improvement, and I greatly admire the courage and bravery of people who are embedded. I wish I knew that I had that kind of courage. I mean, I’ve covered minor wars. I went to Central America, I went to Africa. But I’ve never been exposed to the kind of fire that these guys are being exposed to. It does mean that you’re seeing through the eyes of the military. That’s a problem, in a sense. But it’s an advantage over anything else we’ve seen in the last 20 to 25 years. The other disadvantage is that you see what that unit of military is seeing, and you only see that. But I’m glad the military is doing it. Overall, it’s a plus. It’s better to be there (in the field) than not to be there, relying only on military briefings, which is what we got in Gulf War I. " The full interview can be found here [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/07/moyers/index.html](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/07/moyers/index.html) (subscribers only?) ---
**Author:** ![Hinten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecd19e/32.png) [@Hinten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hinten)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273/40 "2003-04-07T20:23:05Z")
Here is what Bill Moyers thinks about American TV news corporations and Embeds specifically. Quoted from [www.salon.com](http://www.salon.com) "How do you feel about “embedded reporters,” a phrase that’s now, I guess a permanent entry in the journalistic lexicon? It’s not as good as what we did in the Vietnam War. Remember, I was in the Johnson White House at that time. We made a very conscious decision that reporters were to go where they wanted to go. Sometimes they had to go with the military because there was no other way to get there. But Johnson was actually presented with a recommendation from the Pentagon – we didn’t think to call it “embedded,” but it would have created the same situation. He said we shouldn’t put that kind of limit on them. He railed against the press! He loathed the press, when they reported information that was at odds with him. But it was an important moment in journalistic history, because we didn’t try to manage the press. We challenged the press, and we would snipe at the press, but we didn’t try to manage the press. Of course things got worse after that: the incursions in Panama and Grenada, and Gulf War I. It was total censorship. So this is an improvement over what has been happening. But it’s not as good as Vietnam, where reporters had total and unrestricted access. Morley Safer was out there filming GIs torching huts with their lighters. He wasn’t embedded; he just went along. Or Peter Arnett, who was then working for A.P. out of Asia; he could go where he wanted to. So this is an improvement, and I greatly admire the courage and bravery of people who are embedded. I wish I knew that I had that kind of courage. I mean, I’ve covered minor wars. I went to Central America, I went to Africa. But I’ve never been exposed to the kind of fire that these guys are being exposed to. It does mean that you’re seeing through the eyes of the military. That’s a problem, in a sense. But it’s an advantage over anything else we’ve seen in the last 20 to 25 years. The other disadvantage is that you see what that unit of military is seeing, and you only see that. But I’m glad the military is doing it. Overall, it’s a plus. It’s better to be there (in the field) than not to be there, relying only on military briefings, which is what we got in Gulf War I. " The full interview can be found here [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/07/moyers/index.html](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/07/moyers/index.html) (subscribers only?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/embedded-journalism-state-run-tv/166273.md?page=3)