posted on March 27, 2003 12:26:06 PM new
I've been thinking about the concept of embedding reporters with the front line troops and have been watching the war coverage on CNN, MSNBC, etc. and have a few thoughts.
I don't have any real problems with the concept of embedding reporters with the troops. As Aaron Brown on CNN has gone to painstaking lengths to point out, a reporter travelling with the troops, experiencing what they are experiencing on a day to day basis is far more likely to be accepted by the troops and therefore will be for more likely to talk to the reporter in a meaningful way.
Ok, makes sense to me.
But frankly, thats not what I'm seeing. Instead, all I've really seen are reporters standing (usually with a tank in the background) talking about what this particular unit has been doing, encountering and what they think will happen next. While watching these kinds of reports, I have found myself thinking on more than one occasion, "did that bit of information mean more to me or some Iraqi military leader watching?" Now I know the reporters aren't giving away exact locations and that the military has a set of rules for what can and can not be broadcast, but still, some of the things that are broadcast seem like they could aid the enemy in small ways.
For instance, yesterday there was much made of the refueling and resupplying of coalition forces, complete with nice video of fuel and supply trucks rolling through the desert. Now I don't know if there is any possible benefit the enemy can get from seeing that kind of report but even if they can learn something small like what the trucks look like or what time of day they're likely to resupply, or anything, then I feel it could potentially put lives in danger.
I especially feel that way when I see live reports via videophone where the reporters are identifying the troops they're with and giving an exact account of whats happening at that very moment, usually with the reporter talking about the state of mind of the troops the reporter is around. I've heard things like, "Well, there's some confusion about why we're stopping" or "there's been some tension among the troops becaus visability is so poor."
Do we really want the enemy to know how the troops are feeling?
I don't know. I know for the families of the men and women serving the coalition it must be reassuring in some way to be able to look at whats happening live but the more I think about it, the more I think live coverage, at least the way its been done so far, may have the potential to hurt us far more than it helps.
[ edited by fiset on Mar 27, 2003 12:28 PM ]
posted on March 27, 2003 12:59:08 PM new
fiset - I pretty much agree with what you're saying. Personally, I'd rather not see this blow by blow reporting. But hey, when it gets to me, I shut it off and put on my Lee Greenwood CD. It's my belief that the reason it's being handled this way is to appease those who kept whining that our government wasn't going to tell us the truth of what was happening in the war.
I too worry that our enemies might gain some useful information from either the reporters traveling with our troops, or from our media reporting. But I have read that the reporters have been given 'guide-lines' about what to report and what they shouldn't mention.
Instead, all I've really seen are reporters standing (usually with a tank in the background) talking about what this particular unit has been doing, encountering and what they think will happen next.
One reporter that I heard speaking about why he couldn't, at that time, be seen on TV 'in real life' [rather than the views just seeing a picture of him] mentioned the pictures can only be filmed when certain tanks are in the area. I took what he said as being that all the tanks the reporters were traveling in, didn't have the room inside for the needed equipment, and they were standing in front of a tank waiting for the tank that did have the 'live-feed' equipment to catch up to them.
posted on March 27, 2003 01:14:59 PM new
::Now I don't know if there is any possible benefit the enemy can get from seeing that kind of report but even if they can learn something small like what the trucks look like ::
Did you think that there are no refueling trucks in Iraq? As for refueling times? Thats simply a matter of a little calculous
I haven't seen anything that anyone using simple common sense (and the internet) coul not find out for themselves. You are also forgetting that disinformation is a valuable aspect of war, It will not be until many years from now that we learn just how much of what was told to us at this time was "fudged". Schwartzkopff mentioned in a recent interview that there was a great deal of disinformation given out during the 91 conflict and that the press was played like fiddles when need be.
posted on March 27, 2003 02:16:27 PM new
"Did you think that there are no refueling trucks in Iraq? As for refueling times? Thats simply a matter of a little calculous"
Maybe that example was a poor one but that wasn't the only example I talked about.
"You are also forgetting that disinformation is a valuable aspect of war"
I'm not forgetting that at all. But you have to admit that its a little hard to spread disinformation when you're getting a live report from the front line.
"Schwartzkopff mentioned in a recent interview that there was a great deal of disinformation given out during the 91 conflict and that the press was played like fiddles when need be"
Of course the big difference is that the press wasn't down on the front line in 91 and received their information directly from the official briefings. This is a bit different.
posted on March 27, 2003 02:25:11 PM new
::I'm not forgetting that at all. But you have to admit that its a little hard to spread disinformation when you're getting a live report from the front line. ::
Anytime a reporter opens his mouth, you have an opening for disinformation . Would you be shocked years from now to learn tht a few embedded reporters said north when they meant south, said they slept thru the night when they taveled onward...
:: Of course the big difference is that the press wasn't down on the front line in 91 and received their information directly from the official briefings. This is a bit different.::
Yes, now they ae getting info from a CO who can probably decieve just as effectively, Additionally, since they are embedded, they are personally invested in protecting the safety and integrity of the mission.
[ edited by neonmania on Mar 27, 2003 02:25 PM ]
posted on March 27, 2003 03:25:20 PM new
I think the news networks are giving out too much information. They're analyzing our every move and they're reporting where we are strong or weak and which areas are secure or not secure. Ex-generals are predicting our future moves and explaining what they would do if they were the Iraqis. Some of it may be disinformation, but I'm sure that the Iraqis are benefitting greatly. Yesterday, they showed the spots where our M-1 tanks are vulnerable to RPG's. They might as well get some paint and paint big red bullseyes on the tanks!
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Mar 28, 2003 10:15 PM ]
posted on March 27, 2003 06:05:45 PM new
I was thinking more about this on my way home and have come up with an analogy that maybe better explains my position.
I'm a corporate paralegal by day and a semi-professional poker player by night. My analogy centers around poker.
Serious poker is a game of information. Almost all decisions in poker are based on the level of information I have about the given situation. The cards are important, of course, but more important is the information I've stored about how my opponents play. In order to remain a winning player, I must gain as much information about my opponents while at the same time being careful to hide or shield as much information about my play as possible. For example, if I make a bet and all my opponents fold, I win the pot. At that point I am under no obligation to show my cards since nobody called my bet. If I did show my cards, I would be giving my opponents information about how I play, when I was under no obligation to do so.
Neonmania makes the point about misinformation and its a valid point. In my poker game, there might be a time when I would show my cards when I didn't have to in order to provide "misinformation" to my opponents. I might decide that the risk of giving my opponents information would be justified because I might benefit in the future. But honestly, thats a rare thing. Generally speaking, the less information my opponent knows about me is better for me.
I guess on a certain level thats how I feel about these live reports from Iraq. Clearly the military feels that the benefit of the live reports outweigh the potential risks, otherwise they wouldn't allow it. I can't help but feel, though, that we are giving away information - even if its seemingly harmless information - and taken as a whole might somehow arm the enemy in some way that wouldn't have happened without that information.
I'm certainly not positive that will happen and maybe my poker playing (and the fact that I feel you should never give away information if you can help it) is driving my opinion about the embedded reporters. However, in the case of war (as opposed to a poker game) I want the decision makers to err on the side of caution.
posted on March 27, 2003 08:57:51 PM new
The embedded reporters may be the least of our problems if the administration itself keeps pissing off the few allies of any consequence that we've managed to muster.
Polish Minister scolds Bush, Rumsfeld
(March 28,2003 )(Agencies)
Poland's defense minister scolded President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday for publicly describing the actions of Polish commandos in Iraq, saying the US leaders shouldn't use the troops "for propaganda."
Bush on Wednesday told US troops at the Army's Central Command in Florida that Polish troops had secured an Iraqi oil platform in the Persian Gulf, while Rumsfeld praised the Poles' professionalism.
But Jerzy Szmajdzinski said the country's troops in Iraq include members of the elite GROM commando special forces unit, and said Warsaw doesn't want information about their activities discussed.
"It is not good when a politician - even if his name is George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld - talks about the actions of special forces," Szmajdzinski told Polish state Radio 1. "We are happy with the high grades given to Polish troops but we are not happy with their use for propaganda."
More than two-thirds of Poles are against the US-led war in Iraq, although the government has supported the United States and has approved the use of up to 200 Polish troops, including 56 GROM members.
This just in from Ljubljana! Hundreds of Slovenians hit the streets Wednesday to protest their country's inclusion in President Bush's $75 billion Iraq war budget as a partner in the war against Iraq. The White House asked for $4.5 million for Slovenia as part of the grants to members of the vast "coalition of the willing."
Small problem: The lovely Alpine nation isn't a member. "When we asked for an explanation, the State Department told us we were named in the document by mistake," Prime Minister Anton Rop said at what Reuters called "a hastily arranged news conference."
This of course would not be the first time someone confused Slovenia and Slovakia, which is a willing member of the coalition of the willing. Bush, asked during the presidential campaign about Slovakia, said, "The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned firsthand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas. I had a great meeting with him. It's an exciting country. It's a country that's doing very well." Turns out it was the prime minister of Slovenia.
Rop said yesterday, "We are a part of no such coalition. We are a part of a coalition for peace."
Not so fast, Anton. The prime minister is quite mistaken if he thinks he can get out of the coalition so easily. After all, the Solomon Islands wanted out but continue to be listed as a member. And Angola (isn't it run by the commies Washington spent decades trying to defeat?) was in, then briefly out, but then back in again.
Indeed, the Slovenians may still get that money. Seems what happened was a draft of a budget document sent to the Hill included boilerplate language that talked about Slovenia as part of the coalition. This was corrected in the final version, which credits Slovenia's help in Afghanistan and notes ongoing discussions with regard to Iraqi matters.
It's kind of like the Hotel California -- check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.
It's my belief that the reason it's being handled this way is to appease those who kept whining that our government wasn't going to tell us the truth of what was happening in the war.
