posted on April 1, 2003 11:47:24 AM new
Let me begin by, THIS IS NOT A PRO OR ANTI WAR OR AMERICAN TOPIC so please avoid turning this into one. Just wondered what everyone thinks of the new embedded minsute to minute war coverage. My opinon is mainly a negative one. News giving at that pace a speed has a very good chance of not being acurate and can create more havoc than it creates. I am also not a big fan of all the "experts" ,who seem to think they have a copy of the war plans , that are "timlining and predicting when and were and how our troops should function. This is what creates the thought that the war may not be going as planned. Well "news flash" all these retired generals and so called "experts" have no idea how the war is planned. Seem to be creating an "overkill" situtation in my opinon on good or bad news.
posted on April 1, 2003 12:11:44 PM new
I agree with your statements.
Rumsfeld just said today during his press breifing, that some of these 'reports' spiral out of control. He was being asked questions of "reports have said...this or that - or it's been reported that this was said". He said that at times, someone with an agenda reports it as having been report elsewhere and then someone else reports hearing it too, then he's questioned on those reports....that usually aren't true.
I sure don't envy their job.
Even Gen. Myers said today, when speaking to the issue of how some reports are saying things are not going well on the war front, that these reports are "bogus". They're not being made by the team that put and monitors the war plan together.
Looks like way too many critical arm-chair generals to me.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 1, 2003 12:25:41 PM new
Have to agree, embedding in my book is a failure, and should be thought about to be stopped or least not done again.
Hard as hell to report factually when you have to run for cover during a fire fight and also, many mis-reports are happening because lets face it, during battle, you can't see all that much and know even less.
posted on April 1, 2003 01:00:52 PM new
In addition to the safety issues that you suggested, there is a general concensus of opinion that embedded reporter's stories are used to shape public opinion.
I wonder how the troops feel about these reporters?
As editor in chief of Reuters, I can tell you that no editor sends staff to war with an easy mind. On this occasion, besides safety, news executives had an added ethical dimension to contend with: They had to weigh the advantages of access to the Iraqi battlefield against a fear that embedding can be used to control media coverage.
In the end, the reality was that you either accepted the deal or you missed the action. So we bought in, but with the understanding that some of our reporters would be used by the Pentagon to cast the war in a favorable light, and that we would have to take steps to offset that fact.
The character of 24-hour news in an era of instant satellite communication creates an insatiable demand for fact and analysis. For generals and their political masters, this is at once an opportunity and a threat. Embedding is intended to address both of those.
The Pentagon is quite candid in seeing embedding as a way to help "shape" public perception.
So far in the Iraq war, that has not spelled censorship. Satellite telephones do not seem to have been jammed. Embedded Reuters reporters have been remarkably free — although subject to guidelines not to say anything on the details of tactical deployments or specific numbers of troops, or identify casualties before next-of-kin have been informed.
Fair enough. All the same, I have an uneasy feeling about embedded reporters in the Iraq theater presenting only one side of the story.
An embedded correspondent is a part of the war effort. Even when a reporter resolves to be detached, the fellowship of the battlefield can influence his or her dispatches. If you share a foxhole with a U.S. or British marine, he is your buddy. The incoming artillery belongs to the foe. Comrades become heroes. You demonize the enemy.
Embed more than 500 journalists within an army — as the Pentagon has done in Iraq — and this effect may well be magnified.
There is another peril that goes beyond being a part of a political attempt to rally public opinion to the war. The experienced war correspondent knows that he is not there to file an in-depth analysis on his reading of the battle from the front lines, but to send what the trade calls "color," which can often be fragmentary and misleading. Rocket-propelled grenades are so noisy that by night a skirmish can sound like Armageddon.
"I acknowledge the right of an army to exploit the media to confuse the enemy. But it is our job not to fall for it. I do, therefore, share a concern that, with so many reporters deployed in Iraq, some of them novices in the art of reporting warfare, our profession may be at greater hazard than usual of being a channel for disinformation.
That's where the news executive comes in. He must counteract that downside. He has to brief his team. And he has to ensure that he deploys some roaming reporters — Reuters has 20 very brave journalists in Baghdad working independently and 23 more in southern and northern Iraq — to try to balance, if not verify, what the "embeds" are saying.
But I say that with a note of caution as well. At least two journalists already have been killed and two Newsday staffers are missing in Iraq. None was embedded. Nobody pretends that journalists are safe if they are embedded, but I do have an added worry that the need to verify may impose an extra risk of ambush and crossfire on those who are not.
Finally, the news executive needs a vigilant — and skeptical — editing desk supported by specialist writers.
I go back to Doon Campbell on D-Day: "How to convey even a tiny detail of this mighty mosaic."
No one battlefield reporter can ever make sense of a war. The challenge for a news organization is to gather and meld the fragments into a coherent and, you hope, accurate and impartial whole.
posted on April 1, 2003 01:00:57 PM new
As a Tom Clancy fan I have really enjoyed the embedded reporters. I think it's important to get a view of whats going on in order to keep war "real". It's to easy to be discontected from the reality when all you see is a series of news conferences. The day that the helicopter crashed killing the 4 marines and the British officers it was interesting and very real to listen to the reporter who had been embedded with those men to talk about having breakfast with them just that morning, to hear him talk about them as men, not just as a statistic. What makes me appreciate the embedded reporters is the exact thing that others are going to hate about them. It makes war personal, not simply a news event.
As for the "arm chair generals" I don't think that anyone has come up with a brilliant , unique new war stategy in a century or two. Considering that these men all came from the same organization, doctrin and training, I don't think they are pulling theory out of thin air. They may not be dead on, but their insights are valuble.
For those that re against the embeds and the military expert commentary/analists - what type of coverage do you want? What do you feel would be a more appropriate and informative method?
posted on April 1, 2003 01:59:48 PM new
Why do you need real time coverage? What actual purpose is it serving?
Those "embedded" on the carriers and in Kuwait are fine, but I do have to admit, with them being "comrades" in their company, they can't be reporting objectively...
posted on April 1, 2003 02:30:37 PM new
OK - remember how you guys called on those that complained about the war to come up with another viable option? How would you suggest this war be covered?
posted on April 1, 2003 02:42:23 PM newokay all you...
I have absolutely no problem with the reporters being with the soldiers. What I'd like to see less of is the blow-by-blow daily reporting. So....maybe they could keep a daily journal and report in say once a week, every two days...anything less than the way it is now.
You know I've stated before, and I know you disagree, that they can, imo, put our troops in jeopardy. One example I would offer to support my opinion, was when we took control of the Iraqi airport in the southwestern part of Iraq. The reporter on said they'd just taken it over.....giving the enemy a time frame and a location of exactly where they were. At the airfield.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 1, 2003 02:52:11 PM new
I would like it accurate and without speculation. Tell us the facts, and if something can't be confirmed it is not a fact, and should not be reported as such. And then don't speculate as to the results of said fact. Ie.. The level of iraqi defense is reduced to whatever %, or reporting that how ever many civilians were killed by a us weapon without it being a proven fact or reporting that success of an operation being complete (such as controling an area or township) without facts. The result is chaos and confusion when these things unfold as untrue or half-truths and people have an even harder time drawing a true picture of the situation when the are already lead to believe one thing when in reality those reporting it have no idea of the truth of the matter as they are in the center of a large cirlce and the consequences of certain actions can't be clear for days or weeks from now. An embedded Reporter and crew could be invaluable post war footage beacuse the big picture of the small action could then be seen unstead of critisized and yes I mean this as to both sides of any issues of the war be it pro or anti. Heck I might even agree with helen a little on this one so you know I have an open mind on this subject
posted on April 1, 2003 02:53:44 PM new
::The reporter on said they'd just taken it over.....giving the enemy a time frame and a location of exactly where they were. At the airfield.::
So just to clarify.... You feel that it is Iraqi military have cable television access but not communications?
there are actually two points....
1) I' think its a safe bet that Iraqi military officials new long before the report was filed that troops where at the airport.
2) You don't know how "live" that report was. I watched the same "live" report three times a few nights before.
posted on April 1, 2003 03:19:25 PM new
My husband said the other night he's tired of hearing every 5 minutes that Saddam might use chemical weapons. He said - When Saddam uses them, tell me that, that's news, but don't report every 5 minutes that he might use them. As for me, no more 'battle for the hearts and minds' please.
posted on April 1, 2003 04:19:39 PM new
::You still haven't explained why you feel the need for "real time" reporting? ::
Because I think that news conferences are to safe and disembodied. IF people re going to band the drum in support of war, they should be aware of the consequences of this action they are supporting is. It's easy to suppot a concept, but how man would be as staunchly in support of the reality. Also, yo see they reality. SD news conferences tell of greatful citizens welcoming the soldiers and aid.. The broadcast from the area shows the same greatful citizens chanting in support of Saddam as they scamper for the aid.
Basically, it eliminates a lot of spin. It puts faces behind statistcs.
::The only thing I see it does is feed alot wrong information, that needs corrected later... ::
In some cases that is true. There is a lot of verbage for the sake of verbage. It's one thing to talk about what your group did that day but I agree that an embedded repoter in one division in one area should not be reporting on what someone else in another area encountered or found.
Now - How do you think this war should be reported? I don't think even you think we hould depend soley on the state department (too much spin) or on reporters 1000 miles from the action (too much opportunity for the incorrect reporting you mention) so what do you feel is the right mix.
BTW - is the problem with inaccurate reports more the fault of the embeds or the demand for 24 hour a day coverage?
posted on April 1, 2003 07:52:55 PM new
Yea you have a point about the 24 hour non stop new that feeds itself.ITs a monster that creates just the problem we are talking of. Everyone wants to be the first and have the biggest story regardless of the facts. they seem to think they can clarify things later. I guess my main concern is that I would like to depend on the NEWS as fact based reporting and leave the opinions to the talk shows and commentators. I think there is a huge difference between a reporter and a commentator in my opinion. I think we would get a better more reliable take on the situtaion with some more responsibilty in the field. I am not against the embedded reports as much as I am in the methods in which they are reporting.
posted on April 1, 2003 08:54:14 PM new
"IF people re going to band the drum in support of war, they should be aware of the consequences of this action they are supporting is."
This is one of my gripes with embedded reporting. It gives the impression that you're really seeing what war is, when in fact you're not seeing what war is about.
I watch embedded reporting. I see some guys standing around in front of a tank, or in a plane, or they're rolling through the desert by some mud dwellings. There's a goat. Or, at night, there's some green streaks.
This isn't the gist of war, is it? If this is war, why do we bother to go to Iraq to have one, we could have one in the deserts of the SW, just bring in a couple of camels for the backdrop.
It looks a bit dusty, and pretty boring, but not horrible at all. What's not to support?
posted on April 1, 2003 09:42:18 PM new
::I would like to depend on the NEWS as fact based reporting and leave the opinions to the talk shows and commentators. I think there is a huge difference between a reporter and a commentator in my opinion. I think we would get a better more reliable take on the situtaion with some more responsibilty in the field. I am not against the embedded reports as much as I am in the methods in which they are reporting.::
Next time you see one of the reports, pay careful attention. They tend to go like this...
Reporter....Wht they have done, seen, heard that day
Commentator.... asks for clarification
Reporter.... Gives clarification
Commentator... Asks reporter for his interpretation of attitude, feeling or level of resistance encountered that day, or if nothing, of something that an entirely different division somewhere else encountered.
That is where the problems begin. In a need to fill time, the ask for the reporter to move from facts to opinion and speculation. I tend to watch the first part and then tune out the opinion phase.
posted on April 1, 2003 11:47:16 PM new
You can't really remove bias from reporting. Even if news programs showed you only news with no commentary, which items are chosen to show is subject to bias and produces slanted news.
www.slate.com had a short article recently about how to receive web streamed broadcasts on your computer. It only works for broadband connections. The article focussed on how to get the Iraq satellite channel, but you can also get bbc, chinese, and a few other broadcasts from the same place that streams the Iraqi channel.
