Controlling the Media (embeds) in Iraq
I came across this article that was critical of the embedding process in Iraq. I was accustomed to such criticisms from partisan, political publications/organizations. But, this is a publication of the American Sociological Association, which I presume is a legitimate organization, like the Bar Association or Medical Association. So, I take it as legitimate and simply wonder at how correct the assumptions and conclusions are.
Controlling the Media in Iraq by Andrew M. Lindner, HTML version, PDF version
Here are the excerpts that stuck out to me...
Quote:
By examining the content of articles rather than the tone, and comparing embedded and non-embedded journalists’ articles, it becomes clear that the physical, and perhaps psychological, constraints of the embedding program dramatically inhibited a journalist’s ability to cover civilians’ war experiences.
This sounds problematic to me because it seems to assume that if a news story is scandalous then it is objective, but if it is consistent with some administration talking point then it was tainted by the embedding process. That sounds akin to throwing a woman into a river to see if she can swim and, if she can, then she must be a witch. Could it be that editorial decisions drove decisions on what to cover and, therefore, where to report from and, thus, whether to embed? I think the article does a poor job of drawing causal links. It just assumes them.
Quote:
But given the far greater frequency and prominence of published articles penned by embedded journalists, ultimately the embedding program proved a victory for the armed services in the historical tug-of-war between the press and military over journalistic freedom during war time.
Does that sound right? A tug-of-war between the press and military over journalistic freedom? Assuming that such a tug-of-war exists, I don't understand how the outcome was deemed any type of victory for the side that purportedly opposes freedom (while, ironically, fighting to defend it). Media was given the choice of embedding or not embedding. The fact that more chose to embed than to remain "independent" suggests a defeat for journalistic freedom? Huh?
On page 3 of the HTML version, there is data and some charts to compare reporting about Soldiers versus reporting about civilians.
http://contexts.org/articles/spring-...e-soldiers.png http://contexts.org/articles/spring-...-civilians.png
Just because a news story features civilians, that does not mean that it is any more or less truthful or objective than a story featuring Soldiers. The article seems to assume otherwise.
Seems to me that the gist
if not the thrust of the article is that if one wanted a comprehensive picture, one had to peruse the offerings of many news sources, embedded and not, US and foreign, in order to get a fairly accurate picture. That was my experience as well.
That makes sense also -- criticizing the embed program because the embedded were more likely to cover soldier stories versus Iraqi civilian stories is tantamount to criticizing the Sportscasters for not providing penetrating economic analysis. Has nothing to do with press freedom, everything to do with proximity.
I'll try to expand on your thoughts
without venting too much frustration.
The notion of objectivity is self-delusional. Objectivity is best left to God, Allah, Yahweh, fill in your preference. Modern specialization in professions skews that self-understanding. We are products of our environment, culture, and upbringing. Pretending otherwise is foolish. This self-hypnosis creates conceptual blocks that confuse, distort, and hamper creative thinking and new ideas. Emerson and Whitman wrote about this over a century ago. Nothing changes.
Anthropologist desire to remain neutral observers of society while attempting to penetrate. Ironically, the best ethonography I've read was Greg Mortenson's 3 Cups of Tea. He was simply a rock climber and a dude that builds schools.
Reporters wish to transcend the event while they report. Even if they are successful, the end product is edited by an editor ensuring he can market the report.
I think we'd be better off by acknowledging our own limitations and mental blocks.
An interesting aside, or maybe it's relevant is a conversation that I had at LAX a couple of days ago...
“I would not expect that from someone like you,” commented the soccer mom from Los Angeles.
“Excuse me?” I flushed with anger.
“Well, I did not think someone from the military could be intelligent,” she replied.
“Well, you are misinformed.”
Sometimes we are much too pretentious.
v/r
Mike
I would have said this (but much more verbosely) ..
Quote:
from Ken
Seems to me that the gist
...
if not the thrust of the article is that if one wanted a comprehensive picture, one had to peruse the offerings of many news sources, embedded and not, US and foreign, in order to get a fairly accurate picture. That was my experience as well.
That makes sense also -- criticizing the embed program because the embedded were more likely to cover soldier stories versus Iraqi civilian stories is tantamount to criticizing the Sportscasters for not providing penetrating economic analysis. Has nothing to do with press freedom, everything to do with proximity.
except I was finishing up my 2008 income taxes. :(
If you look carefully at the chart in the OP (also at p.6 of .pdf), it proves that proximity to the source drives the story.
I had a unique experience (as a viewer of media) for the runup and first stages of OIF I. At the time, I had complications from some arterial surgery, so my doctor's order was - I don't care if you do it in bed, on the couch or on the floor in front of your computer, you will keep your left leg elevated 24/7 for six months, or you will lose it. I only cheated a little (for Mon nite pool league).
So, "many news sources" added up to a picture - perhaps fairly accurate; but that picture is also informed by the viewer's own viewpoint. The camara's eye is also limited. E.g., my perception of the push north (following a cav unit) was a lot of dust, and an occasional camel. To the east, my principal memory is one small engagement (which went on for a few hours - from the vantage point of the unit commander, where the camara was embedded).
-------------------------
PS: to Schmedlap. I guess the State Bar of Michigan is "legitimate", since it is an arm of SCOMI (Rules 1 and 2); but, since it includes everyone licensed to practice law in MI, it is a real herd of cats. E.g., including one guy who was involved in one of the Vietnam-era bombing plots, spent time in Fed prison, and was a real jackass (even if you left the bombing aside).
For the above three gentlemen...
I once had a Commander whose words on seeing me approach with a certain look were simply "Do Not." So I wouldn't tell him "I told you." Took all the fun outa everything, that guy... :D
"(compensation can come in the form of job satisfaction, as well as money)" Verily -- and it's more important and better for one in the long run.
I am shocked, shocked I say, that you would cheat -- even for the good of the League... ;)
Oh the places you will go...
I was working on another essay when schmedlap posted the thread. It hit a chord that I have been considering for some time. I did not mean to preach with the "we" bit. I simply dumped my incomplete thoughts onto one post.
Thank goodness for Ken. :eek:
I'll include this antecdote that may add to the discussion. If not, disregard.
A major hotel firm received many customer complaints stating that their elevators moved too slowly. In an effort to maintain competitive advantage in their field, they researched means to remedy. Civil Engineers surveyed the existing structures and recommended upgrades encroaching on $150K/hotel to modernize. Systems/Industrial engineers recommended technological and process upgrades for a mere $75K/hotel. Finally, an artist walked in, laughed and suggested a $5/hotel solution. Simply add mirrors b/c the average person becomes engrossed looking in the mirror and time stands still. The cheap solution worked.
The point being is that we learn to think based off our background. Our background creates mental blocks. In the early 1970's, Dr. James Adams, then dean of Stanford's Engineering Dept., was frustrated with his students lack of creativity. He wrote Conceptual Blockbusting: A guide to creative thinking. It worked for me.
The same phenomena may exist throughout our existing fields. Even the military is not exempt.
v/r
Mike
In some areas of this country ....
Quote:
from Boot
... once I had the guy next to me precede to tell me I was no better than a welfare recipient for serving. I politely told him where he could put his theory.
the reaction would be less polite. On the other hand, in other areas, that jerk's attitude would be the norm.
Unfortunately, that attitude has been developing for a long time. In 1965, my incoming law school class was being processed for assigned class schedules. I ended up next to a guy (sorry to say his name also started with McC), who said he'd just finished his active duty tour as a Naval officer. I asked: "Annapolis grad ? He said: "OMG, No. I'm Yale. We would never go to that school." At least the guy served, despite his distain for the unwashed masses. Since 1965, the gulf between the "elite" and the "real world" (as perceived by me) as to things military has widened - and in other areas, as well.
The point is made better in Schaeffer's books: AWOL, Keeping Faith and Faith of Our Sons.
One can take the divide idea too far - and assume that the disdain for the military is more common than it actually is. My perception is that it runs in pockets (geographic or "status"). Because MSM is clustered in non-military pockets and is among the "status-elites" in those pockets, it tends to reflect the attitudes of its peer group.
We are living in an institution ...
but it's not Love and Marriage. This from the OP article (p.4; URLs added to quote by JMM):
Quote:
Before a single word was printed, many speculated that embedded reporters would fall victim to
Stockholm Syndrome, the condition, named after a notorious 1973 incident in the Swedish city, in which hostages begin to identify with their captors. Media commentators like Andrew Jacobs at The New York Times, Richard Leiby at The Washington Post, and Carol Brightman at The Nation argued that as embedded journalists became socialized into military culture, they would develop relationships with the soldiers and start reporting from the military point of view.
While labeling this condition Stockholm Syndrome is perhaps slightly inflammatory, much sociological research suggests socialization is one of the military’s greatest strengths. In his classic collection of essays,
Asylums,
Erving Goffman noted the military is a total institution that not only controls all an individual’s activities, but also informs the construction of identity and relationships. In total institutions,
such as the military, prison, or mental institutions, Goffman argued, the individual must go through a process of mortification that undercuts the individual’s civilian identity and constructs a new identity as a member of the institution. In such a communal culture,
individuality is constantly repressed in the name of the institution’s larger values and goals.
I suppose the Goffman syllogism could be carried a step further in the case of the military - that is, that the inmates are running the asylum. :rolleyes:
There is a difference in result depending on the institution (if any) to which you belong. Mine is the judicial system (and, I suppose law school and the new lawyer's initial stabs at practice do construct a new identity as a member of that system). However, at least in law, individuality cannot be "constantly repressed" since that would defeat the purpose of the system - which is basically resolution of matters via argument.
That being said, an institutional system imposes both constraints and restraints. In reporting on detainee cases, I am both constrained and restrained - although the limits are fairly broad. But, a "free-lancer", such as Andy Worthington, is not subject to the same limits (e.g., his 5 most recent posts - the same subject matters having been covered in this forum).
My perception is that embedding was one way of showing the public what the military is. Niel's travel in uniform is another - and so are Schmedlap's discussions with civilians.