Controlling the Media (embeds) in Iraq

[Schmedlap]

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...

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.

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.



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.