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.

[Ken White]

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.

[MikeF]

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

[Ken White]

White Man, said Tonto...

[MikeF]

dude, that's why i love to hate my NCO's It's frustrating when you're right.

[Schmedlap]

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.

I had a similar experience last week. An individual was mystified at my plans to return to the Army upon (or perhaps before) completion of law school. The reaction ranged from confusion regarding the notion of why anyone would want to serve at all, let alone during wartime, why anyone would choose a job with less pay, and why anyone would "subject" oneself to law school (the general perception among my peers is that law school is a tortuous experience, akin to waterboarding). In hindsight, if I had answered the last question first (going to school is much easier than real life), and then the second question (compensation can come in the form of job satisfaction, as well as money), then the answer to the first question would have been obvious.

[jmm99]

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).

[Ken White]

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...

"(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...

[Schmedlap]

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.

That seems to break this down to a level of precision that begs the question of "so what?" Of course proximity drives the story. That's why the journalists embedded. They wanted to get stories that can only be obtained in close proximity to the Soldiers and units.

I don't think that any newspaper editor or TV editorial staffs were looking at the news feeds coming out of Iraq and thinking to themselves, "how did this happen? We embedded journalists with Army units and now they're sending us news about... Soldiers and Army units! We didn't see thatcoming!"

I guess that's the biggest issue that I've got with the article. It assumes that the journalists had no idea what was going on and they were snookered. It assumes that they were embedding in order to get a fully-rounded portrayal of the war but, unexpectedly, they found that embedding with Army units during a war only enabled them to get footage of the war from one side of the shooting. I concede that journalists are notoriously naive about the military, but I can't believe for one moment that even journalists didn't know better than that.

They were looking for combat footage and stories about Soldiers because that is what sells advertising space when our military invades another country. Thus, they embedded. To try to spin this as some elaborate deception that fooled the entire media establishment is absurd.

[MikeF]

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.

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

[jmm99]

Beyond the obvious facts - proved in the chart, the author's inferences (and Schmedlap's for that matter) do not necessarily follow from those facts.

My own perception is that the media is never naive when its comes to getting the story, pushing the story and obtaining enhanced ratings from doing that. They may be ignorant of things military, but naifs they are not.

PS: Ken - it really wasn't cheating (OMG - now you have me in a lie); but simply assumption of a calculated risk. Just a team player who is not risk averse. Aside from that you do a good Claude Rains - bonsoir, mon ami.

[Boot]

That's classic. When I was stationed in the far east and would have to fly to the east coast for whatever conference, I would fly business class for obvious reasons (I always had enough miles to upgrade), 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.
John and Frank Schaeffer, a son and father, wrote a book about the son joining the Marines in 1998 (?). What I found interesting was how this was received by the High School staff and soccer mom's. Why? was the question asked over and over again. They (parents) even devised a plan to get Frank a soccer scholarship. No way would they let him serve as a lowly Marine much less an enlisted Marine.

Franks website:
http://www.frankschaeffer.com/http://www.frankschaeffer.com/

[jmm99]

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.

[Cavguy]

I sympathize with the uproar over idiotic or ignorant civilians and their elitist attitudes twords the military but...

About a year ago I (at the SMA's suggestion) began travelling TDY in uniform most of the time.

I will say that after thousands of miles flown, I feel extremely positive about the American people and their relationship to the military. I am constantly stopped and thanked by complete strangers.

I also learned, despite some criticism from those who think soldiers should travel incognito, the SMA was right. Too few people ever get to meet a serving military member. Traveling in uniform has allowed me to share my experiences with lots of people who would never hear firsthand accounts of our current conflicts or what it means to serve. In some cases, like Schmedlap's above, it changes preconceived notions about the type of people in the military.

Just my 0.02.

[Schmedlap]

... the SMA was right. Too few people ever get to meet a serving military member. Traveling in uniform has allowed me to share my experiences with lots of people who would never hear firsthand accounts of our current conflicts or what it means to serve. In some cases, like Schmedlap's above, it changes preconceived notions about the type of people in the military.

Definitely agree in regards to the attitudes towards Soldiers in uniform. That was actually one reason that I stopped wearing a uniform while stationed in DC - it was getting out of hand. (I was also a magnet for weirdos who wanted to give me suggestions for alterations to our national security strategy - thanks, I'll stop by the Pentagon and sit down with SECDEF on my way to work to pass along the advice of the random weirdo on the subway).

Now that I'm out, I've met a lot of new (civilian) people who, upon learning that I was in the Army, began to ask questions. The questions astounded me. They primarily pertained to waterboarding, torture, mistreatment of detainees, whether I have "flashbacks", whether I have PTSD or if I know anyone who does, why Soldiers are on food stamps, whether I was ever on food stamps, and lots of similar issues that only reinforced my impression that the media does a horrible job of informing the public and of shaping their perception about who chooses to serve and how servicemembers are treated. I've told some people how much money I was earning after taxes, how much I was able to save while on deployments, and explained that I am eligible for so many benefits that I would need an advisor just to consider all of them. I've found it difficult to convey just how stupid the torture/abuse questions are. There seems to be a common impression that detainee abuse is common, that it is perpetrated by many members of the military, and that interrogations are physical and conducted by just any member of the military, at any time, for any reason. Maybe Hollywood is partly at fault for this, too. Explaining that any of those things are uncommon and that most Soldiers never even come into contact or proximity to detainees doesn't seem to register in many peoples' minds.

I suspect that such bizarro perceptions of the military in the minds of people who have never served and who don't know anyone who has served can help to foster the misguided assumptions that underlie the article in the original post.

[Hacksaw]

Hence, the two different experiences...

Schmedlap = you are in D.C. attending law school, hence largely surrounded by "elites" whose family mores have changed (there was a time in this country when elites felt compelled to provide service to nation, but another thread) so that the idea of serving in a branch of the armed service is illogical...

CAVGUY = is traveling through the nation's airports (probably on SWA, and always in coach) in contact with either folks who have served or know Johnie from down the street who enlisted following graduation (great kid, but a little thick...)

Nothing about your two experiences seem out of what you might expect or what has been discussed in the military

Live well and row

[jmm99]

but it's not Love and Marriage. This from the OP article (p.4; URLs added to quote by JMM):

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.

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.

[BayonetBrant]

Not to derail this thread or anything, but does anyone know of a situation other than Stockholm in which "Stockholm Syndrome" supposedly applied? Can't really count Patty Hearst since they intended to flip her to their side. Everyone likes to cite Stockholm Syndrome as this imminent and awful condition, but no one can actually show where it ever happened.

As to media embeds with the military not accurately portraying the civilian suffering of the war? Well no ####. That's not really why they were there, was it? It believe it was stated well up above that you don't complain that sportscasters don't cover economic news, but similarly, you wouldn't send someone to cover a school board meeting and then complain that they didn't get the perspective of the kid at the bus stop.

This sounds like someone with an axe to grind about the embed program who will find an audience of sympathetic ears among a body of academic peer reviewers who likely have very little experience in newsrooms. I ran this past my uncle, who spent 35 years in news media, focusing on politics, and now teaches at a major journalism school (note: "teaches" not "researches with occasional teaching-like interruptions") and his response was much like mine, "duh!"

[jmm99]

From the Wiki linked in my post:

In 2007, a group of scholars studied twelve highly-publicized cases of Stockholm syndrome, publishing their results in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia. They argued that, as the media accounts lacked "access to primary sources" or an "identification of a pattern of features exhibited in Stockholm syndrome," the characterization of any of these events as Stockholm syndrome could have been due to reporting bias.[2]

[2] "M. Namnyak, N. Tufton, R. Szekely, M. Toal, S. Worboys, E. L. Sampson (2008) ‘Stockholm syndrome’: psychiatric diagnosis or urban myth?"

Based on the facts and the logical inferences that can be drawn from them, my reaction was also "duh". As to the editorial opinions and assumptions, my reaction was "par for the course".

[Schmedlap]

Schmedlap = you are in D.C. attending law school, hence largely surrounded by "elites" whose family mores have changed (there was a time in this country when elites felt compelled to provide service to nation, but another thread) so that the idea of serving in a branch of the armed service is illogical...

I was unclear. I was in DC, stationed there and attended Business School after ETS. Now I am in smalltown America, attending a small law school. Two different worlds. Same bizarro attitude.

But, your basic point is still valid. That attitude that you speak of is, imo, common in DC. I was at an alumni reception for my law school shortly after getting accepted. It was held in DC because we have lots of alumni working there. A woman at the reception began asking me where I went to school, what I did, what I was doing now, etc. When I said that I went to a military college, she immediately exclaimed, "oh no, did you have to serve in the military?" I made sure to reply that I did choose to serve. It was completely lost on her. She gasped at my affirmative response and followed up with, "OMG - did you have to go to Iraq?" I made sure to reply that I did have the opportunity to deploy. Again, it was completely lost on her. "Oh no, that's terrible!" I thought she was going to fall over. I just stared at her in bewilderment.