I'm new here, so let me first by way of introduction explain that I'm an academic whose research focuses on press coverage of the GWOT (and specifically terrorist and insurgent attempts to manipulate the coverage.) I think the idea that even (perhaps especially) small units should carry cameras at all times is a terrific one -- I've suggested it myself, although to Civil Affairs folks, not combat units. Reading this thread, and now that the MNF-I YouTube channel is up, it seems to me everyone ought to be running around with cameras, and the idea that the military ought to be providing their own footage, straight to the Internet, of all these "good news stories" is so good I'm planning to, you know, steal it. (Footnoted, of course.)

That said, I am very, very disturbed by the attitudes expressed here regarding accepting embedded reporters. God knows, I've been plenty critical of the coverage, early and often. But folks have got to understand that, as much excitement as there is about the web, the numbers tell the tale: it is still the case that the vast majority of Americans get their news from the mainstream media. As an example, close to thirty million people still watch the network's nightly news shows, and year after year a large number of the top sites on the Internet are actually associated with traditional media outlets -- in other words, same content, different platform, such as Cnn.com, nytimes.com and so forth. You can't just throw up your hands and refuse to deal with them, because, particularly this far out from the draft when so many Americans have no other way to find out about the war other than what they get from the press, (because they may simply not know someone in uniform) the media are the military's conduit to the American people, period, dot.

Now, it seems to me your only option is to try and forge a relationship with the press given that, and the simple fact is that the quality of embedded reporting, over and over, is an order of magnitude better than that which comes from reporters who aren't embedded. Would you rather have stories which come complete with context, or stories that lack context?

With all due respect, relations with the press need to be considered "mission critical," and the military has to work those relationships, encourage them, make sure reporters understand what it is that's going on while they're with units, why it's important, so on and so forth.

This doesn't mean a unit has to accept every single request for an embed from every single reporter -- but to blanket reject the very notion of embeds, to simply reject the press out of hand -- again, with all due respect, that's a very, very risky approach.