Welcome Cari,

There is no doubt that reporting has been critical to the US's ability to make war. In Vietnam for example it was critical in undermining the war effort and led to disastrous consequences for the Vietnamese. Mark Moyar's brilliant new book, Triumph Forsaken describes how reporters directly contributed to the coup and assassination of Diem. They also fellled for the Buddhist "sectarian violence theme" which was in fact the work of communist infiltrators in the Buddhist movement.

Then there is Tet where they turned an American and Vietnamese victory into a strategic defeat. Big Story analyzes the reporting of this event and gives the facts that should have been reported.

I come away from this with the belief that we need to provide reporters with a course that explains how errors in reporting have consequences that can not be corrected with a retraction or an apology. They are every bit as critical as decisions made by commanders.

However, I agree with your assessment on the value of embeds. They do the best reporting and one reason is that they get the input of knowledgeable troops who not only provide context, but can enlighten them on what it means. It was an embed that first reported on the red on red action in Anbar a couple of years ago, and people are beginning to comprehend the significance.

As for the cameras, they are a double edge sword, because a picture does not always provide context. A camera can lie. It want tell you why.