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).