The Importance of Reigniting the Conversation on Embedding Journalists Within the Military

As the United States continues its engagement in multiple military conflicts around the globe, a topic that is rarely discussed within the so-called "mainstream" media is how they cover war. Since the United States invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003, reporters from major news networks have taken advantage of the opportunity to become embedded with U.S. combat forces.

This strategy gives reporters an up close and personal look at war through the eyes of the warriors who are on the ground fighting the battle. What is also accomplished by embedding reporters within the U.S. military is the natural bond that forms between the soldiers and the reporters. After all, the reporter is an untrained observer along for the ride and they must put their safety in the hands of those who they are tasked with covering in an objective manner.

Embedded reporters see the shots fired at the opposition, but rarely see the outcome of what those bombs and bullets hit. These reporters are supposed to be able to report on the conflict with an even hand and a balanced set of facts, but when they are being shot at by the opposition and are forced to rely upon the U.S. military to shield them from getting killed, it is a difficult if not impossible task to not have their coverage tainted by the circumstances.

As Bill Berkowitz reminded us in 2003, the system of embedding reporters was designed to exploit this very bond:

Where did the "embedding" idea come from? Have journalists reported both the good and bad news? With the demands of 24/7 coverage, does it matter if reports emanating from within combat units are accurate?

Embedding reporters is the brainchild of Victoria "Torie" Clarke, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Clarke brings considerable PR experience to the task of winning the spin war. She recently worked with Hill and Knowlton, the public relations firm heavily involved in Gulf War I, and prior to that she was president of Bozell Eskew Advertising, an issue advocacy and corporate communications company.

According to a 10-page memo prepared for the National Security Council, Clarke, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on board, argued that allowing journalists to report live from the front lines would give Americans the opportunity to get the story, both "good and bad -- before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do."

"Our people in the field need to tell our story. Only commanders can ensure the media get to the story alongside the troops. We must organize for and facilitate access of national and international media to our forces, including those forces engaged in ground operations. ... To accomplish this, we will embed media with our units. These embedded media will live, work and travel as part of the units... to facilitate maximum, in-depth coverage."

One senior Pentagon official told World magazine, an evangelical newsweekly, that "The concept was developed to dominate the information market and counter the historical lies and disinformation of the Iraqi regime."

Embedding reporters was a strategy that was meant to counteract what was viewed as the "negative role" that the media played during the Vietnam War. Embedding reporters would effectively grant major networks unparalleled access to the war zone while at the same time forcing the reporters to tell the stories of war through the eyes of the American military.

Norman Soloman, author of "War Made Easy" illustrates this point in 2005:

During the war that followed, the “embedding” of about 700 reporters in spring 2003 was hailed as a breakthrough. Those war correspondents stayed close to the troops invading Iraq, and news reports conveyed some vivid frontline visuals along with compelling personal immediacy. But with the context usually confined to the warriors’ frame of reference, a kind of reciprocal bonding quickly set in.

“I’m with the U.S. 7th Cavalry along the northern Kuwaiti border,” said CNN’s embedded Walter Rodgers during a typical report (3/20/03), using the word “we” to refer interchangeably to his network, the U.S. military or both:

We are in what the army calls its attack position. We have not yet crossed into Iraq at this point. At that point, we will tell you, when we do, of course, that we will cross the line of departure. What we are in is essentially a formation, much the way you would have seen with the U.S. Cavalry in the 19th century American frontier. The Bradley tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicles are behind me. Beyond that perimeter, we’ve got dozens more Bradleys and M1A1 main battle tanks. . . .

With American troops moving into action, CNN’s Aaron Brown (3/20/03) emphasized that he and his colleagues “wish them nothing but safety.” He did not express any such wish for the Iraqi people in harm’s way.

Now that the initial advances of troops into foreign lands has transferred into occupation, we tend to not hear as much from embedded reporters. However on NPR's "Morning Edition" recently, I took note of an interesting story.

NPR Reporter Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson was recently embedded with Marines from India Company of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment as they advanced on the city of Marjah in Afghanistan. Her reporting gained attention in part because she captured the audio of a battle with the Taliban that took the life of Lance Cpl. Alejandro Yazzie. Sarhaddi sat down with NPR's Renee Montagne on "Morning Edition" to talk about the experience and just for a second, I thought that there was going to be a constructive opportunity to discuss the conflicts that face embedded reporters (emphasis mine):

MONTAGNE: This then is your introduction to a group of mostly very young Marines with whom you will be rather intimate and in a sense depending on for your life and your well being.

SARHADDI NELSON: Yeah, it's always a challenge because, again, especially with Marines, it's hard for them to have women in fighting units, 'cause they're just not used to it. I mean, simple things like, you know, you need to go to the bathroom - there's no place to go. You have the Afghan soldiers on one side, you have the Marines on the other, and you really can't go away too far because you could step on an IED.

So it really gets to the point where you just have to kind of close your eyes and just suspend modesty and just go. It's as crude and rudimentary as you can possibly imagine. I mean, it makes camping in a national park look like a luxury.

Montagne hits on the significant issue that faces these embedded reporters, but in the same breath fails to hone in on the importance of her observation. Sarhaddi Nelson is depending on these Marines to protect her, but instead of addressing the potential limits that this situation may pose on her reporting, Sarhaddi Nelson instead chooses to talk about how uncomfortable it is to go to the bathroom as a lone woman among the men.

As the interview progresses, Sarhaddi Nelson continues to describe how she bonded with the Marines on who she was reporting (emphasis mine):

SARHADDI NELSON: I was in a room with maybe 20 or 25 Marines. It was freezing. I mean, it was basically a petrol station that had been - the glass had been blown out from the various IEDs that they had detonated. I was in this room, and you have to picture it's just a concrete floor, rat feces everywhere, and all of us were so cold.

It's interesting - I'm not sure how much they would want me to talk about it -but they would spoon. I mean, it was just to stay warm, you know? But, yeah, I mean, you just somehow managed, and you got to be very close, and you got to sit around and talk and just, you know, about families back home. And it was kind of, I mean, in a way it was nice.

This is a clear example of the kind of "reciprocal bonding" that Normon Solomon discusses in the quote above. The reporter experiences the same things as the troops, bonds with them through shared experience and then is reluctant to reveal information that may make their new friends "uncomfortable", in this case spooning for warmth.

As Sarhaddi Nelson continued the story and began to describe the firefight that took the life of Lance Cpl. Alejandro Yazzie, we see her use the term "we" when she describes how the Marines came under attack:

SARHADDI NELSON: It did. I mean, you have to picture when this happened, the patrol, it had been three hours of really intense pressure. We were constantly under fire. I think at that point the platoon officials or leaders had decided that they were going to stop for the night. It was just not safe to push forward anymore. And so we started to approach this field, and it was at that point that these gunmen, you know, jumped up and started firing - or at least it was described as three gunmen to me. I never saw them, I just heard the bullets.

And so everybody dropped down, squatted down, but we were exposed. We were all just behind these mounds of dirt. And Lance Corporal Yazzie, who I'd gotten to know over the last previous days - I didn't realize where he was standing - and I just, I mean, I saw him get hit, and certainly the captain next to him realized that he'd been killed. And it was just, there was nothing anybody could do, because at that stage the gunfire was so heavy.

Take a listen to the full "Morning Edition" piece by listening here:



After listening to the report one must acknowledge the obvious, that this experience was quite troubling and moving for Sarhaddi Nelson. I do not envy the experience of watching anyone being gunned before my eyes as bullets are flying through the air around me. I also do find value in reporting on the soldiers who are involved in these wars. These individuals are mostly young kids who are enduring very difficult circumstances that will more than likely impact them mentally, physically and emotionally for the rest of their lives. It is one side of the human cost of war and it is a story that needs to be told.

The expanded view of embedding reporters within active military units is another story that must be told whenever we hear reports like the one that Sarhaddi Nelson filed for NPR. The practice of embedding reporters was devised in order to form the close bonds that you can clearly hear in her reporting and it must be understood that these bonds exist and affect the overall coverage. These points must be stressed because telling the story of war through the eyes of the warriors is the norm. What is not the norm and the stories that you do not hear on a daily basis are the stories of those on the other end of the battle. When was the last time you saw a reporter embedded with a civilian Afghan family that was in the path of the American military? I don't seem to recall any reporters from CNN who were inside the Iraqi city of Fallujah prior to the American assault.

Embedding reporters within the military has real and very important consequences that impacts the coverage the public receives as well as the way people understand war. While a human face is put on those like Lance Cpl. Yazzie, too often are generic labels ("enemy", "opposition", "collateral damage") given to those who find themselves on the other end of the invading armies.

I wish Renee Montagne would have honed in on the importance of her phrasing when she indicated to Sarhaddi Nelson that these Marines were responsible for her safety as she reported in Afghanistan. There was a real chance to give some greater context to the practice of embedding journalists and how it contributed to Sarhaddi Nelson's coverage of this group of Marines. I fear that if this practice of embedding journalists continues to occur without a greater discussion on the implications, the larger context of this issue may continue to be swept under the rug.


This piece is cross posted here.

Obama to Announce a Spending Freeze

Well I certainly didn't see this one coming. It is being reported tonight that President Obama is set to announce a three-year spending freeze on discretionary spending...except for the military, Department of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs or the State Department.

My initial reaction was really one of disbelief as this strategy seems like the exact opposite approach that would have the result that the Administration is hoping to achieve. The reactions from some of the more progressive blogs are quite strong:

Paul Rosenberg puts it like this:

Obama has now gone off the deep end. After passing a stimulus that most economists (not just liberal ones) said was too small, and that was made even more inadequate by being heavily tilted toward poor-performing tax-cuts, Obama is now intentionally recreating FDR's mistake of 1937, when he prematurely cut back spending to try to balance the budget, and sent the country into a new recession.

and David Sirota adds:

This is actually worse - way worse - than John McCain's campaign proposal for across-the-board cuts, as across-the-board cuts would have hit the massive and bloated Pentagon budget. Instead, the Obama administration is specifically and exclusively targeting social safety-net spending for a budget freeze (read: cut in real, inflation-adjusted dollars). Yes, cutting social safety-net programs during a recession, while increasing spending on wars, underwriting a no-strings-attached bank bailout and pushing a health care bill that is a massive giveaway to the insurance and drug companies.

Rachel Maddow also had an interesting exchange with Jared Berstein tonight on this topic:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There will be more on this story later and it will be interesting to see the reaction of not only the Republicans, but the tea-party movement who has complained about the so-called "runaway spending" in Washington.

Around the Horn: Reactions to the Resignation of the First U.S. Official Over the War in Afghanistan

The first U.S. Official has resigned in protest of the war in Afghanistan. From the National Post:

Matthew Hoh, a 36-year-old former Marine and Iraq war veteran, said he was stepping down as the senior U.S. civilian official in Zabul province, northeast of Kandahar, because he had "lost understanding of, and confidence in, the strategic purposes of the United States' presence."

[...]

Mr. Hoh, who served in military and civilian capacities in Iraq, is thought to be first civilian U.S. official to quit to protest his country's continuing presence in Afghanistan.

In brief remarks to reporters yesterday, he said, "We may be able to stabilize the Afghan government in five to 10 years, but stabilizing the Afghan government will do nothing to defeat al-Qaeda."

You can read Matthew Hoh's letter below:

Matthew Hoh first US official to resign over Afghan War

Here is some reaction from around the blogosphere to Hoh's resignation and the significance of this act during a time when President Obama is being encouraged to escalate the war effort.

Alan Block from Orange Punch:

I don’t know if it was ever as prevalent in reality as in lore, but resignation used to be considered the honorable course of officials who disagreed with policies they were asked to implement. It will be interesting to see whether Hoh gets more publicity as debate over the Afghan war perhaps heats up between now and after Nov. 7, when Obama has said he’ll announce his decision, or becomes a regular presence on cable TV or blog sites. I have no idea how articulate he is, but from the excerpts I’ve seen he writes a pretty good letter.

Joel at Infinite Monkeys:

If Hoh is right -- and there's quite a bit of his analysis that overlaps with Gen. Stanley McChrystal's -- then many of the insurgent groups lumped together under the label of "Taliban" are fighting against the U.S. and NATO because the U.S. and NATO are there. And we are there, fighting these groups, because they're there fighting. We're in a cycle in Afghanistan that we're fighting the war there because we're fighting the war there. That's not really a smart way to protect Americans from terrorism.

Glenn Greenwald:

How long are we going to continue to do this? We invade and occupy a country, and then label as "insurgents" or even "terrorists" the people in that country who fight against our invasion and occupation. With the most circular logic imaginable, we then insist that we must remain in order to defeat the "insurgents" and "terrorists" -- largely composed of people whose only cause for fighting is our presence in their country. All the while, we clearly exacerbate the very problem we are allegedly attempting to address -- Terrorism -- by predictably and inevitably increasing anti-American anger and hatred through our occupation, which, no matter the strategy, inevitably entails our killing innocent civilians.

[...]

Hoh told The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung that he's "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love" and that he believes "there are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," adding: "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys." Plainly, there's nothing ideological about his conclusions; they're just the by-product of an honest assessment, based on first-hand experiences, of how our ongoing occupation of that country is worsening the very problem we're allegedly there to solve.

Herschel Smith from The Captain's Journal:

The long war. That phrase that so many people are afraid to use, and which has been used so many times here at The Captain’s Journal. Jules understands. And I understand that Captain Hoh is an honorable man for sticking to his principles. He has a right to decide how he wants, just as I have a right to decide against his views. What I don’t get is why Captain Hoh is getting so much attention. So another State employee doesn’t want to see us in Afghanistan. How many more hundreds are there?

Finally, I find it rather embarrassing and gushy that State worked so hard to retain him. If he is so decidedly against the campaign in Afghanistan that he feels that he cannot work at State, then he should go rather than be begged to stay. The fact of the matter is that this thinking is systemic to not only State but the entire administration.

Bill Kristol Admits that the Government Can Run a Quality Health Care System

If could only watch one interview from The Daily Show from the first half of 2009, I would recommend that you watch what happened last night between host Jon Stewart and Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

Yes, Stewart's interview with Jim Cramer from back in March was a pretty thorough skewering, but we almost saw that one coming in the weeks leading up to their climactic interview. This segment with Kristol came out of nowhere and resulted in a very revealing interview. Take a look:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Kristol Extended Interview
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

The conversation about health care is the most revealing aspect of this interview as the first section is typical Kristol supporting Sarah Palin and other (neo)Conservatives and their talking points. It is interesting to look at what happens when we get into the discussion on health-care and Kristol's Republican talking points begin to run into each other and end up (once again) revealing him as an ideologue who refuses to view the world from outside of his politicized fantasy-land.

Besides Kristol's ludicrous claims that insurance companies don't get in the way of the decisions of health-care providers, that health care costs are going up primarily because of current government-run programs and the insistence that health-care reform needs to be killed (while offering no alternative solutions), I found the following exchange interesting:

STEWART: So, no public option - even though that's good enough for the military, not good enough for the people of America.

KRISTOL: Well, the military has a different system than the rest of Americans...

STEWART: It's a public system though, no?

KRISTOL: Yeah, they don't have an option, they are all enrolled in military health care.

STEWART: Why don't we go with that?

KRISTOL: I don't know, is military health care really what you...well first of all it's expensive and they deserve it, the military...I'm not sure...

STEWART: but the American public do not

KRISTOL: No, the American public do not deserve the same quality of health care as soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve, and they need all sorts of things that the rest of us don't need.

STEWART: Well, no they can have that level of care, but are you saying that the American public shouldn't have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens

KRISTOL: Yes. To our soldiers? Absolutely. American public...

STEWART: Really?

[...]

STEWART: So you just said, I just want to get this on the record, Bill Kristol just said that the government can run a first-class health care system...

KRISTOL: Sure it can

STEWART: ...and that a government-run health care system is better than the private health care system.

KRISTOL: I don't, I don't know if it's better...

STEWART: You just said that

KRISTOL: I don't know if it is better

STEWART: You just said it was better, you said it was the best that it's a little more expensive but it's better.

Whoops! Kristol's rampant support for the military and his "support the troops at all costs" line of thought just ran smack into his "government-run health care is bad for us all" talking point. The result? Kristol gets backed into a corner where he admits that the troops have a superior health-care system than do Americans and cannot justify why all Americans shouldn't be under such care except to say that normal Americans "don't deserve" as good of care as the military (and even this still acknowledges that the government-run system is better than one of private insurance). Stewart even pushes him and says that the military has the "best health care system money can buy" and Kristol responds by saying, "That could be, I hope they do...". "They are not going to let you back at the Weekly Standard" Stewart quips, "I feel like this is a way for people to bring down the Presidency than to do what is right for the American people."

Bingo! Stewart hits the nail on the head with that point toward the end of the interview. Kristol made obvious that this isn't about what is good for the American people, he is simply out to gain political points and oppose anything and everything that President Obama suggests without offering constructive revisions or criticism of the plan. Earlier in the interview Stewart even encourages Kristol to go to Washington and offer some ideas and suggestions instead of just killing the bill, but Kristol is insistent that you have to just "kill the bad idea" and then come up with something else. Translation: kill what is proposed by Obama, run on that opposition in 2010 and 2012, and then reform nothing so that the private insurance companies will keep funding the candidates that oppose limiting their profit-making capabilities.

Wesley Clark and his comments on John McCain

This previous weekend, Gen. Wesley Clark appeared on "Face the Nation" in support of Barack Obama's candidacy for the White House.




Following this appearance, Clark has been attacked in the corporate media mainly for the comment(s) below:

...I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not...I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

This statement was immediately jumped upon by members of the corporate media as well as in the conservative circles as an attack on John McCain's military service. Some have even gone so far as to say that this is proof that the Obama campaign is demeaning not only McCain's military service, but military service in general.

Regardless of what you think of Wesley Clark it is important to take a look at what was actually said. Clark stated that McCain hasn't held executive responsibility and that he doesn't believe that his time spent in the military (which includes being shot down) qualifies him to be President. Certainly these points can be refuted, discussed, and debated, but is it an "attack" on John McCain's service to question if said service is really a qualification for President? One can even argue that McCain's service was brave, honorable and for love of his country, but that is not what was being disputed. What was in dispute was if the skill set that John McCain received through his military service has prepared him to be President. Clark did not argue that McCain does not have the ability to be President, just that his military service does not inherently qualify him. We can box ourselves into a corner by arguing that any mention of McCain's service as a Presidential qualification is an attack on McCain simply because he has served.

The point I make is a focused one and one can make various arguments about Obama and McCain in regard to experience, executive responsibility, and Clark's own authority. All of this falls outside of the issue of whether this comment attacked McCain's service. In fact, Clark could be completely wrong in his assertion and it would still not "dishonor" the service of McCain. I only bring up these distinctions to attempt and counter the misrepresentation of what was said in this instance. I have no desire to defend Clark or McCain in this instance, only to point out what I feel, was a misrepresentation of Clark's comment.