Coverage debates started before war wound down

AIM THIS PAGE

The media history of the 2003 war in Iraq will certainly focus on its “reality-TV” aspects, as well as the effectiveness, accuracy and objectivity of the more than 600 journalists who are participating in the Pentagon’s “embedding” program.

Debates and analyses are not, of course, waiting for the war to end. Around the nation and the world, critics are weighing in to discuss these and other media issues generated by this war.

The Baltimore Sun ran a triple-header of opinion pieces concerning media and the war on Sunday, April 7. One, by Douglas MacKinnon, argues that embedded journalists endanger troops. MacKinnon, a former press secretary for Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas and former White House and Pentagon official, disputes contentions that embedded journalists are “much-needed,” “cutting edge” and provide “transparency.”

“I strongly disagree. I think it puts the lives of our troops in danger while creating serious security concerns for the ongoing mission,” MacKinnon writes.  His concerns include details being divulged that help the enemy, reporters crawling up to soldiers during firefights to ask questions, troops questioning their judgment because they know they are being scrutinized, and the possible hesitation of soldiers in firing on the enemy dressed as civilians.  He also decries aggressive reporters on the home front who don’t allow families to “mourn in peace.”

On the flip side is Stephen Hess, co-editor with Marvin Kalb of  “Media and the War on Terrorism” to be published by the Brookings Institution Press later this spring.

Hess backs up his case for embedding by reflecting on the experience of the Pentagon and journalists during the Vietnam – where reporters and photographers were free to roam and report what they saw of the lost battle – and the Gulf War, which as a result of the Vietnam experience was pretty much a war conducted by “the briefing system.”

“The brilliance of the present embedding strategy is that the military abandoned a design that had been so successful realizing that what had worked in Gulf War I was probably going to be ill-fitting in Gulf War II. Why? Because in1991 we were universally recognized the as the good guys. Today we face a world that is very hostile and certainly skeptical of information that comes from the U.S. government. Embedding allows the news come through the eyes of journalists rather than the Pentagon. The stories looked very Main Street and contributed to public support.”

Hess wonders, though, how well the practice will work if the war is long.

The third piece in the Sun is by Christopher Hansen, a professor who covered Gulf War I with a U.S. tank regiment in Iraq and now teaches journalism at the University of Maryland. 

Hanson calls embedding beneficial, resulting not in “just cheerleading” but news that might not have emerged otherwise. He cites these bits of information that have come from embedment: The military had not "war gamed" for the intense, guerrilla-style attacks that disrupted the long supply line from Kuwait; the complaint that not enough troops had been deployed; and that U.S. soldiers failed to fire a warning shot before blasting a van speeding toward a checkpoint, resulting in the deaths of  10 civilians.

Hess does point out that one nation’s human interest story is another’s propaganda.

Elsewhere, the San Jose Mercury News editorialized that embedded journalists “have little access to real war” and have no view of the decision-making processes in high-ranking military personnel’s offices where all war matters are decided.

On TomPaine.com, Michael Ryan reports on what he sees as a strange phenomenon in the war: Hired, retired generals on local or network television stations are more objective and “reality-based” than the embedded journalists. And, in case you are wondering, they average $5,000 a month just to stand by and be available.

Here are links to more discussions about press issues generated by the war in Iraq:

joycegemp110@comcast.net