| Old Articles | | Friday, February 08 | | · | |
| Wednesday, February 06 | | · | |
| Tuesday, February 05 | | · | Savage Capitalism or Socialism: A Conversation with Luis Britto Garcia |
| Sunday, February 03 | | · | Canada vs. Venezuela: The Background Gets Even Murkier |
| Thursday, January 31 | | · | |
| Monday, January 28 | | · | The History - and Hypocrisy - of US Meddling in Venezuela |
| · | Canada Is Complicit in Venezuela's US-Backed Coup D'état |
| Wednesday, September 26 | | · | Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide |
| Friday, September 21 | | · | US Disregard for International Law Is a Menace to Latin America |
| Saturday, August 25 | | · | How Long is the Shelf-Life of Damnable Racist Capitalist Lies? |
| Thursday, August 09 | | · | Martial Law By Other Means: Corporate Strangulation of Dissent |
| Wednesday, August 08 | | · | North Korea and The Washington Trap |
| · | Venezuela Assassination Attempt: Maduro Survives but Journalism Doesn't |
| Sunday, May 20 | | · | The British Royal Wedding, Feelgoodism and the Colonial Jumbie |
| Friday, May 04 | | · | |
| Monday, April 09 | | · | The Bayer-Monsanto Merger Is Bad News for the Planet |
| Tuesday, March 20 | | · | Finally, Some Good News |
| Thursday, March 15 | | · | Zimbabwe Open for Business, Code for International Finance Capitalism |
| Friday, January 12 | | · | Shadow Armies: The Unseen, But Real US War In Africa |
| Wednesday, December 13 | | · | The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was |
Older Articles
| |
 | |
War and Terror: 'Embedded Journalists': There's A Name for People Like Them
Posted on Tuesday, April 08 @ 23:33:30 UTC
Topic: Brains Missing
|
 by Ben Roberts
The Bush Administration sides must be hurting from laughter at the joke they
have played on mainstream American and Western media. There was a big run
up to the use of 'embedded journalists' in this war. Everywhere you turned it was
discussed. On TV. On radio talk shows. The Bush cabal had front men Donald
Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and military 'analysts' of every rank gushing over the
concept. A fresh faced Peter Jennings, waiting for the fireworks to begin, took
great pains to explain to his audience that the journalists would be 'embedded'
with the US military, and not 'in bed with.' What a laugh. One was unsure
whether his attempt at clarification was a weak joke that bombed, or a serious
explanation. The 'embedded journalists' were described as novel, unheard of in
the history of armed conflict, revolutionary, unprecedented access to information,
and having real-time access to what was unfolding on the battlefield.
What a great sell job. What cunning by the Bush Administration. In the last Gulf
War, there was almost complete censorship of what was transpiring on the
battlefield, resulting in a lot of recrimination. In conducting its preemptive strike
on Iraq, the Bush Administration also cleverly pulled off a preemptive strike on
the media by offering them what was touted as unfettered access to everything
that was taking place on the battlefield. Of course the media would jump at this
offer. They are in the business of selling papers and showing coverage of late
breaking, as it happens news. That is how they maintain ratings and haul in
profits. What is more late breaking than riding shotgun with a tank commander
as he engages the enemy, fires off a round, or takes incoming fire? Sounds good.
We shouldn't miss a thing right? Wrong. Despite what we have seen, things
have not unfolded as advertised. Here's what I think of 'embedded journalists':
On first hearing about the concept of 'embedded journalists,' the image that
immediately came to mind was that of 'fossil.' You know like a fossil embedded
in a rockface, in hardened amber, buried in the earth, or suspended in a fixative
of some kind. In all instances the fossil is immobilized, restricted, and kept out of
sight. In addition a fossil for the most part tells what happened earlier, not what is
happening now. It is my humble opinion that the so called 'embedded journalists'
were baited into the promise of being front and center of this military operation.
Taking the bait was the equivalent of them being immobilized in straightjackets,
and their reporting exactly what the military wanted them to report. Interestingly,
the dictionary describes 'embedded' as 'grounded.' We ground our children as a
way of modifying their behavior to suit our wishes. Well done Team Bush.
In discussing the war and events on the battlefield US military leaders, including
Donald Rumsfeld, have repeated on many occasions that 'embedded reporters'
only get a sliver of what is going on in the field. This is especially true whenever
there has been a report which shows US forces in a bad light, uncovering
something we would much rather keep hidden. For example, during the US
missile strike on the marketplace in Baghdad that resulted in such sickening
carnage of women and children, a military spokesman trotted out and griped at
how the 'embedded reporters' only got this one sided sliver, while not covering
how British and US forces were 'providing Iraqis with food and water in Basra.'
These military 'talking heads' are absolutely right in their assessment that the
'embedded reporters' only get a sliver of what is going on in the war. Think of
these reporters as looking through a pair of binoculars and seeing only what is in
that field, while oblivious to the myriad activities going on just outside that field of
view. In other words, they miss so much because they are focused on a single
thing. But don't be fooled. The military likes it this way. Under no circumstances
do they want 'embedded reporters' to get a birdseye view of what is going on.
Take this scenario. An artillery battalion has an 'embedded reporter' attached to
its operations. The battalion has unleashed a barrage on a town twenty miles
away that military intelligence had identified as a Republican Guard stronghold,
softening it up for an advancing infantry division. The infantry arrives in the town
to find a massacre of civilians due to the artillery barrage. It turns out the town
was not a stronghold as thought. The infantry commander calls the artillery
commander and instructs him to cease the attack immediately because the town
is no threat. It is a mistake and numerous innocent citizens have been killed. In
such a situation does anyone for a moment think that the artillery commander will
inform, or see to it that his 'embedded reporter' guest gets to that town as
promptly as possible to cover such late breaking news that the world should
know about? Never in a million years. The poor reporter will either be kept in the
dark or duped in some fashion. By extension the American public and the world
will be also kept in the dark and duped. Later on when the story is stumbled upon
by an independent reporter, or divulged by an aggrieved victim it will be regarded
by viewers as lies and fabrications since they had their real-time 'embedded
reporter' riding shotgun with the battalion and with access to everything that was
happening. In other words, if said reporter did not see it then it did not happen.
Such a conclusion would be the desired outcome for the military. Case closed.
It seems as if the news networks that readily jumped at the 'embedded' offer by
the military did not give much thought to the rules of their profession and what
they were giving up. In an 'embedded reporter' situation the individual is in the
company of fellow Americans, is afforded protection by them, is fed by them, is
promised the career boosting scoop by them, shares the daily misery of the
campaign with the forces, experiences the shared danger of attack by the
enemy, and bears the shared burden of losses and fatalities inflicted on his
fellow citizens on the battlefield. How can a reporter be expected to be even
remotely objective and unbiased in his or her reporting in such a situation? In the
event that the 'embedded reporter' decides to become rebellious and not follow
the desired program by reporting what American forces would rather not have
divulged, our military has some options that can get the wayward individual back
in line. Questioning their patriotism, accusing them of endangering the force by
providing the Iraqis with information, or threatening to suspend privileges, are all
ways to maintain censorship. What reporter will not fall back into line when faced
with threat of suspension of free transportation to the site of late breaking news,
free food, safety from a vile enemy, and getting the exclusive scoop. There was
one instance where an 'embedded reporter' was relieved of his satellite phone
while filing a report, because it was deemed dangerous and could give away
troop position to the Iraqis. This is baffling since US forces claimed at the outset
that their targeting had rendered the Iraqi leadership blind and deaf. One has to
wonder what happened to that 'embedded reporter' who initially disagreed with
the officer in charge who claimed that a warning shot was fired before the
minivan at the US checkpoint was blasted, killing its load of women and children.
Apparently that reporter has been silent since then. See what I mean?
Just yesterday an 'embedded reporter' for Knight Ridder filed a report with his
Washington office that the unit he was attached to had discovered weapons of
mass destruction sixty miles south of Baghdad. He reported that soldiers in the
unit had been evacuated from the area after showing signs of gas poisoning
such as dizziness, vertigo, and skin blisters. He reported the offending agent as
Seirin, and the exposure was described as low level. Yeah, and I saw Elvis at
Walmart yesterday. Is anyone surprised that it would be an 'embedded reporter'
who would divulge the 'finding' of weapons of mass destruction? They are ideal
for this venture. If they can be duped by suppression of information, they surely
can be duped into being disseminators of false information.
Strangely, this
morning General Vincent Brooks in his daily briefings from Doha in Qatar, said
nothing about a chemical weapons find. When asked about it he responded that
there was no evidence of such. Later today, in their Pentagon briefing, Donald
Rumsfeld and General Myers reported having no evidence of such a find. When
pressed Rumsfeld claimed that there was no conclusive evidence, that testing
was being done, and 'it usually took days to get back results of such testing.'
What? This does not make sense. For all its technology, the US military should
have sensors that could identify chemical and biological weapons promptly.
Otherwise they are doing their soldiers a grave disservice. Curiously, since this
report, the US military has told its troops to stand down in having their chemical
weapons clothing close at hand. The exact opposite of what should occur if
weapons were truly found. Is Team Bush floating a trial balloon to see how to sell
this difficult story of a 'find' of weapons of mass destruction that United Nations
inspectors did not find, and to date US troops cannot find? Well, when all else
fails bring in the 'fossils'. They will 'find' them for you. 'Embedded' all over Iraq.
Ben Roberts is a newsletter editor, freelance writer and published author. His book, Jackals of Samarra, was published in January 2001. Ben can be contacted by email at: grandt730@aol.com
|
|
| |
| Article Rating | Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
| |
|
|
