Page 160 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

Embedd ng Journal sts: How Close Is Too Close? | 1

largely because of the frontline access afforded war correspondents. Photojour-
nalists and “renegades” covering the war moved freely through the country,
found their own units, and buddied up with soldiers and officers alike. They
covered them for a time, then moved on. “Embeds” in Iraq, on the other hand,
had no independence, no vehicles, and were required to stay with the assigned
unit for the duration of the war. There were lists of restrictions and rules to
be followed. Assignments were centrally organized by the Pentagon, and there
was no “cutting deals” in the field. Journalists covering Iraq were totally depen-
dent on the military, not only for access, but also for equipment, medical sup-
plies, and their own protection. Indeed, Iraq became a dangerous conflict for all
reporters, and numerous journalists continue to be killed.
In addition, some officers made it clear from the beginning that journalis-
tic independence would be undesirable in the field. At briefings in Kuwait City,
embeds were told they would be made part of the unit, and a member of the
team. The Washington Post (March 7, 2003) quoted Lt. Col. Rick Long who said,
“Reporters shouldn’t be . . . independently probing for facts. . . . If something bad
happens, it’s the military’s job to investigate.”

PrEss PooLs anD ThE FirsT guLF war
War correspondents Chris Hedges and John MacArthur both covered the first
Persian Gulf War in 1991, and were outspoken critics of the “pool system.” Their
experiences made them highly skeptical about embedding. During the first Gulf
War, the press had been promised access through a pool system, in which teams
of reporters would accompany troops and share footage and information with
each other. But from the beginning, war correspondents were highly restricted,
and many journalists were blocked from the field of operation when the ground
war started. In addition, official military escorts followed journalists as they in-
terviewed troops, and pubic affairs personnel attempted to manage information
between the media and the military. Alternative news outlets took the military
to court and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against the Pen-
tagon for censorship during the Desert Shield and Desert Storm operations (The
Center for Constitutional Rights 1991, pp. 10–11). The lawsuit documented the
ways public affairs “escorts engaged in arbitrary censorship of interviews, pho-
tography and altered the activities of the soldiers when reporters came into their
presence, not for security reasons, but to ensure favorable coverage of the mili-
tary presence.”

ThE miLiTary PErsPECTivE

The Pentagon had learned from the first Gulf War that U.S. journalists were
unlikely to be critical of military operations if they felt it would jeopardize their
future access to combat. In addition, press restrictions over the years had blocked
what the military perceived as positive stories of battle along with the nega-
tive. General Wesley Clark, working as a CNN analyst, admitted that restricting
journalists during the Persian Gulf War was a huge mistake. He noted that there