Page 246 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

236 Chapter 9

one in the war. Like most Arabs, it opposed Saddam's regime and opposed the
invasion."87 Miles continues: "All the information the channel received, whether
it came from Coalition Central Command or from the Iraqi Ministry of Informa-
tion, was treated with equal skepticism. . . information coming from the Iraqi
Minister of Information, Muhammad Said al-Sahaf, and information from coali-
tion spokesmen, Brigadier General Vincent K. Brooks. . . was treated as equally
unre~iable."~~
Pro-War Propaganda:
The Embedded Approach

The embedded approach to reporting in Iraq has emerged as a disciplinary insti-
tution against critical anti-war reporting. During the first Gulf War in 1991, the
first Bush administration attempted a much cruder version of embedding, in
which the U.S. military physically restricted the American press from entering
combat areas by herding them into journalistic pools which were not allowed to
view the conflict up close. This approach to limiting field reporting gave way to
a more "open" version of embedding in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as hundreds
of reporters were allowed to travel with coalition forces.
To the approval of the Pentagon and the Bush administration, embedding
became the preferred method of reporting for establishment journalists in Iraq.
Jim Wilkinson, Director of Strategic Communications at U.S. Central Command
conveys the psyche of most mainstream American reporters well, stating:
"There are two types of reporters in the world today: Those who are embedded
and those who wish they were embedded."89 Assessments of the embedded ap-
proach have been overwhelmingly positive throughout the U.S. mass media.
Eric Bums of Fox News Watch argues that embedded journalists have been suc-
cessful in "balancing the needs of the press, the military, and the public."90 Jane
Hall of the American University agrees, arguing that embedding "showed jour-
nalists can be trusted" by the military to report on the war in a way that con-
forms to the government agenda.9' Rem Rieder, editor of the American Journal-
ism Review celebrates: "it is clear that the great embedding experiment was a
home run as far as the news media and the American people are ~oncerned."~'
Embedded reporters' protection by the American military has come with a
price, as reporters agree to forego most serious challenges to the U.S. invasion
and occupation, in turn normalizing the U.S. presence in post-Saddam Iraq.
Chris Hedges, a veteran war reporter for the New York Times explains that em-
bedded reporting translates into "look[ing] at Iraq totally through the eyes of the
U.S. military."93 As reporters embedded in Iraq eat, sleep, and share meaningful
experiences with American troops, they develop a close bond with the troops.
Embeds rely on U.S. and British military forces to provide them with secu-
rity as well. Army Major General Buford Blount explains that, in this relation-
ship, "a level of trust develops between the soldier and the media that offers
nearly unlimited access" to the batt~efield.~~ However, reporters who embed
themselves also become subject to significant restrictions in their capacity to
report stories in a way that is critical of the U.S. Reporters become subject to the
potential discipline of U.S. or allied armed forces, as they are forced to sign con-