Page 248 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

238 Chapter 9

proach represents the antithesis of investigative journalism. In contrast, investi-
gative journalism and muckraking have traditionally been interested in exposing
government deception and misinformation, rather than getting on the good side
of invading and occupying forces-hence the pertinent question posed by those
critical of the program: "embed" or "in bed?"
The BBC acknowledges about the embed program that, "While the [U.S.]
military sees [embed] propa anda as a weapon in itself, a journalists role is to
cut through the half truth^."'^ Paul Workman, an unembedded reporter in Iraq
for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) feels that, "by keeping 'uni-
lateral' journalists out of Iraq. . . the Americans have succeeded in reducing in-
dependent reporting of the war, and I believe that was exactly their plan from
the beginning." As a result, Workman concludes, Americans are "more likely to
see a glorified view of American power and morality, in a war much of the
world considers unnecessary, unjustified or plain wrong, and is being covered at
every crossroads, at every captured bridge, by a press corps that's sleeping with
the winner."'00
In making a deal with the military censors, embeds are rewarded by the
U.S. government for taking a tactical, pragmatic approach to evaluating the
war's progress (or lack thereof) at the expense of critical reporting and founda-
tional questioning of U.S. foreign policy that is seen in outlets like A1 Jazeera.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) elaborates on this development
in its content analysis of U.S. television reporting during the first few days of the
Iraq war. PEJ's breakdown of U.S. television reporting on March 21, 22, 24,
2003-the "days in which ground troops began the push into Iraq, and first en-
countered serious resistance7'-found that almost half of embedded reports fo-
cused on military action rather than on stories revealing the negative repercus-
sions of the invasion on Iraqi civilians and American ~oldiers.'~' While
approximately half of stories filed and aired were about combat operations, there
was not one story that discussed or addressed in detail a scenario where U.S.
weapons were used against the Iraqi people.
The discounting of the human consequences of war means that "punches get
pulled" in embedded reporting on the conduct of American and British troops in
1raq.'02 As a result, Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher explains: "one usually
has to look abroad, or to non-embeds, for eyewitness accounts of American boys
behaving badly."Io3 As one embedded reporter recounts in his web-blog, soldiers
"frankly resent" any critical or "bloody" stories run by embeds concerning U.S.
involvement in 1raq.Io4 This, to a large degree, helps explain the rise in popular-
ity of independent new outlets like A1 Jazeera in the Arab World, as the network
has not been afraid to tackle criticisms of the American presence in the Middle
East.