SIS guest lecturer explores pros and cons of embedded war journalism
By Matt Getty
(from American Weekly, Sept. 12, 2006)

Though embedded journalists have tremendous access to combat in the war in Iraq, they may not be telling the whole story, said University of Melbourne professor Fay Anderson during last week’s School of International Service (SIS) guest lecture. Presenting research from a book she’s writing on the history of Australian war correspondence, Anderson questioned whether the ties embedded reporters develop with the troops they cover can undermine the increased access the arrangement affords.

“The question is, are [embedded journalists] part of the propaganda machine?” she said, noting that “the simple reality of sharing meals, traveling together in claustrophobic Humvees, and facing enemy fire creates an interesting tension” between personal loyalty and journalistic objectivity.

Compared with the way the military worked with reporters during the Gulf War, she said, the Pentagon’s practice of embedding reporters within military divisions may look like a giant step forward for journalistic integrity. In the previous Iraq war, she explained, many reporters were labeled “hotel warriors,” because they never went into the field and were simply fed information by the military.

The practice of embedding, which the Pentagon adopted at the onset of the current Iraq War, has led Donald Rumsfeld to claim that the world has never seen “the degree of press freedom it is seeing in Iraq,” Anderson said. But after interviewing dozens of Australian war correspondents embedded with U.S. troops and operating independently, she’s not so sure that’s the case. Though several have insisted that embedded journalists have complete freedom, she said, many others argued that the restrictions placed on embedded troops combined with the tendency to bond with the troops compromises journalistic integrity.

“It’s undoubtedly the independent reporters who are telling the fuller story of the war,” Anderson said, noting that what’s missing from most embedded journalists’ coverage is “a greater understanding of the politics and suffering of those who live in Iraq.”

The problem with independent war correspondence, however, is its danger. More than 100 journalists and media staff have been killed in Iraq since the conflict began, Anderson said, adding that independent reporters receive no military protection. The attitude, she explained is “if they refuse the protection of the embedding system, they’re somehow asking for it.”

A suitable compromise, Anderson suggested, may be the model used during the Vietnam War, when reporters could jump from one division to the next, affording them protection without the prolonged contact that might compromise objectivity. But the Pentagon, she said, plans to continue embedding journalists in future conflicts.

Though the practice may have its flaws, Anderson admitted that embedding does produce the “voyeuristic” coverage most viewers and readers crave today. And though it may threaten objectivity, the alternative can sometimes be even worse. The Australian military, she said, has refused to allow journalists to be embedded with any of their 2,000 troops in Iraq. As a result, she noted, “We’re not getting any information about the Australian military engaged in the war.”