-Caveat Lector- Embedded ... or in bed with the Pentagon?
http://www.sundayherald.com/32499 By Marion McKeone in New York and Martin Patience It was the second day of the second Gulf war. Veteran CNN newscaster Aaron Brown, concluding a sober presentation of the risks that lay ahead for the US military, cuts to a segment from Kyra Phillips who is an 'embedded' reporter on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. Phillips announces that a squadron of fighter pilots would be taking off from the carrier shortly and tells Brown: 'We're all really excited.' Then she tells him she has arranged for all the pilots to wave at him from their aircraft. 'OK, now guys!' she shouts. 'A big wave for Aaron, a big thumbs up for CNN.' Amid some shaky camera work the outlines of pilots can be discerned. 'Look, look Aaron,' she continues, almost breathless with excitement, 'they're waving at you.' The segment cuts back to the CNN studio before Brown can suppress the discomfort on his face. 'Er, that was Kyra Phillips,' he concludes. Moments later another report is filed by Walter Rodgers, who is embedded with the 7th Cavalry . Rodgers, who makes no pretence at objective reporting, announces that a US wall of steel is sweeping over southern Iraq. 'The march to Baghdad has begun,' he thunders, before urging any Iraqi soldiers on the road ahead to surrender immediately. Within hours, Rodgers's assessment of the situation would be proven woefully incorrect. As television stations beam unprecedented 24-hour coverage of the war across the globe, some academics and journalists are questioning the objectivity of the media's coverage and in particular the role of embedded reporters -- journalists who are invited to travel, sleep and eat with army forces and provide on-the-spot reports of how the military is faring. Dr David Miller, of Stirling University, sees most of the 900 embedded journalists in Iraq as unwitting cogs in the 'Pentagon propaganda machine'. 'The aim is to make journalists drink from the same pool so that they identify with the military more closely than ever before,' he said. 'When a BBC journalist gives a report to camera in Baghdad, we always hear that it is subject to Iraqi monitoring, but we never hear that about the British or American military which is doing the same thing. 'The military is literally lying through their teeth about everything for propaganda purposes. The Pentagon does not want independent journalists operating in the area and this is one of the main reasons that it has allowed embedded reporters.' This suggestion, however, was rejected by Vin Ray, BBC's deputy head of news gathering, who said that while there is a deep suspicion that journalists are being censored 'this hasn't been the case so far'. He said: 'Certainly, during the first Gulf war we were heavily reliant on military briefings and aired a tremendous amount of video footage. There was a strong feeling afterwards that we had been taken for a bit of a ride. This time round that is not the case.' The introduction of embedded reporters was the brainchild of the Pentagon and was generally welcomed by media organisations which complained that they were denied access to the Kuwaiti battlegrounds of the first Gulf war in 1991. Journalists were almost totally dependent on what information the military fed them and could not verify accounts independently. It was only after the war, for example, that it was revealed that precision-guided munitions formed just a small part of the Allies' arsenal. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that embedded journalists were only subject to censorship if their reports jeopardised operational security such as giving a unit's position away. Clarence Page, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the Chicago Tribune, said that attempts to curb the media are nothing new. 'The military realised the importance of the media after the debacle in Vietnam and now they are far more streetwise. When I worked as a military journalist during the Vietnam conflict, my primary job was not to inform the public, and I was reminded in so many words by various commanders. But there were other reporters roaming about getting stories that the US military did not want to get out. 'I don't think there is a problem with embedded journalists as long as it's only one part of the source of news. There is an element of camaraderie when you're under fire together and suffering the same hardships. 'At times I'm reminded of the film Apocalypse Now, where there's the scene when a director is urging the soldiers to move along quickly and not look at the camera.' As a consequence of the Vietnam conflict, only 29 journalists were allowed to accompany the military to cover the Falklands war in 1982. There were no independent facilities for reporting. The American administration espoused a similar policy when it invaded Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. Michael Stott, Reuters editor for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, agreed that an over- dependency on embedded reporters could seriously affect the objectivity of coverage. 'While we certainly have a greater access to the military, the main thing is to be aware that we are only seeing snippets of the battlefield and that is only part of the overall picture,' he said. Professor Greg Philo, from Glasgow University's communication department, added that journalists are only too aware that they are under greater scrutiny then ever. 'Journalists are incredibly aware of spin,' he said. 'They are incredibly sensitive to charges that they are merely cheerleaders for the armed forces.' Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutra <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
