A Marine's view of embedded reporters

Anthony Swofford, a Marine veteran of the first Gulf War and the author of the war memoir Jarhead takes a dim view of the US military's embedded journalist program in this week's NYT Magazine:

When I was serving in the 1991 gulf war, reporters visited my platoon and were treated to exactly what we'd been ordered to offer: smiling faces, bare, muscular chests and high levels of support for the coming war. We were ordered not to divulge our fears, our concerns about being uninformed about the long-term intentions of our mission and our lack of confidence in our gear. Also, we weren't supposed to tell them how hungry we were for combat, how exciting we thought killing might be. Most important, we weren't supposed to cuss. This, of course, was absurd. After two years in the Marine Corps, I'd earned 120 college credits taking the Lord's name in vain.

I agree with Swofford's basic point. Some reporters have managed to do worthwhile reporting as embeds, but that's mainly because they recognized the limits of their perspective and wrote accordingly. It's not a coincidence that the best embedded reporting has been about the experience of being embedded, as opposed to what the reporter learned about the war from inside a unit. (Cf. Generation Kill.)

The embed's position is fundamentally compromised, but the rejoinder to these criticisms is that the alternative is no news coverage at all. For most journalists, especially those whose outlet can't afford a private security detail, non-embedded reporting in Iraq is just too dangerous, not to mention logistically onerous in an age of cutbacks.

Embedded reporting feeds a vicious cycle. In Vietnam and the Second World War, independent reporters were viewed as non-combatants. Obviously, it was still dangerous to report from the battlefield, but reporters weren't generally considered to be legitimate targets because they were clearly unarmed civilians. The U.S. set a terrible precedent in Iraq by bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters.

These days, reporters are fair game. Having reporters embedded in units, sometimes even wearing military garb, reinforces the perception that the media are an arm of the military propaganda machine. Which in turn makes independent reporters less safe, which increases the attractiveness of embedded reporting.

Correction: This is from a back issue of the NYT Magazine, but I still think it's worth reading.

Comments

[Dave W.]

The dateline on that linked article is March 30, 2003. Is that right, or is this really in this week's NYT Magazine?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Dave, you're right. It is a back issue. It's strange that the 2003 homepage is a top hit when you Google "NYT Magazine"--like it's preserved in electronic amber or something. Still a good article, though.

[Scott]

>>Having reporters embedded in units, sometimes even wearing military garb, reinforces the perception that the media are an arm of the military propaganda machine.

Um, most of them *are* arms of the propoganda machine. That's why "embedded" reporting exists. To increase propoganda. Your point isn't clear to me.

[Uncle Kvetch]

I'm afraid I'm with Scott, Lindsay. The enthusiasm with which the mainstream media bought into the embed program told me all I needed to know about how seriously they take that whole "objectivity" thing they're always going on about.

[Cass]

Um, most of them *are* arms of the propoganda machine. That's why "embedded" reporting exists. To increase propoganda. Your point isn't clear to me.

The point I think is that even embedded reporters are preferable to the daily briefing from Qatar as a source for information.

The U.S. set a terrible precedent in Iraq by bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters.

And I'm sure they did it with all of these very issues in mind.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

The embed program is a propaganda program as far as the U.S. military is concerned.

I'm saying that journalists who participate reinforce the notion that every reporter in a war zone is part of someone military's propaganda apparatus, whether s/he is embedded or not.

[Alon Levy]

The article isn't very interesting. Swofford's main objections seem to be that it's emasculating for a reporter to cover a military unit while being protected by them, and that it's bad that the troops can't lie to reporters so easily.

[Uncle Kvetch]

The point I think is that even embedded reporters are preferable to the daily briefing from Qatar as a source for information.

Perhaps, but I don't see it. The embed is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the military. If s/he steps off the reservation, s/he loses the plum assignment.

My recollection of the first couple of years after the invasion of Iraq is that the reports from the embeds and the press releases from the Pentagon were pretty much indistinguishable.