Larissa
2nd March 2003, 21:48
From www.globeandmail.com (columnists)
When reporters get in bed with the military
By WILLIAM HOUSTON
Saturday, March 1, 2003 - Page A12
Remember the slogan "What if they held a war and nobody came?"
They held a war in 1991, and nobody, which is to say no journalists, went to the combat zone. They didn't have a choice: the Pentagon barred them.
And when the third-largest tank battle in military history was fought between the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqis, no one reported it.
That will change if there is a sequel. This time, reporters will be "embedded" in combat units, the terminology of which sounds a lot like in bed with the Pentagon.
For Tony Burman, editor-in-chief of CBC News, the embedded relationship between the news media and the military suggests the expectation of journalists cheering for the good guys. News reports and pictures, after all, will be examined and possibly censored by unit commanders.
The CBC is taking a pass on embedding, but most news organizations in Canada will attempt to participate.
"Whenever you get an opportunity to cover this and get access where we didn't have it before, you pursue it," said Robert Hurst, president of CTV News.
CTV was offered a spot last week, but it declined because its two-person crew was required to report immediately to Texas. That seemed too early for a war that is still weeks away, but Mr. Hurst said CTV has been
offered another opportunity.
About 500 U.S. and foreign journalists will be assigned to units. They will not wear uniforms or carry weapons, but for the first time since Vietnam, they will be on the front line -- with one big difference: In Vietnam, the media were not censored.
Peter Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting in Vietnam and was one of CNN's stars during the Persian Gulf conflict, said the Pentagon blamed the news media, in large part, for the U.S. failure in Vietnam. Subsequently, reporters were barred from combat zones.
"The Pentagon is fond of blaming its mistakes on the media," said Mr. Arnett, who is in Baghdad for National Geographic Explorer and MSNBC. "So, it said, 'To hell with it. We won't let them go into action with us any more.' But that was counterproductive, because the military became a mystery. Correspondents didn't know anything about the military.
"Then the Afghanistan war happened, civilians were killed and reporters were saying, 'This is shocking. What are they doing killing civilians?' They had no concept that in real war civilians do get killed."
Hence, for public-relations purposes, the Pentagon introduced embedding.
Not only would reporters be educated on war, but they would become part of the team.
"The Pentagon is being friendly to the media in the hope they will respond and do nice reports, basically," Mr. Arnett said. "The big advantage is the reporters are going to be there. Sooner or later, the information will get reported."
A key important ground rule is the prohibition of news that would jeopardize the unit's security. Off-the-record interviews with troops are not allowed.
The military acknowledges the news media's right to report "derogatory, embarrassing, negative or uncomplimentary information." But Lloyd Robertson, CTV's national news anchor, wonders how long the cameras will roll if the fight moves into city streets, and civilians as well as U.S. troops start falling. Mr. Arnett expects the cameras to be shut down.
It is accepted that a war invokes patriotism in the domestic news media. The CBC's Bob McKeown, formerly of CBS, told a story this week about CBS
anchor Dan Rather's nationalistic fervour during the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
"I was on the set when he literally said to a somewhat confused Connie Chung at the time, 'Connie, join me in saluting our fighting men.' And he saluted right on camera."
For all his commendable enthusiasm and pursuit of the big interview, Mr. Rather has become a bit of a caricature who sometimes behaves unprofessionally. The question about embedding is, will journalists in
the field also embarrass themselves?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this America's Freedom of Press? I thought I heard americans criticizing Cuba about "Freedom of Press" ... well well, look who's talking now.
When reporters get in bed with the military
By WILLIAM HOUSTON
Saturday, March 1, 2003 - Page A12
Remember the slogan "What if they held a war and nobody came?"
They held a war in 1991, and nobody, which is to say no journalists, went to the combat zone. They didn't have a choice: the Pentagon barred them.
And when the third-largest tank battle in military history was fought between the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqis, no one reported it.
That will change if there is a sequel. This time, reporters will be "embedded" in combat units, the terminology of which sounds a lot like in bed with the Pentagon.
For Tony Burman, editor-in-chief of CBC News, the embedded relationship between the news media and the military suggests the expectation of journalists cheering for the good guys. News reports and pictures, after all, will be examined and possibly censored by unit commanders.
The CBC is taking a pass on embedding, but most news organizations in Canada will attempt to participate.
"Whenever you get an opportunity to cover this and get access where we didn't have it before, you pursue it," said Robert Hurst, president of CTV News.
CTV was offered a spot last week, but it declined because its two-person crew was required to report immediately to Texas. That seemed too early for a war that is still weeks away, but Mr. Hurst said CTV has been
offered another opportunity.
About 500 U.S. and foreign journalists will be assigned to units. They will not wear uniforms or carry weapons, but for the first time since Vietnam, they will be on the front line -- with one big difference: In Vietnam, the media were not censored.
Peter Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting in Vietnam and was one of CNN's stars during the Persian Gulf conflict, said the Pentagon blamed the news media, in large part, for the U.S. failure in Vietnam. Subsequently, reporters were barred from combat zones.
"The Pentagon is fond of blaming its mistakes on the media," said Mr. Arnett, who is in Baghdad for National Geographic Explorer and MSNBC. "So, it said, 'To hell with it. We won't let them go into action with us any more.' But that was counterproductive, because the military became a mystery. Correspondents didn't know anything about the military.
"Then the Afghanistan war happened, civilians were killed and reporters were saying, 'This is shocking. What are they doing killing civilians?' They had no concept that in real war civilians do get killed."
Hence, for public-relations purposes, the Pentagon introduced embedding.
Not only would reporters be educated on war, but they would become part of the team.
"The Pentagon is being friendly to the media in the hope they will respond and do nice reports, basically," Mr. Arnett said. "The big advantage is the reporters are going to be there. Sooner or later, the information will get reported."
A key important ground rule is the prohibition of news that would jeopardize the unit's security. Off-the-record interviews with troops are not allowed.
The military acknowledges the news media's right to report "derogatory, embarrassing, negative or uncomplimentary information." But Lloyd Robertson, CTV's national news anchor, wonders how long the cameras will roll if the fight moves into city streets, and civilians as well as U.S. troops start falling. Mr. Arnett expects the cameras to be shut down.
It is accepted that a war invokes patriotism in the domestic news media. The CBC's Bob McKeown, formerly of CBS, told a story this week about CBS
anchor Dan Rather's nationalistic fervour during the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
"I was on the set when he literally said to a somewhat confused Connie Chung at the time, 'Connie, join me in saluting our fighting men.' And he saluted right on camera."
For all his commendable enthusiasm and pursuit of the big interview, Mr. Rather has become a bit of a caricature who sometimes behaves unprofessionally. The question about embedding is, will journalists in
the field also embarrass themselves?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this America's Freedom of Press? I thought I heard americans criticizing Cuba about "Freedom of Press" ... well well, look who's talking now.