Which side of the bed are you on?

The coverage of the Iraq war has begged a very personal question of journalists: what have they been doing in (em)bed?

When the war began, so did a new kind of journalism: embedded coverage. Journalists were planted within military units to report on the front line as it happened. This kind of reporting required an unprecedented partnership: journalists and the Department of Defense.

Much of this relationship was and is symbiotic, with mutual benefits. The embedded journalists have received unparalleled access to military actions and intelligence officers and insight into the war's mentality and morale. Dan Murphy of the Christian Science Monitor said the only limitation on his access was abiding by the military's schedule. (CJR) Compared to the censorship of the Gulf War, the embedded journalists program is a dream of journalistic information. (BBC) In the meantime, the military has garnered a more informed public and political base, which are invaluable to its success. Clearly, the program is beneficial for the military, as the Pentagon hatched the concept for embedded reporting. (CJR and Zwirko)

Along with these benefits, however, there are rules, and there are criticisms.

The rules include not reporting on specific numbers of soldiers and equipment. Precise locations and future plans are also prohibited from publication. These regulations were designed to protect information from the former Iraqi government and, later, the insurgents. Such information, the military said, was critical for the soldiers' safety and for the war's success. The breaking of said rules was grounds for immediate dismissal as an embed. Very few embeds have been released for infractions.

What's more troubling for critics of the program is the proximity of journalists to the soldiers they're writing about. Critics say the reporters would be less likely to report objectively if they're relying on the soldiers for protection. (Zwirko) There have been accounts from embedded journalists to support both sides of this argument. For example, Jane Arraf of CNN said the military actually helped her report some of her most critical works. On the other hand, Chris Hondros of Getty Images tells about the attempted arrest of an embed who photographed insurgents attacking a plane. (CJR)

The limitation most noted by embedded journalists was difficulty talking to Iraqi people. (CJR) When the reporters did meet Iraqis, they were often unable to speak candidly. Another problem is the scope of embedded reporting. (Zwirko)

The BBC commissioned a study which looked at this very fear. The results of the study, published in June 2003, found that the biggest fault of embedded reporting was "sanitized" reporting, accounts that did not fully show the ugliness of the war. However, the study also found British cultural standards precipitated the sanitized reporting; it was not a result of bias or censorship. Another important note: nothing suggests the embedded journalists contributed significantly to misinformation or misleading reports. (BBC)

It seems as though the issue of embedded reporting remains far from settled. However, I'm not convinced it has to be. While many reporters remain embedded with the military, there are still freelancers and war correspondents outside this program. I think, collectively, journalists can offer a full picture and better information.

Columbia Journalism Review. The Embeds. November 2006.

BBC News. Iraq war journalism 'sanitised.' June 11, 2003. news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3247267.stm

Dallas Morning News. Zwirko, Walt. Embedded journalists' reporting questioned. April 8, 2003.

BBC News. How embedded journalists are handling the war. March 25, 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2885179.stm
http://foi.missouri.edu/jourwarcoverage/embeddedj.html