In the topic Marine in possible violation of Geneva :





Throughout history there have been reporters in the field but none such with an impact as more recent "imbedded reporters".

One the one hand this could be good because it can back up the US militaries reports and tell the world about what our soldiers are going through. On the other hand it could be seen as doing harm because soldier's will feel as if their actions are being documented and subsequently may or may not lead to indecisive split second decisions which could end up costing lives or make the world see violent act's that they may or may not understand and condemn the actions. Or would it end up in making better decisions? Or is there even an effect on decisions?


Do you believe imbedded reporter's should be allowed? Why or why not?

Do you believe it affect's a soldier's decisions? If so negatively or positively?

Do you believe imbedded reporter's should be allowed? Why or why not?

Yes. Because they allow the citizens of the state for whom these soldiers are fighting to know what is happening first hand, before the military and the government has the opportunity to censor and spin such information.


Do you believe it affect's a soldier's decisions? If so negatively or positively?

If a soldier is properly trained it shouldn't. If anything, soldiers should be trained with this in mind. If they stick to their training, they should be fine. War can be chaotic and things will happen, mistakes will happen and some bad apples may be shown on TV. This just means that the mistakes will be rectified and those bad apples can then be removed from the battlefield.

In the recent case of the Marine who shot the unarmed wounded insurgent, the embedded reporter served a purpose. Had he not been there, there would've been no investigation -- the marine, when asked if the people inside were armed when they were shot, simply shrugged. Had there not been an embedded reporter, chances are that this incident would never have been investigated -- and it should at least be investigated.

I think broadly embedded reporting is a good idea. There will always be journalists covering a war - and the more access journalists have, the more accurate their reporting and the less speculation.

If soldiers had to protect the journalists, then I would say it wasn't worth it, but if they don't then, to be honest, the extra scrutiny isn't a problem.

Like it or not, some soldiers make mistakes and America's image around the world is no longer as good as it used to be. American soldiers ARE under greater scrutiny - and having embedded journalists at least shows you have nothing to hide.

And I don't really buy the argument that soldiers might be more hesitant to act because of the cameras. If they don't want the US people to know what they do, then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it.

I believe imbedded reporters are key to perserving the history of the war. As someone who values history, I think they are a neccessity.

Think of what our memories of Vietnam would be like without imbedded reporters? The Vietnam War apologists would have a much easier job of making their case and trying to change histories' perceptions of the war if it wasn't for the brave work of the photographers, reporters, and cameramen in that war.

Think of how much independent first-hand information is compeltely lacking since we had no reporters during the Gulf War.

Look at it this way, it's either being fed the pictures straight from the government (and everyone remembers Schwarzkopf rather one sided press meetings), or we have real journalism being done out in the field. This is a no-brainer for me.

Also, as a former non-fiction filmmaker, I can tell you that after a week with the cameras NO ONE notices them, it's one of the miracles of filmmaking, and certainly works to the advantage of the filmmakers in this instance.

There's no difference in the particular case this was brought up for, between a conscientious observer (like Red Cross) and a reporter doing so. The only difference is that the reporter has physical evidence to back himself up so more precedent goes to him or her. There are probably dozens of similar cases like this, the reason this one lit on fire is because it was Video Taped.

I think anything that brings the horrible realities home to the people will end this war sooner, and is thus a good thing.

Do you believe imbedded reporter's should be allowed? Why or why not?
Do you believe it affect's a soldier's decisions? If so negatively or positively?

Thanks for starting a thread on this Vampiel.
I think embedded reporters are crucial to give the public at home (who are paying for all this after all), and globally, an insight into what is going on in their name.
I think it's unlikely to cramp what soldiers do, as the experience we have from all kinds of documentary sources, including things as mundane and apparently irrelevant as reality TV, is that people can't stay on their best behaviour for long, and soon revert to doing all the things they normally do - they almost forget the camera is there.
What does worry me on this issue is that people never completely forge they are being watched, but often forget just how many people are watching at the end. The risk (and I think it's small but ever-present) is that people start to play up to the camera a little, and far from being in inhibited from doing things they would normally do, they can feel encouraged to do things they would not normally do.

And the wider concern I have with embedded reporting is that in the last few wars we've seen, we haven't had any news reports in from independent reporters. They are ALL embedded.

Now, some of this is because Western news crews would stick out like sore thumbs and be targets themselves if they weren't with lots of soldier to make them safe. But that's easily fixed by using Iraqis - they did have TV before we invaded, and still do. Some of those must be able to speak English.

But, I fear, most of this is because the armed forces want to keep control of their news agenda. From the point of view of giving away tactical information that would put lives at risk, I fully support it. But my suspicion is that they are motivated by the experience of Vietnam, where the most embarrassing reports for the Army came from journalists working independently. Yes, such coverage undermined the war effort, but only by making the home and world public aware of the incompetence (and occasional cruelty) going on there, and putting human faces to the enemy.

And here, I'm not saying I want to see camera teams working with insurgents - they'd just be embedded with the enemy. I don't want to see an opposing partisan view of events, I want to see an independent views that tries to broadcast truth.

My concern in Iraq, therefore, is not that there are embedded journalists, but that there are no non-embedded journalists working for the Western media, so we are only being told what the allies want us to hear.

Im not sure this is true. I know there are many journalist's in Iraq that are not imbedded within the US military, but im sure there are restrictions on to what area's they travel. I also believe there are plenty of independent journalists that simply "risk it". I could be wrong, but this is just from the stories that I have been reading and they never mentioned that they where imbedded like many stories do.

You do make a really good point :



This is true for "reality tv" but most likely to a lesser extent in a war zone.

Do you believe imbedded reporter's should be allowed? Why or why not?

Allowed? Ceratainly...but I see them as a means of appeasing the journalist while controlling the information and consequestly nullifying a truer understanding of this war and war in general.
These people are controlled by the military and allowed access to where the military deems appropriate.
Basically, they work for the military.

Do you believe it affect's a soldier's decisions? If so negatively or positively?

I am sure it is a concern, and I would guess that the soldiers are more cautious around them.
Trouble is, what is going on elsewhere

Under the general guidelines of Our Game, all things are permitted, unless there is good reason shown for applying restrictions. What would be good reasons for disallowing the military from offering imbedded positions, or for blocking media workers from accepting them? Pros and cons, sure, but would a judge/jury see good reasons?

The military felt it was severely burned by media reporting in Vietnam. There is some discussion whether this is an accurate take on events, but many in the decision-making ranks today have recurring flashbacks to media-inflicted casualties of the campaign.

Broadly, the military would prefer to document what they think ought to be documented, themselves. Review the tapes, and pass on what they would like the reporters to have.

The military is of course under a different Law than Civil society. There is no 1st Amendment in their legal universe. Their relationship with the media is entirely an external imposition.


Reporters are not the only form of gadfly a soldier (etc.) has buzzing around. There is an assortment of civilian, intelligence, scientific, and unidentifiable personnel eyeballing, listening, recording, analyzing and second-guessing what a military functionary is doing. There is a small herd of them hanging and sneaking around,
during the live performance.

The primary injunction applied to all these secondary functionaries is "Stay out of the way and do not interfere." They are generally ignored and become invisible.

I'm bedded reporters like mentioned above preserve the history. Just think if there weren't imbedded reporters on the front lines of Iraq, Saddam might still be able to lie to their people and say "were winning". I believe it does effect soliders decisions because they will think "I'm on camera i better stop this". ETC. Also i do believe that soliders shouldn't have to protect these people, even though they are from the west this shows me that they are going the voluntarily.

Juber3, I served a six year nuclear power enlistment in the Navy, 1970-76. I was very poorly adapted to the military environment - something that became shockingly obvious within hours of arriving at bootcamp. Those years were the principle 'trial' of my life. I am 52.

Looking back, I see there were actually ways that I could have greatly alleviated the distress of the experience. I became swept up in ... not so much the externalities, as my own reactions ... most of which were destructive or approval-seeking.

If you are feeling less than wonderful about shipping out, read up on what the psych-kids say about being 'assertive'. The primary modus operandi of the military, is to neutralize whatever personal initiative you have ... so they can replace it with the initiative they have designed. Makes sense ... but can leave many of us in the wrong psychological space.

It's not all bad, and there are great things to learn, taught nowhere else. The best of the lessons are unintended.


Yes, having the civilian witnesses does a better job of rounding out the historical view than we would get from the military cameras alone.

Best to you!