When the Iraq war began in 2003, the Pentagon decision to embed journalists alongside the military to obtain in-depth war coverage received mixed opinions. Some cautioned that such a partnership between the military and the media would distort war coverage and overlook certain parts of the war inaccessible to journalists because of the apparent danger in that particular area. Others voiced that the media's increased involvement in the war would provide unprecedented access to details about the war that physically being there would only provide. In an article by Jim Lehrer, who runs a special news show for students on PBS, he quotes U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield saying, "What we are seeing is not the war in Iraq; what we're seeing are slices of the war in Iraq." He couldn't be more correct. What editors of large papers fail to recognize is that embedded journalists are restricted as much for their safety as for the classified military information they might uncover. Journalism is a tricky occupation because there must be a balance between what is an opinion and what is actually fact and if this balance is tipped too much in one direction, these embedded journalists will suffer the repercussions. While it is no question that the embedding process has "allowed reporters and photographers to get closer to understanding the complexities of war," what they are allowed to share is still censored and freedom of movement is limited among the battlefields of Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment