Opinion: Embedding journalists in war zones — Freedom of the press or military liability?

U.S. military should allow journalists to do their jobs

By Breanna Goff
CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Sean Langan, a renowned British journalist, was in the midst of filming a documentary for Channel 4 near the Afghanistan and Pakistan border when he was kidnapped by groups connected with the Taliban and al-Qaida in March, 2008. He had gotten close, so close in fact, that he had almost succeeded in making contact with the second in command within al-Qaida itself.

Previous to this trip, Langan had developed several award winning documentaries such as: “Langan in Iraq”, “Tea with the Taliban” and “Fighting the Taliban.”

Langan was held captive for three months in a small, dark room with little food and water. Fortunately, Langan’s story ended happily. He returned home safely after his family spent months negotiating his release. Unfortunately, journalists are kidnapped and even killed on a regular basis in the corrupt and war-ridden areas where there is so much to report.

Journalists are essential during times of war. They humanize stories about war and make them real. They allow people to understand the full magnitude of war and disaster. Without their reports, without their efforts, these events would seem unreal and sometimes trite to us. We wouldn’t understand the gravity.

If Sean Langan had been accompanied by the military, there is no way he would have infiltrated the Taliban and al-Qaida as he did. He received a Rory Peck award and British Academy of Film and Television Arts nomination for previous works only because he was been able to get so deep within these organizations and develop credible contacts within them. The important stories he told, developed through his investigative work in the field, would never have been shared with the public.

By military accompaniment, I believe that journalists would lose reliability and credibility, particularly with their sources. This would deeply affect their stories.

Professional journalists do their homework. They factor in the risks they take when setting off to cover a war. They have done their research and are informed of the dangers that are present in the war zone. Local consulates are typically alerted of their arrival and activity, if it doesn’t pose a threat to the story.

They might be unknowing as to the full extent of what they are facing, but they are fully aware of the risks and equally aware of everything there is to be gained. It is a professional and personal choice and a noble one at that.

I, for one, am thankful to the men and women who courageously and continuously put themselves on the front-lines to keep us informed and educated about the world around us. I am grateful for the measures they take to ensure they are reporting important and accurate news.

Embedded journalists are not allowed to jeopardize U.S. military mission

By Jessica Martin
CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The battle in the Middle East has finally made it to the United States. But the war is not against terrorism or to bring democracy to a communist country. American journalists and the Department of Defense are butting heads in a dispute over the policy of embedding.

An embedded journalist is a reporter attached to a military unit involved in armed conflict. Since the United States is currently involved in just such a conflict, men and women from all forms of the press are currently in the most conflict-ridden parts of the war in the Middle East. They are collecting and reporting the who, what, where, when and how of the war.

On Aug. 27, Stars and Stripes — a daily newspaper aimed at audiences of U.S. military, civilians associated with the Department of Defense, contractors and their families — reported the Pentagon was profiling reporters before choosing them for embedding. The ground-breaking news story has the journalistic community in an uproar. Most are offended at the idea of the DOD’s discretion to refuse access to the war though U.S. military means due to an individual’s previous positive, neutral or negative reporting of the war. But why?

The military’s job is to pursue and protect the American interest by almost any means available. Of course civilian involvement with military troops on the front line would be analyzed, used as a resource for military means and manipulated by such tactics as securing transmissions or restrictions of access. The U.S. military is fighting a war overseas, and whether it is supported or frowned upon, a reporter is only sharing a small slice of observation with the rest of the world.

Though media coverage has evolved from papers to the 6 o’clock news and onto 24 hour media coverage over the Internet, the military has continued to operate much the same since the beginning of time.

Embedding was an agreement between the DOD and journalists that started in 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. A message from the Secretary of Defense in 2003 regarding guidance on media embedding outlined the rules and encouraged commanders to ensure media had access to “our forces.” Embedded journalists would, “live, work and travel as part of the units with which they are embedded to facilitate maximum, in-depth coverage of U.S. forces in combat and related operations.”

The sent message contained very simple instructions but also had phrases like, “whenever possible,” “to the extent possible,” and “temporary restrictions” that pertained to a commanders responsibility to the embedded media. Journalists made the mistake of agreeing to this in 2003 and should not be so taken aback by the actions of the Pentagon.