Five Years Ago ‘Embeds’ Got Ready for War Duty in Iraq: How Did That Work Out?
In the autumn of 2002, the drumbeat began for a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our “coverage of the coverage” of the war has earned several prestigious national awards, but one of our most significant efforts came near the very beginning. It was a special issue, dated Jan. 27, 2003 - E&P was still a weekly then - and it carried a color photo of the president in an Army jacket. The cover line read: “Unanswered Questions: In Grip of War Fever, Has the Press Missed the Mark on Bush and Iraq?”As it happened, E&P was one of the few mainstream publications to repeatedly raise serious doubts about the basis for the war and how the media was going about covering that.
Inside that issue (which appeared almost two months before the U.S. invasion), the cover story, based largely on interviews conducted by Joe Strupp and Dave Astor, carried the headline, “On the War Path: As public opinion swirls, the press must dig deeper for answers to key questions surrounding the likely attack on Iraq.” Looking back at those interviewed for the story, one finds many “ouch” quotes. George Will called the coverage of the run-up “amazingly thorough.” Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, claimed that readers had “a pretty good idea what is going on,” and agreed it was “very good coverage.”
Bill Keller, then a columnist for The New York Times (which had fallen down badly in much of its handling of the Iraqi WMD) said that the paper’s overall coverage had been “as aggressive as you can be on a subject that is complicated and closely held.” He claimed that newspapers had “learned their lesson” from the spinning during the Gulf War. Howell Raines, then the paper’s executive editor, added, “We approach this story with the full knowledge that the military is not always forthcoming.”
Unlike many other publications, we gave ample space to the skeptics. Richard Reeves called coverage “generally pro-war.” David Halberstam said he felt “uneasy about this war.” Phil Bronstein, then editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, declared that a lot of questions had not been answered at all. “Where is the debate?” asked Orville Schell. Arianna Huffington questioned the lack of discussion of American casualties.
Norman Solomon concluded the feature with this: “Experience tells us that once the Pentagon’s missiles start to fly, the space for critical assessments and dissent in U.S. news media quickly contracts. Journalists get caught up in the war fever - their careers may benefit, but journalism suffers.”
Other stories in that issue looked at the often weak treatment of the anti-war movement and how editorial pages were deeply conflicted in their views of the coming invasion. One highlight was my lengthy interview with famed Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Like many other “anti-war” types he had been scoffed at during this period, but his comments in the interview proved amazingly prescient (unlike, say, those expressed by the editorial writers and numerous columnists at The Washington Post).
Ellsberg said, flatly, “The government, like in Vietnam, is lying us into war. Like Vietnam, it’s a reckless, unnecessary war, where the risks greatly outweigh any possible benefits.” He listed three things the press was getting wrong about Iraq: that Saddam “represents the No. 1 danger to U.S. security in the world,” that “we are reducing the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by attacking Iraq,” and “the reasons we are singling out Saddam is that he cannot be contained or deterred, unlike other leaders in the world.” (For all of this and much more, see my book on the media and Iraq, “So Wrong for So Long,” coming next week.)
Jim Moscou, an E&P contributing editor, wrote a brilliant column about war fever, which he had identified after he signed up as one of the first U.S. reporters to undergo “bio/chem hazardous duty” training in England in advance of the invasion. He finished his piece with this haunting graf: “A young reporter for a Denver newspaper said to me that he thought war reporting was ‘the highest calling’ for a journalist. He’s preparing for Iraq. He’s a nice guy, enthusiastic about his job. But the comment gnawed at me. Weeks later, I realized he was dead wrong. The highest calling in journalism is not war reporting. It’s finding the story that would help prevent a war. Along the road to Baghdad, we seem to have lost that idea.”
Two weeks later, I wrote a column based on an interview with Sydney Schanberg, the former New York Times war reporter best known for experience in Vietnam and Cambodia dramatized in the Oscar-winning film, “The Killing Fields.” We chatted about his hopes and fears for the “embed” process. It is reprinted below.
*
“Em-bed-ded,” said Sydney H. Schanberg, savoring the word’s many ambiguities and connotations. “Embedded means, ‘You’re there.’ It also means, ‘You’re stuck.’” Schanberg is one of the media’s leading authorities on hazardous duty.
A decorated correspondent for The New York Times, his adventures in Vietnam and Cambodia during the 1970s - and the plight of his former aide, Dith Pran - were dramatized in the Oscar-winning 1984 film, “The Killing Fields.” An Army veteran himself, Schanberg, 68, left the Times in 1986 and now writes for The Village Voice in New York.
Last week, after E&P received a copy of the “ground rules” for embedded reporters who will give up certain press freedoms for the chance to travel with U.S. combat troops attacking Iraq, we forwarded a copy to Schanberg. His reaction? He’s impressed by the Pentagon’s promise of media access and long list of what will be “releasable.” It appears to be a “big leap forward” from the military’s shutting off (or jerking around) reporters in the country’s most recent armed conflicts. And, in any case, “anything’s better than covering the war from a briefing room, where you are always the stupidest person in the room.”
But, on closer inspection, doubts grew. “If I were an editor and I received this document,” he said, “I’d be on the phone to the Pentagon for clarification within 10 minutes. I’d be saying, ‘What do you mean by that?’”
This is critical because the embedding concept is clearly aimed at getting “good P.R.” for the military, he added. “It’s hard for any reporter to be aggressively critical of someone you’re bonding with,” Schanberg pointed out. Perhaps that’s why he has “never been embedded” and in Vietnam insisted on being “self-governed.” In fact, he urged editors now to request fewer embedded slots or at least allow their best reporters to roam freely.
“You’d rather not be hampered at all,” he admitted, “but as a journalist, and a realist, I don’t expect to walk into the military’s shop and break all the china. You’re a fool if you believe that. But the military, on the other hand, must recognize you are a professional.” Indeed, he found in Vietnam that only one in a thousand reporters would ever knowingly jeopardize a military operation, and no doubt that remains true today.
Many of the new ground rules Schanberg finds sensible or benign. The rule forbidding journalists from carrying firearms seems like a good one, although a few gonzos did pack pistols in Vietnam, he recalled. “Anything that makes you look like a combatant,” he said, “is bad.” That’s also why he (unlike Chris Hedges) is against reporters speeding off in jeeps. The new rules, in fact, ban breaking away in any vehicle.
Schanberg is also impressed that the rules seem to carry no requirement for submitting copy to authorities - i.e., no opportunity for censorship. That doesn’t mean self-censorship will not arise. And the more he studied the rules, the more he found vague language, restrictions, and situations where copy can be held, if not sanitized. For example, Rule 4F7 says that the date, time, or location of completed missions and actions, as well as results, are “releasable” - but “only if described in general terms.”
He’s also concerned about Rule 4A: “All interviews with service members will be on the record.” Sounds fine, right? The problem is, if soldiers fear their names may be in papers, it “has the possibility of shutting people up,” Schanberg declared. If they say anything negative about an operation or living conditions, their superior “may have their ass.” In Vietnam, he recalled, “most things guys really wanted to tell you were not on the record.” Also, will reporters always have a military escort - or “baby sitter,” as he put it - to listen in as they interview troops or visit local hospitals?
Even what he initially saw as a big plus - not having to submit stories for approval - came to look like a double-edged sword when he considered the strongly worded language about expelling “embeds” who get out of line. “You might be able to file what you want,” he explained, “but you will always have to worry about the penalty if you are on the edge of the rules. That’s certainly designed to make you pull your punches if you have any doubts. They’re saying, ‘Here are the rules: If you don’t follow them, you get thrown out.’”
This made him reflect on a war reporter’s higher calling. “Civil disobedience,” he said, “is needed sometimes, and you just have to accept the possible consequences.” He offered the example of rushing off on your own, against orders, to the scene of a rumored massacre of civilians (a scene, one recalls, from “The Killing Fields”).
“The only way we will know anything for sure,” Schanberg advised, “is when the rules go into practice. That’s the test, and until then we need to say - we’ll believe it when we see it.”
Greg Mitchell is editor. His new book on Iraq and the media, “So Wrong for So Long,” will be published next week.
© 2008 Nielsen Business Media, Inc.
I don’t remember ever paying any attention to an embedded reporter. The one time I tuned in to the so-called invasion coverage I took one look at Ted Koppel all bundled up like a kindergarten kid in his puffy little flak jacket and helmet, clutching the mimeographed statement from his daily briefing, and realized I wasn’t going to get any information there. I never watched a single minute of Operation Whatchamacallit in 2003, which was nothing but a bad comic book. The tv went off, the computer came on, the nightly news went away and Juan Cole and Dahr Jamail and Chris Hedges appeared to take its place. Good riddance.
The MSM brownshirts are fully in bed with the MIC, as are the private contractors. Rules or no rules, don’t expect anything but propaganda from the brownshirt embeds, ‘coz they are beholden to the MIC through corporate contracts. Fortunately, we still have the Fisks and Zinns in the world.
The MSM is certainly in bed with the corporate plunder of America and the rest of the world. I did my part for global warming by unpluging my television - it’s still gathering dust;)
If you want a fresh perspective on the Iraq war and a news channel that is fearless in its reporting of the truth, try al Jazeera. www.aljazeera.net/english
Considering the corporate media outlets that were the ones “allowed” to be embedded, it is no surprise their “coverage” (propaganda is a better description) was mostly in tune with the line put out by Dubya, Cheney, & Co. This episode is merely a symptom of a larger malaise: “mainstream media” being the clutches of a few giant corporations, many of whom have other organs profiting from the Iraq fiasco. This also points an undeniable conclusion: while we are lurching towards a redux of the Robber Baron era, it would appear as if the kleptocrats have learned one important lesson from history, control all of the press.
voxclamantis, I did the same thing. Good for you!
When Reagan invaded the tiny island of Grenada, reporters were not allowed on the ‘battlefield’ but were kept at bay in the hotel where they were ‘briefed’ each day by the Pentagon PR men. Ever since, false and dubious reporting on American wars of aggression have become the norm.
“Embedded” was obviously a means by which the government could control the media. I’m surprised anyone thought otherwise.
Events Leading to War
These disastrous events, leading to and including this Iraq misadvdnture, have been underway since Americans allowed this president to illegally take the office. They then permitted him to benefit from 9/11, despite his neglect to obvious signs leading to this tragedy. His unprecedented environmental sellouts that will affect us for decades fueled by his war on science only add to the outrage.
By tolerating such unprecedented abuses to our system,Americans have only themselves to blame for the damage to our planet from the antics of this zealot and his supporting special interests.
Let’s put it this way: CBS News used to be Edward R. Murrow and is now Katie Couric. Nobody but a glow-in- the-dark imbecile could possibly describe Katie Couric as a journalist. As the late, great Kurt Vonnegut used to say, “And so it goes.”
gobbledygook. the fact is that the u.s. military is in iraq to ‘win’, i.e., murder as many people as necessary to ‘pacify’ the rest of them. embedded means that in one way or another you support that goal. people who sleep with dogs get fleas.
It seems to me that blaming the corporate media misses the point for this reason: media does produce what the populace wants and accepts, and the populace must share much of the blame for what is produced. Growing up in the segregated South probably gives a much needed perspective on the news; except fot the Atlanta Constitution, it was impossible to believe the “news” about anything because of the 100% opposition to any rational or intelligent thought in the media, or, more importantly, from the populace. Senator Thurmond, it might be recalled by some, won election as a Democrat through a write in campaign because the incumbent was perceived as soft on segregation; the same thing happened in a Congressional district in Arkansas. And it is impossible to win a write in candidacy without an uprising, and it does not have to be fueled by the media, but by the populace. Mob violence in the South did not have to take cues from the media to do the damage the mobs did. The point is, that it is as much “in” the culture as in the news that produces results, whether war, violence or lesser behavior. And that is where we go wrong in blaming the media for going to war. Too many have neglected William Appleman Williams book, Empire as a Way of Life, where he provides us with a history of the inculcation of the imperial culture in American life that then makes it possible for politicians to not only go to war, but have that war not only sanctioned but demanded by the populace. That has been true of all the U.S. wars, including the civil war, and, I predict, will be true for the next war as well. Consider this: John McCain could well be the next president of the U.S., and could get us involved in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela or other places with the concurrance of the population. McCain is a very dangerous man because it is not the media that is going to elect him, if he is elected, but a populace that is fully aware of his proclivity for war. And he is a mean and slimy person, in my mind and in the minds of many more, but that is not true for tens of millions of people. It is true that the media can help create the conditions for war, for empire building or for interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. It is probably the case that 90% of the population could not find Venezuela on a map, but Hugo Chávez is seen as an enemy of the U.S., and the reason for this is not an objective criteria, but the creation of the media that reports what the politicians want them to about Chávez. Hence, the populace could not give a rational reason for why they oppose Chávez, and they do not recognize why they should oppose the U.S. interfering in the internal affairs of that country, but when politicians denigrate, and more, Chávez, there is no rebuttal by the populace, and if Venezuela were to be invaded by the U.S., we would undoubtedly hear the chants of USA,USA that we hear for every war. Hence, it is not just the media that needs to be reformed, but it is the entire culture of imperialism that must be rejected if we are to avoid future wars of the same type we have been getting for hundreds of years. AND THAT IS GOING TO BE SOME CHORE.
In the past, the prosecution of war criminals has been centered on decision makers within governments and military systems as well as individual soldiers who knowingly stepped over legal lines.
But why not prosecute decision makers and key players within media systems responsible for “manufacturing consent” for war crimes ?
A corrupt journalist’s form of perjury and propaganda kills the innocent as surely as if these word-slinging cowards were using a gun.
And if they can’t be hauled into court under current legal guidlines, at the very least they should be identified as criminals and denied any legitimate place in society.
Perhaps the day will come when those who devise deadly media lies can be put on trial and face consequences equal to the harm they have done.
The image of Diane Rheme (NPR) being hauled away in leg irons for war crimes is unfathomable. In 2003, with the killing machine in full rampage, she showed up for work and was just doing what she was told. (Cheerleading the war on terror)
“In bed with” might be a better discription. Totally useless, except as a propaganda tool for the conducting this illegal war.
Just above—WHAT? The media are giving people what they want? When the hell was ANYBODY EVER asked what they want? You’d have to conclude as well that we see in the media is “America’s Best”—best conformist mediocrity that is! Just look around—This country and planet are FULL of incredibly talented and sharp-minded people with the hunger and courage for the ambiguous truth, and this, what we get, is what we want? Gimme a break….
Jack37.Giving you a break is about all I can give you; for rational thought, you need something else. How many people are watching the silly junk on T.V., the Hollywood junk awards tonight and wishing they had all these talented people to watch? PBS is showing a Jane Austen? Which are the overwhelming majority about 1000 to 1 watching? I suggest a google search for the recent books on the I.Q. levels of the American people.
Shame has been brought to our country on such a scale, that no rational mind could not see it clearly. Too bad rational minds are in such short supply in this country. Integrity is such an old fashioned word. It fits so poorly with the idea of “It’s all about me!”
While I appreciate the “We got it right” tone of the article, I find myself more interested in the general unwillingness and impotency of press, congress, ordinary citizens, and world community to hold the lie and the liars accountable about the invasion of Iraq.
I await a clear and persistent call for morality and justice.
Or are we in a forget-about-it culture that has given up?
Embedded sounds like someone is on top doing the embedding. The one on the top wiggles for their own pleasure. The one on the bottom can like it or not. This is the Republican image and thought. They think it is man on top get it over with and the embedded better take it. Fox news and their slightly less obvious cohorts have proved it works. They faked an orgasm on cue right around the clock.
Consider the most egregious variation of Embedded Content-Provider: the Ultra-Embedded Star Reporter.
Judith Miller and her “insider’s insider” faux-scoops; Michael Gordon, Military Stenographer Extraordinaire, and zealous cheerleader of the War Criminal-in-Chief’s pre-emptive wars of aggression, illegal occupations, and just about any military operation the Pentagon deploys.
These are the media/infotainwhore elite, of course; but I venture that the evaporation or rapid abandonment of what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call objectivity is pandemic among even relatively anonymous, average embeds. As is the self-sealing, self-serving, self-important ego-vortex that inevitably tends toward rowing the boat instead of rocking it.
Hard to believe that a veteran war correspondent would see the newfangled embedding approach as a glass “half-full”. Although Mitchell does gradually reveal that upon closer inspection, Schanberg realized that the glass might be half-full of the piss splashing off his leg.
so schanberg thinks today’s journalists are professionals? and even today, he no doubt believes “that only one in a thousand reporters would ever knowingly jeapordize a military operation…” what if that information could/would save hundreds, or thousands, of innocent women, children and men? professional? bullshit. professional whores.
When John McCain claimed that the New York Times was a liberal newspaper and was not telling the truth, I had to laugh.
I once used the term “Capitalist Conservative” and did not get my message across…..A “Capitalist Conservative” is a person who believes that his/her way is the only way and that the “End Justifies The Means”…To me, a capitalist conservative is someone who places his/her earnings above human rights and that those earnings should increase every year…..
The New York Times is a “Capitalist Conservative Corporation”. They saw 9/11 and supported the “Official Version” from day one. Yet the 9/11 Commission was directed by Philip Zelikow, one of the Neo-Conservatives that had sought a “Pearl Harbor Type Attack” to enable the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which had anything to do with 9/11. And, he was in constant contact with the White House while performing his duties.
World Trade Center #7 was an obvious demolition job and the European Union is hearing testimony today, in Brussels, seeking an “Independent Investigation ” of 9/11. Yet, the New York Times and all Corporate Media sources are silent
As you go back in history, you will find that there is an “Invisible Government” that makes decisions for the U.S. Government. Whether it is George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, George H. Bush, or James Baker and the groups they direct or Organizations like the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations and the myriad of “Conservative Think Tanks”, they all have led us in a policy that has killed well over 5 million people in the past four decades, including over 63,000 American soldiers.
I still have a copy of the July 2006 Vanity Fair. In it is a wonderful article, “The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed.” As early as January 2, 2001, with the theft from the Nigerian Embassy, in Rome, of certain items, the Story of Iraq´s WMD began to be passed from Italian Intelligence to British Intelligence and on to President Bush´s State of the Union Address.
“Did the “Media” drop the ball?” Not at all, they did what their “Conservative Network” expected them to do: “Feed the American People “The Lie”.
As we now see, Ralph Nader is planning another run and the New York Times has already stated that he was responsible for Al Gore´s defeat in 2000. Just another “Lie”? There were over 4 million electronic votes lost and never counted in 2000 (Cal Poly Tech/ MIT Study and data from Election Data Services) and even more were lost in 2004.
The New York Times always quotes U.S. Government sources and therefore does not accept any blame for spreading a lie.
Which is more patriotic? Sending your troops to invade another nation based on totally fabricated information or telling the truth and preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the deaths of over 4 thousand American soldiers???????????