November 11, 2004
PERLE OF WISDOM:
Bush country (David Warren, 11/10/04, Ottawa Citizen)
Is it my imagination, or has the very tone of the media -- that "MSM", or Main Stream Media, to which they have been reduced in weblog shorthand -- changed in the last week? I am trying to account for a little heading in the New York Times that reads, "With Our Troops". It is small, but it is a miracle all the same, for the grey lady's position before the re-election of President Bush was ambiguous.The Pentagon's brilliant plan for embedding journalists with the military, in this latest case with U.S. Marines in the front of action to exterminate the Jihadis of Fallujah in Iraq, has been rolled back out. I call it brilliant because it subjects participating journalists to the rigors and dangers of frontline conflict. It thus appeals to those with the moral virtue of courage, while bringing them emotionally onside.
During the invasion of Iraq itself last year, we had much more accurate and reasonable reporting from the "embeds", who wasted no time striking poses about "quagmire", or asking, "Why are we here?" This in dramatic contrast with the press gallery that was already embedded in Baghdad, and which had previously made its accommodations with the Saddam regime, to occupy comfortable hotel space there. Working only with rumour and scuttlebutt, they gave an entirely different picture of what was happening throughout Iraq, and one which quickly proved false.
That "war never solves anything" was a kind of motto for this latter group, and of the "analysts" and desk-editors back home; when it was not their mantra. But in the immortal words of Richard Perle, confronted with the phrase in a TV interview, "It has a better track-record than social work."
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 11, 2004 12:49 PM
If I recall, during WWII war correspondents were commissioned as lieutentants but given no operational responsibilities. They were, however, expected to report as they saw it, subject to the approval of the next in their chain of command. They were also, back then, subject to the UCMJ to some degree.
If anyone can point out the flaws in my recollection, please do.
Posted by: Ed Bush at November 11, 2004 3:17 PMAs I recall, during WWII war correspondents were commissioned as military officers and so subject to the UCMJ. I expect that embedded journalists today, although perhaps not similarly required, retain a sense of privilege about their position. They also retain as sense of comradship about their fellow combatants.
During the invasion of Iraq, the embeds had keepers. It did not prevent them from reporting, just from subverting the news. This is a good thing, then and now.