Embedded Journalists Q&A

After responded to a particularily thoughtless post about emebedded journalists, I decided to set up this topic to answer a few questions about embedded journalists. I'm not a journalist, but my father is, and he is a television correspondent who specializes in conflicts and terrorism.(When we talk its almost always about the latest conlict) Hes had about twenty years of experience in this kind of thing, and I've had to go through quite a few occasions where he was gone for a while due to a story. So, deny ignorance, ask away!

Ok, I've got a question.
Do you think that with embedded reporters and cameramen always observing them, soldiers are less likely to commit illegal acts? Are they more reluctant to commit what might be considered by some to be atroicties (Vietnam)?

How much of what actually occurs is publically released?

What type of censorship is employed?

The prescence of a rolling camera does have a dampening effect on many of the more trigger happy soldiers. The cases of atraocities that are often heard about on the news are often committed by "green" soldiers, and both news networks and the pentagon are careful not to send journalists with divisions that have a high likelihood of an atrocity happening.

As to censorship, there is quite a bit. The camera men are shooting pretty much all the time, thanks to digital photography, and because of that there is a tremendous amount of footage caught on camera that would never be aired(such as actual people dieing) While the military views footage, it rarely cuts footage due top the fear that the media will report that they are censoring them. However, it is the news networks who do most of the censoring. Most networks wont put anything in that shows the US or the military in an extremely negative light, because doing so would destroy a chance of embedding their journalists in the next war, and by doing so, lose ratings. They also can't not report American casualties for the same reason, if they don't report it their competitor will, as usual it comes down to money

Dreamstone,

Good post. This a topic I've studied myself and do have a couple questions. Do you agree or would your father agree that the embed program, while it has it's obvious limitations at the network level, is an improvement from the media blackout days of say, hmm.. Grenada?

Also, is there any chance that some cameramen are making copies of footage before it gets to the networks?

I'd say its a definite improvement. Any footage, any commentary, any truth is better than a complete media blackout. The media, despite all of its failings still helps keep genrals and politicians honest, theres a reason "spin doctors" have jobs

As to the cameramen, they don't need to make personal copies. Their work is copied repeatedly at network offices just so there are backups in case file footage is needed. These backups are also accesible to anyone with a clear reason for needing them, they aren't under high security. Keep in mind that what the networks edit are the segments that go on air, they keep the footage whole and intact just in case.

Are embedded journalists paid any additional allowance or danger money, or do they just take it as an occupational risk?

Who decides what divisions or units they are assigned to?

When they die, are there any extraordinary measures taken to support their families, by either the medium owner or some industrial association - or was it up to them to organise their own insurances?

Have there been any American journalists not embedded during the current conflict, and how did they manage to achieve that, and where can they be seen or read?

They don't get paid any extra...directly. However, reporters who are known to be reliable in a conlict or war are given definite salary considerations during the negotitation of their salaries. If they die in the field, their families also receive more insurance money due to the battlefield insurance the network pays for

It is supposed to be the network and the pentagon together, but it is mostly the pentagon that survives. My father has had repeated experience being with special ops teams, and so he is one of their first picks when a special operations task force must have a reporter with them. On the other hand, a reporter who wants to break into battlefield reporting but doesn't have much experience would most likely be put on an aircraft carrier or with a medival detachment, out of harms way.

I answered this part above, part of the deal with all LICENSED (meaning military acknowledged) battlefield reporters is that the network pays for the insurance, which in most cases is covered by Lloyds of London at exorbidant fees, and the payoff(if you want to call it that) is suitably high.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last question, please clarify, and I'll answer as soon as possible

Thanks Dreamstone for a comprehensive rundown.

My last question is this:

Are there journalists who somehow get around the embedding process, and cover things without official approval? What media cover their stories, if any?

We can read officers' blogs and things that purport to be them. We can read Iraqi blogs. But can we read any media coverage by trained American journalists who are there, separate to any military units?

Not a vital question by any means.

Well, you don't need official approval, you can just hop a plane to jordan and catch a flight to Baghdad, and there were some American freelance journalists out there, and they were the majority of the journalists who got killed. Journalists are embedded with the military so that they can report on current troop actions, war progress, troop morale etc. But one of the big reasons that they're with troops is for protection. The simple truth is that no matter how anti-war or pro islam an american reporter is, if they're white and not islamic they are probably going to become the next Daniel Pearl. This isn't statement on Muslim Savagery or any such nonsense, but to a lot of people, especially in the middle east, killing a journalist can be seen as a blow against the westerners. Even some European freelance journalists were killed by an rpg while riding in a jeep. It is for this reason that the reporting stays pretty much inside the network news, and this includes al jazeera, who censor things in their own special way. I think there are some sites out there with American freelance work on it, but I wouldn't know where to find it. If you could find it, post it up, I'd love to take a look at it.

I have a few questions also.

One: Do embeded journalists maintain a neutral stance in regards the conflict or do they tend to take sides as the battle unfolds.

Two: Why would someone do this kind of job? It can't be just for the money or the career opportunities or is it?

All human beings are biased one way or another, and respectable, professional journalists try to mantain neutrality. I went to a taping of crossfire with my father
and if you've ever seen it you clap if you agree with a point made by one of the pundits. My father did not clap, so that he would be able to mantain neutrality if he was caught on the air. But of course there are news organizations and journalists that are biased *cough*Fox*cough*, and obviously journalists may reflect the views that thir country may demand upon them but for the most part, the real professional journalists try to manatin neutrality as a matter of professional pride.

While you can make good money and career oppurtunities can be pretty good most embedded reporters do it because they love it. I know my father loves his job. My father is a very fair-skinned man, so out on the field he needs to wear sunblock. In Afghanistan his bottle of sunblock got punctured and since he was out with a group of rangers, he couldn't exactly go to the nearest store. When he returned his face, arms and chest were apparently as red as a brick. When I talked to him next the only thing he spoke of was that it was such an honor to be able to see the rangers in action. My father genuinely loves his job, he's one of the few people I know who says that. I ask him why he does it and he told me that the biggest reason is that he can make a difference. I know this to be true, the old "no-fly" zone in Iraq was a direct result of a story he did on Kurdish Refugees who were being bombed daily by Saddam in Iraq. There is definitely a sense of adventure and danger. That goes without question. But to be able to make that big a difference in people's lives boggles my mind, and definitely seems like a good reason for doing what he does

Popping this up for ECK to read, i can answer more questions if needed