summer-2003-Part 2-live - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

WATCHDOGEmbedding Reporters on the FrontlineBy Nancy BernhardCoverage of WarWith regained public trust, watchdog reporting might be more welcomed for its rolein protecting democracy.Several weeks into the Iraq War,the Pentagon’s embedding policywas judged a resounding success.While questions will always remainabout the degree to which reportingfrom within a war effort must inevitablycompromise journalistic independence,embedding allowed far greateraccess to the battlefield than the presshas enjoyed in more than two decadesand has dampened the long hostilitybetween the Pentagon and the press.In a popular and relatively easy war,reporters’ access to the battle zoneswas a win-win policy. With a bit of astretch, we might even speculate thatthe embedded reporters’ contributionsin the war will contribute to a widerpublic embrace of the press’s watchdogfunctions.Mutual dependence under fire entwinespeople, as the Pentagon obviouslyunderstood. Skeptics likened thisempathy to the “Stockholm Syndrome,”but if embedding yielded some geewhizadmiration for soldiers and theirhardware, mutuality also yielded a greatdeal of public education about militarylife and procedures. Support for thetroops became the overriding framefor war news in the United States media,and television reporters, in particular,partook of the vast public supportthat poured forth for capable andhonorable soldiers.The degree to which embeds participatedin the war effort became acentral element of their reporting. Followingthe Fox News Channel’s leadand precedents set after September11th, broadcasters used the triumphalfirst person “we” to chart U.S. progresstoward Baghdad. Through the frame ofred-white-and-blue graphics, the celebrationof embedding took on a redemptivetone, as if, after decades ofobstinate standoffishness, reportersWhat follows is an excerpt from DanKennedy’s April 14, 2003 Media Log(www.dankennedy.net).“Life, death and objectivity. Here are afew of Roget’s synonyms for objectivity:‘detachment,’ ‘disinterest,’‘dispassion,’ ‘fairness’ and ‘impartiality.’In journalism, fairness and impartialityare good; but detachment anddispassion are more suitable for a certifiedpublic accountant than for someonewho’s trying to bring a story homein all of its vivid truth.“The Boston Herald’s embeddedreporter, Jules Crittenden, describedthe limits of objectivity in an astoundingaccount for the Sunday paper, recountinghow he called out Iraqi positionsas his unit rolled throughBaghdad, thus helping to kill threeIraqi soldiers. He writes: ‘Some in ourprofession might think as a reporterand noncombatant, I was there only toobserve. Now that I have assisted in thedeaths of three human beings in thewar I was sent to cover, I’m sure thereare some people who will question myethics, my objectivity, etc. I’ll keep theargument short. Screw them, theyweren’t there. But they are welcome tojoin me next time if they care to testtheir professionalism.’“Crittenden’s account comes closerthan anything I’ve read in this threeweekwar to making me feel as thoughhad finally reconciled with their Pentagonelders and shown up for the familyreunion.The few flaps that raised ethical conundrumsfor journalists’ independencewere resolved with the happydiscovery that reporters are actuallyAmericans and human beings. BostonGlobe reporter Scott Bernard Nelson,embedded with the First Marine Divi-Embedded ReportingIs objectivity an acceptable casualty of this kind of reporting?I were there and experiencing for myselfthe abject fear and its close cousin,exhilaration, that define combat. But,of course, this isn’t objectivity—a bogusconcept in any case—or, for thatmatter, a fair, comprehensive view ofwhat’s going on in Iraq. The reality isthat Crittenden’s account illustrates thestrengths and weaknesses of the embedprogram.“The strength, of course, is that itgives us a close-up look and otherwiseunattainable insight into what it’s likefor American soldiers to fight this war.The weakness is that the embeds’ accountsnecessarily become the story ofthe war as seen through the eyes ofAmerican soldiers. No reporter is goingto be ‘objective’ about those whoare protecting his or her life. AndCrittenden’s assistance in killing Iraqitroops who were trying to kill him isperfectly understandable. Who amongus wouldn’t do exactly the same thing?But it also—as Crittenden acknowledges—callsinto serious question therole of journalists as noncombatants,thus turning reporters into legitimatetargets for those against whom we arefighting.“Overall, the embed program hasbeen a real plus. But as Crittendenshows, there are hazards to it as well.He deserves credit for describing thosehazards so honestly.” ■Nieman Reports / Summer 2003 87