UPDATED - ColdType

EMBEDDED: WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION
tion which has largely ceased to be surprised by
television, but think about this: those who
wanted to, were able to watch an enemy operation
live from the banks of the Tigris. This weekend’s
pictures have widened the eyes like nothing
since the moon landings, though with rather
greater moral complications. The essential problem
is that in seeming to know everything, we
know nothing. There are wise old journalists
who will tell you that the word “raw” is usually a
warning. It is unwise to eat raw meat or smell
raw sewage and it may be equally foolish to consume
raw news coverage.
“In the triptych of examples given above, what
had vividly seemed to be an assassination
attempt on General Franks was down-graded
later to a gas canister exploding at a car plant
over the road. During the Tigris reed-shoot, the
western rolling news shows all reported in good
faith that the coalition claimed to have no planes
missing until Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
murmured on NBC that, in fact, the count
was short.
“Because we must always doubt the meaning
of the scenes we’re seeing, following this war on
television is like walking around an art gallery in
which the pictures dissolve and the captions
scramble shortly after you’ve been admiring
them for 20 minutes.”
Readers share their media views:
I WAS delighted that my daughter, Sarah
Schechter is dissecting your dissector and the
media: “I was struck this morning, listening to
NPR and the networks, by a couple things. NPR
actually cut to CNN which was interviewing a
106
New York Times reporter who is embedded with
a military troop to get his feelings about what
was happening around him. NPR cutting to CNN
seemed strange to me, and trying to understand
their justification, I rationalized that they
thought it was okay because CNN was interviewing
The New York Times. That while CNN
may not share the same branding with NPR, The
New York Times does. Essentially saying, “don’t
think we’re lazy or just like them but this is The
New York Times guys so it’s okay.”
“As I continued to watch and listen to coverage,
I couldn’t help noticing that every mainstream
media outlet was using the same expression
when introducing their correspondents in the
Middle East – they all used the word that CNN,
NPR and The New York Times had used –
‘embedded.’ It was almost as if a memo had gone
out to everyone instructing them to use the
word, it popped up too frequently to be coincidence.
I looked up the word embedded this
morning and this is what I found:
“1.To fix firmly in a surrounding mass: embed a
post in concrete; fossils embedded in shale.
“2.To enclose snugly or firmly.
“3.To cause to be an integral part of a surrounding
whole: ‘a minor accuracy embedded in
a larger untruth’ (Ian Jack).
“While they may think of it terms of the first definition,
I couldn’t help but feel the third was most
appropriate. These guys are honorary members –
and have in fact become an integral part of the
whole of the military complex. What happened to
objectivity? How can a journalist remain objective
when they are embedded within the very thing
they are to report on? How can they remain
impartial, and therefore accurate?” ●