Reporters embedded with the military run the risk of losing their objectivity. That's the view of Fred Brock, a former New York Times editor and reporter, now a Kansas State University journalism professor.You see, the journalism establishment wants to control the "story" so getting it from actual field work is bad. The establishment would rather journalists stay embedded in the newsrooms...
"I think (losing objectiveness) is a danger," said Brock, the R.M. Seaton Professional Journalism Chair at K-State's A.Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass Communications. "You are dressing with them, you are eating with them, so it's human nature to become very defensive of the group. It's not a good spot for a reporter to be in. I wouldn't want to say they lose objectivity, but they run the risk of it happening. It's hard to spend so much time with a group, then turn around and write bad stuff about them."
Brock recently led a group of K-State journalism students as they were transformed into embedded reporters in a simulated battle exercise through the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth.
"Despite 40 years in the news business, I have never been an embedded reporter," Brock said. "My only experience with embedded reporting was with the students in the war games at Fort Leavenworth. However, I think people would like to hear someone with broad experience in the press comment on this."
Brock said he is skeptical of the process of embedded journalism as a whole.Yes, it is good for the long term. The American media's story of Iraq changed DRAMATICALLY once the embedded reporters left...and it wasn't an improvement.
"I might stress that in the long run, this could be bad for the military," he said. "There needs to be checks and balances, tension if you will, in our system of government. That tension is important between reporters and the military, and I think that could get lost with this.
"I just want people to start thinking about these issues," he said. "Americans are sometimes not very good at long-term thinking. They tend to think about what's good in the short term. The present notion is that it works now. But is it good for the long run?"
Mark's Remarks
I love the part about "losing objectivity". This is a classic cop-out. What he really means is that reporters will ACTUALLY SEE the good being done, AND WILL ACTUALLY SEE the truth that the vast majority of our military are not Lyndie Englands; and MAY EVEN ACTUALLY REPORT THAT. Egads! A story based on direct testimony and eyewitness accounts! In the MSM?!? With like evidence of a first person nature? God Forbid!
And listen to this delusional rant:
There needs to be checks and balances, tension if you will, in our system of government. That tension is important between reporters and the military, and I think that could get lost with this.
When has the media been part of the government? Or is he revealing the hidden truth--that the media have been puppets of the Lefties in government? Just asking....
