I also agree with your comments and don’t see them as incompatible with what my findings. Indeed, as my research indicate, journalists reporting from Baghdad had as narrow a lens as embedded reporter, but from the civilian side of war. Most journalists chose to be embedded because it was more safe, the Pentagon preferred it, and they got great coverage from the inside of a military unit.

All reporters have subjective views and, at times, that can come on the page. It’s an interesting topic, but outside the purview of my study.

Where I might disagree is the idea that the journalists are there to tell the story of the “American Fighting Soldier” or that they are even *supposed* to be there in the role of Americans citizens. In my view, the job of a journalist to try to represent the totality of the events as best as they can, attempting to capture as many people’s experiences as possible. They also need to serve as a counter-balance to the power of all governments by seeking out any and all abuses of that power.

Okay, that’s my two cents for what it’s worth.

As for the embedding process, obviously Soldiers are far more accessible if you work among them. But was this program intended to force reporters into close proximity with Soldiers or did the media jump at this program in order to obtain that close proximity? I think it is clearly the latter. If there is an invasion going on, which story do you think interests people more: stories about our Soldiers or stories about civilians? This is an editorial decision. News outlets stay in business by selling advertising space. If nobody watches the program or reads the print, then the advertising space is not worth much. In order to get people to keep reading/watching/buying, they need to present news that interests people.

Among the “independent reporters” many were independent specifically because they would not find what they were looking for if they were in the vicinity of Soldiers – regardless of the conditions of the embedding program. So, again, it is an editorial decision, not an unfortunate by-product of the embedding process that the news outlets were snookered into.

Much of the reporting of so-called “independent reporters” was also not very independent. They were often played like fiddles by the various insurgent factions. Sadr’s militia and IAI were notorious for not just fielding their own “reporters” but for also feeding bogus news stories to independent reporters and otherwise reputable news outlets such as AP and (especially) Reuters.

“By examining the content of articles rather than the tone, and comparing embedded and non-embedded journalists’ articles, it becomes clear that the physical, and perhaps psychological, constraints of the embedding program dramatically inhibited a journalist’s ability to cover civilians’ war experiences.”

Is the assumption here that if a news story is scandalous then it is objective, but if it is consistent with some administration talking point then it was tainted by the embedding process?

“But given the far greater frequency and prominence of published articles penned by embedded journalists, ultimately the embedding program proved a victory for the armed services in the historical tug-of-war between the press and military over journalistic freedom during war time.”

Even if true, it was not a very decisive victory. We lost the information war among the American audience, hands down. Abu Ghraib. Haditha. Fallujah. All were propaganda windfalls for our adversaries in theater and a crushing blow to the war’s legitimacy at home, largely due to the media giving those stories greater importance and life spans than what they merited.