In this "War in Iraq" reporters have been given the opportunity of a lifetime, to be on the front lines of the warfare. Now it seems that these reporters are giving the people too much information in a time when secrecy is incredibly important to winning the battles.
In 1991 reporters complained about being denied access to the battlegrounds of Kuwait. Coverage of the Gulf War was thin and the little bit of information that we received came form the government. Today there are hundreds in Iraq who move with the coalition forces and are seeing the fighting first hand. They are called embedded reporters, and they eat and sleep with the soldiers as well as give live reports of fire fights into our living rooms. It is compelling and interesting news and the viewers love it, but now everyone does.
Along with the question of giving the world too close of a look at the war, one must wonder about the protection given to journalists. Most are given army protection, but leave that fold for a story and you'll risk getting killed like Terry Lloyd in 2003, who wandered off looking for a lead. Many believed that for a while, journalists were being targeted, since they were giving information to the American public. Another problem with embedded journalism is one that many believe. If you are moving with a certain group of the military who are responsible for protecting you, than you probably will not criticize them. Many find fault with the U.S. Anchors and administrators in the government pushing for great television instead of solid facts. In the beginning the only things that made the cut were deaths, firefights, "historic journalism", and more bad news. We began the constant polar aspects of embedded reporters. Embed' were either reporting news too good to be true, or news that was incredibly depressing.
The American viewers have conflicting feelings about these reporters. A Survey by the PEW Research Center for the People and the Press found that overall 58% of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document