# Study:  Embed Reporters Show More Troop Life, Less Civvy Impact



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2006)

Just found this, and thought I'd plant the seed....

*Embedded Reporting Influences War Coverage, Study Shows*
Penn State University news release, August 11, 2006

Montreal --- A Penn State study shows that the use of embedded reporters by major newspapers did affect the number and the type of stories published, resulting in more articles about the U.S. soldiers' personal lives and fewer articles about the impact of the war on Iraqi civilians.

"The majority of war coverage in the study heavily emphasized the soldier's experiences, of the war while downplaying the effects of the invasion on the Iraqi people," said Andrew M. Lindner, a graduate student in sociology at Penn State. 

"This study offers the first systematic documentation of the substantive content of the war coverage," he noted. "Many critics of the embedded reporting program rely on individual anecdotes or stories, but no one else has completed a thorough analysis of the coverage itself."

Lindner analyzed 742 print news articles by 156 journalists from the major combat period from the beginning of the Iraqi war (March 19, 2003) until the "Mission Accomplished" speech by President George W. Bush (May 1, 2003). He presented his findings today (Aug. 11) at the annual conference of the American Sociological Association.

The study examined reports from 67 news sources including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Reuters, and the Associated Press. The researcher studied articles written by only those reporters based in Iraq and not by reporters based in surrounding regions. Electronic media broadcasts also were not studied.

In 2003, the Pentagon introduced a program allowing journalists to be "embedded" with military units during the invasion due to media complaints about restricted access during earlier conflicts. The news reporter usually undergoes some boot camp-style training before being attached to a military unit.

The Penn State sociologist defined three categories of journalistic vantage points within Operation Iraqi Freedom: embedded reporters, reporters stationed in Baghdad hotels only, and independent reporters. Article topics were combat, military movement, soldier deaths, soldier source and soldier human interest.

"People do ask whether embedded reporters are less objective and can provide neutral reporting?," Lindner notes. "But the question may really be whether embedded reporters had the access or opportunity to talk with people other than the soldiers."

Combining all types of reporters, stories quoting soldiers made up 71.6 percent of the stories in the study, followed by combat and military movement stories at 46 percent each, nearly 24 percent on soldier human interest and 16 percent on soldier deaths, according to the study.

Breaking down the categories, embedded reporters published stories with soldier sources in 93.2 percent of the stories analyzed. Military movement stories were at nearly 52 percent, combat stories at 46 percent and soldier deaths at nearly 16 percent. 

Baghdad-stationed reporters split topics more evenly with 34.6 percent on combat stories, nearly 28 percent on military movements, 24.4 percent with soldier source stories, 10 percent for soldier deaths and no solider human interest stories.

For independent reporters, the breakdown was 46.2 percent (combat), 42.8 percent (soldier source), 41.4 percent (military movement) and 1.4 percent (soldier human interest).

"Now from the Iraqi perspective, the analysis found that the same reporters mostly covered property damage with 45.3 percent of their stories, stories with Iraqi sources at 41.2 percent, bombing stories at 30.2 percent, civilian deaths at 21.6 percent and Iraqi human interest stories, 20.9 percent," Lindner says.

Independent reporters, who worked for the major media but were not assigned to a military unit or located in Baghdad hotels, had the highest amount of stories quoting Iraqi people (73.1 percent); stories on property damage (nearly 47 percent); Iraqi human interest (43.4 percent); bombing stories (41.4 percent) and civilian deaths, (29.7 percent).

Baghdad-stationed reporters were at: 75 percent (Iraqi sources); 66 percent (property damage); 49.6 percent, civilian deaths; and 45.7 percent (bombing stories); and 41 percent (Iraqi human interest). 

Studying the front pages of selected newspapers, the sociologist found that 71 percent of the stories published came from the embedded reporters. Similarly, 69 percent of the stories in the front news sections were written by the same group. 

For example, the New York Times did establish the three groups of reporters: embedded, Baghdad-stationed and independent. The study shows that 52 percent of the Times' published articles came from the independent reporters, 37 percent from embedded reporters and 12 percent from the Baghdad-stationed group. 

That compares with the Washington Post with 55 percent of its articles from embedded reporters, 29 percent from independent and 15 percent from the Baghdad-stationed reporters. 

On the West Coast, 60 percent of the Los Angeles Times stories came from embedded reporters, 40 percent from Baghdad-stationed reporters. In the Midwest, the Chicago Tribune had 64 percent from embedded journalists, 33 percent from independent and 13 percent from the Baghdad-stationed group.

For USA Today, 100 percent of its articles during that period came from embedded reporters, the study shows.

"The goal was to provide sound data and evidence when the media are arguing about the value of programs like embedded reporting and whether to participate," Lindner says. "Although the media were aware of the effects of such reporting, articles by embedded reporters were both more prominent and more widely available than other types of reporting."


----------



## Journeyman (14 Sep 2006)

Oh, you mean more "balanced reporting"?  I can see how that might be a bad thing for an anti-military editor :


----------



## -Marauder- (14 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> ... Electronic media broadcasts also were not studied....


How interesting that this was not studied as it is the form of media that impacts the widest spectrum of society.  Though I'd wager the results would be similar.

These findings are not surprising, given the how new the program was/is and the access embeds have recieved.  Of course they would report more on this new source and naturally the subjects would inevitably revolve around the troops.  It is even evident in the reports here in Canada when you see reports made by, for example, Lisa Laflamme in her CTV reportages or read Christie Blatchford's articles (which are raved about here).

As for the comment on 'balanced reporting' above, well I suspect that all depends on a person's perspective.  That so many articles reported on soldiers/experiences/etc... certainly seems biased in your (and to be fair my) favour to have earned it the 'balanced reporting' laurel .  Are you suggesting that the suffering of the Iraqi people is somehow incidental and reporting on it would be biased because it may raise questions or highlight the uglier and tragic side of war?  I suspect not.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2006)

The main reason print outlets tend to be analyzed in studies like this is access and cost.  Most libraries keep some form of print media archives, making them easily accessible.  With broadcast media, it can become VERY expensive finding transcripts after the fact (depending on the service used, a 30 second story transcript can cost as much as $40-50 - longer pieces more).

I think there's also a bit of prejudice re:  print being the "medium of record."   Just because it's in hard copy doesn't mean the stuff is going to necessarily be any more accurate than a broadcast story - the reporter and the editors make or break it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2006)

>"People do ask whether embedded reporters are less objective and can provide neutral reporting?,"

What is this mythical animal - the "objective and neutral reporter"?   Is it the one that reports "fake but accurate" evidence, or the one that transposes and misleads as to the context of quotations, or the one just plain makes shit up?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Sep 2006)

Well I suppose there is nothing stopping the reporter from leaving the US patrol and skipping over to the opposing sides trench and snagging an interview, I can see it now:

Reporter (running like a scared rabbit, dives into ditch beside insurgent) “So I’m with CNN can you give a brief interview for the next 4 minutes and 30 seconds?”

Insurgent “why so short of a time?”

Reporter “Well apparently, they are about to drop some huge bomb on you”

Insurgent “ What!, Infidel dogs, I despise you, fu…..WHAM!!!!


Military patrol to HQ: “Um, can we get another embed, this one forgot to check his watch”   ;D


----------



## civmick (19 Sep 2006)

It could be argued that without embedded reportage the "true story" doesn't get out because if you're having 1,000lbers and 105mms dropped on your head your view of any conflict is likely to be slightly negative.  Apparently how the troops feel isn't integral to the story.

Speaking of Christie - another stonker of an article in today's Globe.


----------

