A journalist in Afgh who is not embedded is incapable of getting the whole story

[40below]

More: http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/05/11/9419896-sun.html

Journalists Carry On

Peter Worthington

-----

"Embedded" is a relatively new word in journalism, applicable to reporters attached to American, British or Canadian troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

At the beginning of the latest Iraq war, the CBC opted not to have reporters embedded with the American troops on grounds that the journalists would be subjected to military "spin" and thus risk losing their objectivity. Nonsense and insulting, but it stigmatized the idea of "embedded" journalists.

Instead, the CBC used videos from embedded networks and put their own interpretation ("spin") on the war footage. That's honest journalism?

Scott Taylor, publisher of the magazine Esprit de Corps, titles his recent memoir, Unembedded: Two Decades of Maverick War Reporting which, he says "is gleaned from first hand observation ... about challenging the official position. Seeing through the other guy's eyes is the key to any success."

Again, this implies that being embedded with the military is an impediment to objective, balanced or fair reporting.

In a long career that involved coverage of a lot of wars, revolutions, coups, etc., I was mostly "unembedded" in that I had no support system or firm base, or sanctuary. Nor did most journalists who covered crises.

In the days of UN peacekeeping, it wasn't necessary to be "embedded."

Crossing lines

In Cyprus, for instance, Turks and Greeks had no argument with journalists who criss-crossed the lines. In Algeria's war for independence, the French didn't much like journalists but tolerated them, while Algerian nationalists relished a generally sympathetic foreign press. In the Congo warring elements ignored or sought to use foreign journalists.

But in the Biafran war, if you weren't "embedded" with one side, you couldn't report from that side. If Nigerians captured a journalist with the Biafran forces, he'd be shot as a mercenary. The same with UNITA insurgents in Angola. In the Eritrean war, if a journalist with the rebels was caught by Ethiopian soldiers -- again he'd be shot as a mercenary.

In Afghanistan, unless a journalist is "embedded" with the Canadians, Canada's story won't be told. The trouble is, some reporters embedded with the Canadians also try to tell the Taliban story -- as Taylor says, "seeing through the other guy's eyes."

 

[Infanteer]

I've edited your post as it was unclear that it was actually Worthington's article that you posted as opposed to your own comments.

As well, if you are going to post an article, why not post some commentary on it as well so you can start the discussion you are obviously aiming at with your new topic.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[helpup]

Agreed Inf.  I caught that in the paper as well and have to agree with Worthington ( and I dont always )  He has hit the nail on the head WRT to the CBC's actions and rightly points out that in more then a few environments it is downright fool hardy to try and not be embeded.  I can understand the MSN thinking that balanced reporting is what they need but the reality of it from my perspective is too many of thier breathren slant the story to thier beliefs or what will sell the most.

 

[rw4th]

The trouble is, some reporters embedded with the Canadians also try to tell the Taliban story

I'd say one of the big problems there is that the troops he is embedded with are not there to act as his bodyguards if he decides to wander off and have a sit down with Taliban troops.

 

[VIChris]

I honestly don't see how it's possible to have truly balanced reporting from either side of a conflict. As the old addage goes "There are two sides to every story, and in the middle lies absolute truth."

That being said, I do believe that we should be getting the straight goods about our soldiers, FROM our soldiers. I'm more likely to believe the word of an embedded reporter, as they have made the effort to get in close to people involved in the conflict, ask the questions, hear the stories, and walk a few paces in their shoes. The freelance ones seem to me to be hiding an agenda. Also, when they report in an 'overview' style, their stories seem to me to lack facts and substance.

That's just my bent on things though. I could be wrong.

 

[Padraig OCinnead]

With the standards of journalistic reporting made available to us, I personally don't see the difference, on the whole, from an unfortunately large portion of hacks that claim to report the truth. With but a few exceptions, they often use regurgitated stories, often unverified or unsubstantiated, incomplete, and spin it to fit into 150 words or less. We, their readers, or no less lazy because the majority simply accept this version, and parrot it as gospel and fact. If I were to perform to the same standard I doubt it would be very long before I was standing in from of a desk with my heels together staring at a picture above the CSM's head.
Yet they complain about lack of objectiveness! Their trouble is much more that perceived lack of a bias. The rot is much deeper than that, its laziness, unprofessionalism, poor work habits, and their inability to separate oneself from the story. It's all about the scoop! I apologize for hijacking your thread, but this story was a good segway into a pet peeve of mine these last few years. A decently good reporter ought not be restricted from producing decently good work from such minor inconveniences.

Paddy,