Embedded Reporters

[Toro 1]

Everyone complains about the fact that the reporters are the ones that won't let the troops do their jobs because of the fear of getting on the six o clock news for killing innocent people (who have stockpiles of weapons in their house).

 

Why do we let these fockers go? Kick them out. Let our soldiers do their jobs.

[hoffdaddy 1]

Why do we let these fockers go? Kick them out. Let our soldiers do their jobs.

 

I tend to agree to a point. But, when you're trying to fight a propaganda war, on top of the battlefield, it's probably a good thing to have actual footage. That's indisputable.

[Toro 1]

I tend to agree to a point. But, when you're trying to fight a propaganda war, on top of the battlefield, it's probably a good thing to have actual footage. That's indisputable.

 

Propaganda war? I thought the point to war was to defeat the enemy.

[Isotopes 1]

I tend to agree to a point. But, when you're trying to fight a propaganda war, on top of the battlefield, it's probably a good thing to have actual footage. That's indisputable.

 

Many of the troops are carrying their own cameras. There is a good special A&E is showing on Lima Company. Most if not all the footage they have came from soldiers carrying their own cameras.

[hoffdaddy 1]

Propaganda war? I thought the point to war was to defeat the enemy.

 

So are you telling me that our image doesn't matter? If the only footage that came out of Iraq was from Al-Jazeera, would that be OK with you? Our enemy will use the media to further their cause, so we must use it as well.

[Toro 1]

So are you telling me that our image doesn't matter? If the only footage that came out of Iraq was from Al-Jazeera, would that be OK with you? Our enemy will use the media to further their cause, so we must use it as well.

 

I think the embedded reporters are doing more harm than good. No one wants to see footage of a school being built or water being run to a town that has never had it before. People want to see conflict, death, scandal and controversy. The reporters know this and all of them are over there for one simple reason: to get discovered as being the next hot reporter who broke some scandal wide open.

 

So if they are doing more harm than good, what's the point?

 

ETA: Yes, our image matters. I agree.

[hoffdaddy 1]

I think the embedded reporters are doing more harm than good. No one wants to see footage of a school being built or water being run to a town that has never had it before. People want to see conflict, death, scandal and controversy. The reporters know this and all of them are over there for one simple reason: to get discovered as being the next hot reporter who broke some scandal wide open.

 

So if they are doing more harm than good, what's the point?

 

ETA: Yes, our image matters. I agree.

 

I do think that embedded reporters get in the way. No question. But, if we only relied on the military for images, people here would question why that is? What are they trying to hide? By allowing the an "unbiased" third part along for the ride, it offers transparency, and fuels the idea that they have nothing to hide. I get why they are there, but I do tend to agree that they are in the way.

[Toro 1]

I do think that embedded reporters get in the way. No question. But, if we only relied on the military for images, people here would question why that is? What are they trying to hide? By allowing the an "unbiased" third part along for the ride, it offers transparency, and fuels the idea that they have nothing to hide. I get why they are there, but I do tend to agree that they are in the way.

 

There are some thing that I don't think the American public needs to know about. I want my military to do everything they can to win. I am not giving them carte blanche to start mass murdering people, but hearing stories about our guys having their hands tied is rediculous.

[AirRam 3]

OK, sore spot for me as I went to school for Journalism and most know my current situation.

 

Embeds are holdovers from the days when journalistic integrity and fact based reporting were matters of tradition. Traditions that held each journalist to rule number focking one we are taught in Journalism 101: Report the facts, let the reader decide for himself.

 

Today's journalists are blind to that era and now swirl around a sensationalist toilet bowl desperate for a headline. They will spew anything they hear from some guy who knows some guy without checking sources even once much less the requisite twice.

 

So yeah, we don't trust embeds. Not even my crew rebuilding the country wants them anywhere near us.

[hoffdaddy 1]

OK, sore spot for me as I went to school for Journalism and most know my current situation.

 

Embeds are holdovers from the days when journalistic integrity and fact based reporting were matters of tradition. Traditions that held each journalist to rule number focking one we are taught in Journalism 101: Report the facts, let the reader decide for himself.

 

Today's journalists are blind to that era and now swirl around a sensationalist toilet bowl desperate for a headline. They will spew anything they hear from some guy who knows some guy without checking sources even once much less the requisite twice.

 

So yeah, we don't trust embeds. Not even my crew rebuilding the country wants them anywhere near us.

 

I was about to type something about embedding someone with a serious bias. I defenitely understand, and wouldn't want them near me either.

[Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0]

I think the embedded reporters are doing more harm than good.

 

ETA: Yes, our image matters. I agree.

 

 

IF we do not have our own guys covering the war, who do you think will pick up the slack? Al-Jazeera? The Euro media?

[Toro 1]

IF we do not have our own guys covering the war, who do you think will pick up the slack? Al-Jazeera? The Euro media?

 

There is a difference in between having reporters in camps and such, but them tagging along on recon and support missions is a bit much. Those guys are over there getting shot at and they are worried about what that damn reporter is going to do if he accidentally shoots some guy who he thought was about to shoot him.

[Strike 4,042]

IF we do not have our own guys covering the war, who do you think will pick up the slack? Al-Jazeera? The Euro media?

 

LOL yeah, because our media has made us look greata!

[edjr 5,617]

Hopefully after a few more die, they will go the fock home and let the armed forces do their focking jobs. so they dont have to worry about having an article written about them, after they slap a woman senseless that won't get out of their way.

[Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0]

LOL yeah, because our media has made us look greata!

 

 

I AM NOT SUPPORTING OUR MEDIA OR SAYING THEY DO A FOCKING GOOD JOB. Merely making the point that from a strategic point of view, we would probably rather have the enemy we know close to us vs. the one we dont.

 

Dear god, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your chronic insertion of words into my mouth is getting focking ridiculous.

[Strike 4,042]

 

I AM NOT SUPPORTING OUR MEDIA OR SAYING THEY DO A FOCKING GOOD JOB. Merely making the point that from a strategic point of view, we would probably rather have the enemy we know close to us vs. the one we dont.

 

Dear god, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your chronic insertion of words into my mouth is getting focking ridiculous.

 

LOL. It was a joke

[hoytdwow 202]

I'd like embed Bonnie Bernstein, if you catch my drift

[pingpong 0]

IF we do not have our own guys covering the war, who do you think will pick up the slack? Al-Jazeera? The Euro media?

This was the reasoning Tommy Franks gave when asked about why he agreed in the first place. Despite the fact that we are using guns and bullets, the war will be won or lost based on the media coverage in the Arab world, as well as America.