Jewish World Review March 10, 2003 / 7 Adar II 5763

Clarence Page

Clarence Page
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

'Embedded,' but not 'in bed with' | "So, are you going to boot camp?" one of my colleagues, a seasoned overseas correspondent, asked.

No thanks, I responded. Been there, done that.

My colleague was talking about the training camp that the Pentagon has set up to help prepare the more than 600 war correspondents, including a crew from the Al Jazeera network, to be "embedded" with American fighting units in the war President Bush is preparing to make with Iraq.

Having been through a real boot camp once, I have no great yearning desire to be yelled at by drill sergeants again. Besides, I still remember the difference between a ration pack, an antipersonnel mine and a gauze pad for a sucking chest wound, thank you very much.

Besides, it is dangerous enough to live under terrorist attacks here in the U.S. I don't need to go halfway around the planet for my adrenaline rush.

Nevertheless, I applaud the Pentagon's effort to etch out some kind of a compromise between the conflicting cultural lenses through with which the media and the military view each other.

I also applaud my colleagues who may be heading into the jaws of hell and the fighting men and women who may be taking them there.

But I also have a word of advice to my embedded colleagues: Keep your skepticism, especially when your military handlers say "We're here to help you."

I know. I've worked both sides of this fence. When I was drafted during the Vietnam War, I was assigned, through an apparent glitch in Army computers, to a job for which I actually was qualified: "military journalist."

There's an old saying that military justice is to justice what military music is to music. The same, I soon, learned, is true of "military journalism."

In the military culture, "military journalism" means what civilians call "public relations" or simply "spin." Real journalists, the civilian kind, were viewed as falling into one of two categories, hostiles or friendlies, with very few falling in between.

My primary job was not to inform the public, I was reminded in so many words by various commanders. My primary job was to help the military. I appreciated the candor of my commanders, although my Inner Journalist kept nagging me to remember my appreciation of the public's right to know what its military is up to.

That's a big reason why today's Pentagon is glad to be rid of the draft, by the way. Enlistees feel less conflicted than draftees do.

That old Inner Journalist speaks to me again as I peruse the "Coalition Forces Land Component Command Ground Rules Agreement," which embedded journalists will be required to sign.

Among other limits, it forbids the release of information that pertains to "ongoing engagements" without a security review, which also is known as censorship. Some censorship is understandable in wartime, but one wonders: What constitutes an "ongoing engagement?" Under the guidelines, it is whatever the commander on the scene says it is.

The Pentagon assures us that reporters who don't want to go along with the boot camp, the embedding or the guidelines will be allowed to roam around and ferret information on their own, as some reporters did in Vietnam. Yet, as the Committee to Protect Journalists pointed out in a letter of concern to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld last week (full-disclosure alert: I am a member of CPJ's board), U. S. officials have offered "no convincing guarantees that 'unilateral' reporting (non-embedded journalists) … will be allowed to proceed without interference."

Good question. With all due respect to my embedded colleagues (if we journalists don't respect each other, who will?), our public is best served when that insider's view is balanced with some outsider views provided by those renegades get themselves a Jeep of their own (an official no-no for the Embedded Ones) and ride out to find their own stories without waiting to be escorted to them by our military handlers.

Instead, some pooled reporters in the first Persian Gulf war actually squealed to their military handlers when they spotted an independent who bolted the pool, which resulted in the independent correspondent's detention and questioning like a suspected spy.

Scuttling one's competition by any means necessary is a dirty trick that is not unknown in the highly competitive news world. The public is well served by healthy and unfettered competition between media.

But the public also is well served by a healthy skepticism in its journalists. Independent journalism serves democracy by keeping the powers of government, including the military, accountable to the public for whom they are fighting.

Journalists who travel with troops need not only to stay out of the way but also to avoid being so seduced by their camaraderie with troops, even while under fire, that they lose sight of what their audience back home needs to know. "Embedded" should never mean "in bed with."

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on Clarence Page's column by clicking here.


02/28/03: Bridging the black gender gap
02/19/03 Braun vs. Sharpton: A Dem dilemma
02/14/03: Bush's clean-up man
02/11/03: How feds fooled marijuana trial jurors
02/06/03: Time to re-think space shuttle's value
01/31/03: Why corporations like diversity, too
01/28/03: Shaq vs. Yao, a new world diss-order
01/23/03: Affirmative action will be remarketed under new name
01/13/03: Bond movie offers clues to Korea crisis
01/07/03: Dr. Frist to the rescue … of his party
01/02/03: Feeling a 'draft,' but not much
12/17/02: To rob a burning cross of its power
12/03/02: Closing black-white test-score gaps
11/19/02: Uncle Same wants your data
11/15/02: Marriage vs. 'player' impulse
11/11/02: How Oz can help the Dems
11/05/02: We reserve right to be complicated
10/22/02: What the pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby have in common
10/18/02: Take Sharpton seriously? For Prez??
10/15/02: A beauty and the bullies
10/08/02: Time to start 'fingerprinting' bullets
10/08/02: Poet laureate hater fell for Internet hoax
10/04/02: Keeping it real, despite howls from black 'leaders'
10/01/02: Revisiting the 'Jogger' horror
09/27/02: Sometimes freedom is a necessary nuisance
09/13/02: Foil Fidel with free trade
09/10/02: Measuring the myth of 'super weed'
09/06/02: A year later: A reality-check
09/03/02: Make better choices before some jury somewhere does
08/20/02: Bid farewell to the Cigarette Century
08/16/02: Rights matter, even in circus trials
08/09/02: Jousting with Rumsfeld's fog of wit
08/06/02: Covert action is cool again
08/01/02: Powell's premature obituaries
07/30/02: A common sense tip on internal snooping
07/18/02: Jacko plays race card badly
07/12/02: Last flight for a pioneer airman
07/08/02: Dems will miss Watts, too
06/28/02: 'Supreme Court reads polls, too
06/25/02: 'The Body' bites, then bows out
06/21/02: Punishment first, then the crime?
06/18/02: Reporting still risky for Haiti's press
06/14/02: Bush's security plan leaves large gaps
06/04/02: Fix FBI's culture gap first
05/28/02: Fidel's new apartheid for tourists
05/21/02: Now McKinney's lunacy sounds like the Democratic Party line
05/19/02: A paradox of historical proportions
05/14/02: 'Murphy Brown' revisited in age of Ozzy
05/10/02: America looks like a model of tolerance and inclusion
05/07/02: Forget it, Bill, you're no Oprah
04/26/02: Mapping out ethnic and racial change
04/23/02: A game of another color
04/19/02: It's high time to open up pot-law debate
04/11/02: 'Osbourne' family values rock, aging Ozzy quakes
03/22/02: Zimbabwe election leaves world sleepless
03/19/02: A slur? Where is thy sting?
03/15/02: A Pearl of wisdom for reporter's unborn son
03/12/02: Army race and gender policies on trial
03/08/02: A short list of losers to be left behind
03/05/02: Revenge of the 'mediasaurus'
02/26/02: Jihads aren't just for Muslims
02/26/02: It's hard to be 'objective' during wartime
02/19/02: Hollywood's new villain: Your HMO
02/12/02: Father of 'Manchild' leaves lasting message
02/08/02: $nookering the reparations crowd
01/31/02: Prisoners of a War of Words
01/29/02: One more Enron woe: Al Sharpton & company
01/25/02: Searching for slaves in bin Laden's attic
01/22/02: Andrew Young's newest 'friend'
01/08/02: Hard-earned lessons from 9-11
12/18/01: Whatever happened to questions about the birds and the bees?
12/14/01: The "White Negro" Taliban?
12/07/01: Jackson's turn to gloat
11/27/01: Friendly warning from a lover of liberty
11/21/01: The face of hunger is changing
11/15/01: Our troubled sense of trust
11/08/01: Lessons about terror from the 'hood
11/06/01: Getting used to the 'new normal'
11/02/01: Wicked ways to make them talk
10/30/01: It's not just about bin Laden
10/26/01: More than mail fell between the cracks
10/23/01: Terrorists threaten urban recovery, too
10/18/01: Sometimes, assassination warranted
10/15/01: Self-censorship rises again
10/12/01: Contradictions illustrate the complicated nature of the new terrorism
10/05/01: Look who's 'profiling' now
10/01/01: Don't trash liberty to save it
09/28/01: Life, love and cell phones during wartime
09/24/01: How to catch an elusive terrorist
09/21/01: The war I was waiting for
09/17/01: When rage turns to hate
09/13/01: Terror attack tests US, let's give right response
09/06/01: U.S. should have stayed and argued
09/04/01: Columbine killer's parents get upclose and personal
08/31/01: Virtual kids? Log me out
08/28/01: Two Africans, one black, one white, same fight
08/23/01: Sharpton for president
08/20/01: Shaking up the rules on keeping secrets
08/16/01: Bush's u-turn on racial goals
08/09/01: Outsider Bubba comes 'in' again
08/06/01: Not ready for 'color-blindness' yet
08/02/01: Immigration timing couldn't be better
07/26/01: Summer of Chandra: An international traveler's perspective
07/17/01: Overthrowing a régime is only the beginning
07/10/01: Big Brother is watching you, fining you
07/05/01: Can blacks be patriotic? Should they be?
06/19/01: Get 'real' about marriage
06/12/01: Amos, Andy and Tony Soprano
06/07/01: Getting tough with the Bush Twins
06/05/01: Bringing marriage back into fashion
05/31/01: "Ken" and "Johnnie": The odd-couple legal team
05/24/01: Sharpton's challenge to Jackson
05/22/01: Test scores equal (a) MERIT? (b) MENACE? (c) ALL OF ABOVE?
05/17/01: Anti-pot politics squeeze the ill
05/15/01: Was Babe Ruth black?
05/10/01: U.N.'s torture caucus slaps Uncle Sam
05/08/01: 'The Sopranos' a reflection of our times
05/03/01: 'Free-fire' zones, then and now
05/01/01: War on drugs misfires against students
04/26/01: Another athlete gets foot-in-mouth disease
04/23/01: 'Slave' boat mystery reveals real tragedy
04/19/01: McVeigh's execution show
04/12/01: Not this time, Jesse
04/05/01: Dubya is DEFINITELY his own man, you fools!
04/02/01: Milking MLK
03/29/01: The candidate who censored himself?
03/22/01: "Will Hispanics elbow blacks out of the way as the nation's most prominent minority group?"
03/19/01: Blacks and the SATs
03/15/01: The census: How much race still matters in the everyday life of America
03/12/01: Jesse is a victim!
03/08/01: Saving kids from becoming killers
03/01/01: Parents owe "Puffy" and Eminem our thanks

© 2001 TMS