AJB37
Well-Known Member
That seems a lot like being a travel writer and not actually visiting the locals you write about. The journalist would probably miss a lot and not write with the same detail had they actually seen what they are writing about.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
British Royal Marine KIA saving reporter
- Thread starter Deror
- Start date
That seems a lot like being a travel writer and not actually visiting the locals you write about. The journalist would probably miss a lot and not write with the same detail had they actually seen what they are writing about.
Whoa whoa, I didnt say Big Navy (Although I am really saying DOD PAOs) doesnt have an agenda.
What I am saying is reporters tend to be more bias. I believe this because Reporters are under immense amounts of pressure to "produce". Their way is being paid either by their company or out of pocket. If they are freelance they only get paid for stories that get picked up or they dont get paid. Often embeds are very short compared to deployed personnel in that area. I would compare it to writing a thesis two weeks into class and relying on what "some dude" you know talked about at the bar as a source. Its tough.
PAOs are just not under the same pressures to produce, and have no incentive to produce articles inaccurately. There is a large tolerance for the number of articles they write, they will get roughly the same pay, they will get roughly the same ribbons and roughly the same promotions. If they take the iconic photo that defines OEF through the ages they dont get another dime.
No, I said that the benefits of having free press on the battlefield are so marginal that the risks soldiers are taking for them isn't worth it.
Details would be lost,
but is that extra detail worth the extra risk to people's lives?
Does that extra detail help prevent war crimes or significantly increase transparency?
I would argue no.
Let's say a reporter wanted to hear how the Taliban raped women in a border village. Instead of embedding in a unit to visit the village for a day maybe he could hire an Afghan to go the village and pay the expenses for a few witnesses to travel down and get a few days with the villagers. It would be safer for all parties involved and probably cheaper as well.
This is a very naive statement. The bottom line here is that Navy PAOs are in the business of portraying the Navy in a positive light, which is accurate most of the time, but for the times when the truth may get overlooked because it would tend to discredit the Navy, then you want a free press with access. We all suffer the fickle nature of the press and their tendency to portray military operations in a negative or sensational light, but we need those kinds of checks and balances in our society to keep us honest and hold our feet to the fire when we do actually screw something up. If we're allowed to sweep things under the rug that are "inconvenient" then we fail to learn from our mistakes and will repeat them.
Brett
Thats the thing in todays world we cant sweep things under the rug.
MrSaturn said:
Case point Abu Ghraib. Was there a reporter there? No.
Was there a huge investigation that highlighted some very "inconvenient stuff"? Yes
Someone was concerned with the images, what was happening and sent them to the press. Seems free press worked very well without a media embed on the front lines.
This isnt some conspiracy and some tyrannical way to squash rights. I believe it is irresponsible to send soldiers into combat with embed reporters. The benefits are not worth the risk.