Yesterday, at a lunch hosted by the Committee to Protect Journalists, New Yorker writer Jon Lee Anderson shared stories of his reporting trips to Iraq and Afghanistan with a group of CPJ staffers and journalists.
It was the usual brew of horror stories, signs of hope, and tales of the security precautions that Western reporters working in those countries have to take, but one thing Anderson said stuck with me. On his most recent trip to Iraq, he said, he embedded with a U.S. Army unit, something he normally doesn’t do. I don’t have a transcript in front of me, so I’ll have to paraphrase the rest about embedding with the military, but essentially he said that he doesn’t like to embed, though he knows lots of reporters who do and get great stories from being out with the troops. Anderson, though, is concerned about becoming too close to the troops and losing his perch as a disinterested observer.
While Anderson has done some remarkable work from Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several years, and I understand his point, his comments puzzled me. His concerns have been voiced by plenty of other reporters over the years, but I’ve yet to see evidence that embedded reporters are pulling punches. The New York Times’s Dexter Filkins, for example, has filed some amazing stuff as an embed in Iraq.
The standard argument to which Anderson subscribes goes like this: since the embedded reporter relies on the soldiers in his unit to protect him, and since the reporter spends so much time in close contact with these soldiers, a personal relationship based partly on mutual fear (of the insurgents, not each other) develops, making it harder for the reporter to dispassionately assess what he sees and hears.
There’s something to this, but it’s not enough to write off embedding as hopelessly biased (not that Anderson is, of course, its just not something he likes to do too much of.) As I said above, Dexter Filkins opened up a window into the daily lives of soldiers out in the field that we don’t get nearly enough of in the mainstream media. Many other reporters have done the same, and how else do you tell the full story of the war without getting out there and experiencing it with the troops? As I’ve said countless times before, it’s shameful that there aren’t reports from embedded reporters in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and on the nightly news every day. And if they’re not totally objective—which is a perverted concept in contemporary American journalism anyway—so what? War isn’t a black and white, he said-she said kind of thing. Let the reporting reflect that.

So let me get this straight...
"Professional journalists" are worried about maintaining objectivity when they depend upon American soldiers to protect them...
In a war?!......
Gotcha!...
Too bad Dan Rather wasn't afraid of becoming "too close" to his looney Democratic Bush-hating "source" of the forged "Rathergate" memos before he tried to tank a presidential election....
Too bad that the AP wasn't too "afraid" of recognizing that "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" may have had a bit of an axe to grind when he reported the fictitious "Burned Sunnis" he "saw" on the streets of Baghdad...
Too bad the New Republic wasn't "afraid" to regurgitate the silly fairy tales of the silly Howard Dean-supporting husband of one its own staffers who deliberately falsified a whole series of stupid anti-military nonsense...
Too bad that Reuters let loose a doctored photo deliberately designed to make Israel look bad....
Too bad that the "professional journalists" over at France 2 have been playing "hide the ball" for YEARS over what CJR dubs the "Unpeaceful Rest of Mohammed Al-Dura"
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 5 Oct 2007 at 09:24 PM
"Too bad that the AP wasn't too "afraid" of recognizing that "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" may have had a bit of an axe to grind"
Bit of an axe to grind translated: He wasn't willing to tow the company line and gave journalists what was really going on.
The "Burning Six" story was confirmed by 3 sources though one recanted later and is a single instance in scores of similar violence. Stick to that story as evidence all you want. You're just making yourself look foolish.
Posted by AhmNee
on Wed 10 Oct 2007 at 04:19 PM
AhmNee Wrote
He wasn't willing to tow the company line and gave journalists what was really going on.
padikiller responds
Hussein told the AP what he wanted them to print... And it worked. Until the blogosphere caught the BS...
Nobody... NOBODY (not Ed Wong of the NYT on the ground in Baghdad, not Michelle Malkin on an embed trip, not even Al-Jazeera) could substantiate the "burned Sunni" nonsense...
The AP KNEW he was an unofficial and unauthorized source, yet presented his fairy tales under the color of his title...
This is simply fraud... Pure and simple.
Posted by padikiller
on Wed 10 Oct 2007 at 07:32 PM
You've said yourself that he's been quoted in over 60 stories. If he's such an unreliable source ... this is all you have? One instance where he may have gotten bad info? That's it? Despite the fact that the story was based on an account from Imad al-Hashimi, a Sunni elder who told Al-Arabiya television about the killings, three independent eyewitnesses (two shopkeepers and a physician) and confirmed the story with hospital and morgue workers.
The information from Jamil Hussein is more reliable by orders of magnitude than your precious Michelle Malkin.
Posted by AhmNee
on Thu 11 Oct 2007 at 01:07 AM
REPEAT - The AP KNEW he was an unofficial and unauthorized source, yet presented his fairy tales under the color of his title...
ONE MORE TIME - The AP KNEW he was an unofficial and unauthorized source, yet presented his fairy tales under the color of his title...
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 11 Oct 2007 at 08:09 PM
That doesn't make him wrong or unreliable.
Unlike Malkin, her record of BS speaks for itself.
REPEAT
That doesn't make him wrong or unreliable.
Unlike Malkin, her record of BS speaks for itself.
Posted by AhmNee
on Thu 11 Oct 2007 at 09:50 PM