This latest phase has coincided with both the financial crisis and turmoil in the media industry. Time magazine was the latest bureau to shut its physical bureau here, in June. The TV networks maintain skeleton staffs—often with no correspondents. Still dangerous, Iraq has become a way station for new reporters on their first foreign assignments. For the most part they expect very little from the military, and that’s generally what they get. This lack of access means that journalists—and by extension, Americans in general—are much less able to determine what’s happening there beneath the surface. And in Iraq, almost everything important happens beneath the surface.
Iraq is no longer raging with violence, but it is a broken country. More than a million of its citizens have fled, a few of them with government money. Many government ministries, divided among political and sectarian factions under a system devised by the U.S., are barely functioning. A budget crisis is depressing everything from expansion of the army to the repair of decrepit schools. In the bigger picture, the U.S. has
found itself in the middle of Kurd-Arab tensions it helped create by disbanding the Iraqi Army and deploying Kurdish forces to secure unprotected areas in 2003. All of this in a country pivotal to U.S. interests in the region.
Although its role has diminished, the U.S. military is still involved in almost every facet of Iraqi society, particularly in rural areas, where soldiers, marines, and special forces do everything from mediating disputes to providing drinking water to conducting combat operations. Counterinsurgency operations have essentially been placed off limits to the press. Reporters asking to cover specific missions are directed to
ribbon cuttings. This reduced access and reduced engagement with reporters has perpetuated the convenient fiction that the servicemen and women in Iraq are simply waiting around to go home. They’re not.
The U.S. still has perhaps the most transparent military in the world. Almost no other country allows the kind of scrutiny on the ground that the U.S. allows reporters during combat operations. Yet a confluence of factors—relief that Iraq is out of the news, the reality that the U.S. is taking a back seat, and the press-averse commanders who are no longer being required to engage with the media—has had the same effect. In the waning days of this six-year-old war, young men and women are being killed out of sight and apparently out of mind.
Journalists in Iraq cherish the memory of embed invitations from the days when the military was courting the media. They seem like quaint anachronisms today. The best of them read like spa menus—offering different options for one-, two-, or three-day stays. Now reporters must fight for military approval and then potentially spend days waiting for flights, all for uncertain access in the end. This has led many reporters to abandon embedding as a reporting tool.
Colonel Boylan, who saw the length of the average media embed shrink from more than five days to less than two after he left Iraq, has a different perspective on the decline of embedding. News organizations face cutbacks and shrinking staffs, he says, as well as declining reader interest in the war at home. “I think there is a tiredness on the part of the units with a microscope looking over their shoulder when the reporter isn’t willing to put in the time or effort to get to know who they are,” he says. “The embed process for the most part is dead.” The part about the shrinking staffs is certainly true. About two dozen reporters from U.S. news outlets are in Iraq on average, a fraction of the number at the height of the war.
Yet the military is increasingly reticent to deal with those who do remain. Even driving onto some military bases for interviews requires embed approval—a form which asks reporters, including those based in Iraq, to submit samples f their work and story ideas. Coverage is often killed by bureaucracy.

They (the media that you represent) are so interested in the blood and guts and anything negative that press releases have to be used as positive reinforcement. Otherwise would those stories be covered at all? Yes there is still violence but it is still important that the American public know that the police are being trained and that officials cut ribbons to schools being rebuilt etc. Servicemembers put themselves in harms way enough, why should they put themselves out any further to whiney journalists on some thrill seeking mission.
#1 Posted by SCrumes, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 10:40 AM
Maybe the change has something to do with the change in the Commander In Chief? Certainly that's an avenue worth exploring.
#2 Posted by Joe, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 03:23 PM
We were begging for embeds. We had a number of outlets that wanted to embed with us but couldn't put the dollars together. One was told their insurance would be cancelled if they sent their journo into country. Of course - our unit was doing logistics - so that wasn't sexy enough for most journalists - even though our 17000+ Soldiers were out there every day just like everyone else. Training Iraqi mechanics isn't all that interesting either.
#3 Posted by Paul, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 04:16 PM
Interesting assertion: The media wants to embed but isn't welcome. As far back as '05 the number of embeds had dwindled from somewhere around 700 down to roughly two dozen. Reason wasn't because we didn't welcome them -- it was because they weren't interested.
#4 Posted by Cliff W. Gilmore, CJR on Tue 24 Nov 2009 at 02:56 PM