Michael Fumento is an embedded reporter working in al Anbar, western Iraq. Indian country. Most of his colleagues – the ones whose daily reporting from within the Green Zone so influences our perspective on the war – are not embedded. Some go so far as to call embeds “jock sniffers.”
Which is a psychologically revealing choice of words, it seems to me.
But Fumento doesn’t take it lying down, penning a hard-edged comparison that will likely get him plucked off of many a J-school Christmas card list:
The sad truth is that the mainstream media have no interest in covering the Iraq War for what it is, observes (Hollywood filmmaker Patrick) Dollard. He says they are interested in Iraq only so far as it is useful as a weapon against their self-imagined mortal political enemy, George W. Bush. The embeds, however, want the real picture — and we want to tell the truth about it to the world.
Which is something their detractors simply refuse to understand. Screenwriter-director Nora Ephron says that dispatches from both soldiers and embeds are worthless, because we’re “too close” to the war.
I suppose that’s possible at times to be too close to the war. Certainly anyone who is actively being shot at, or, like Dollard, whose vehicles keep getting blown up by IEDs probably feels too close to the war in those unforgiving moments.
On the other hand, at some point these reporters actually have to find a little bit of sanctuary with which to type out their story, and one would think they do that in a somewhat less agitated state of mind.
What’s the alternative: That a reporter too close to the war if he’s seen it, but sufficiently removed if he hasn’t?
This is going to be heresy, I know, but Iraq is a new war and information should flow from it in it’s purest form.
Let the boys talk. There is plenty of blogging, by the soldiers in the trenches, being done from Iraq, but very little of their real thoughts and opinions make it out onto the screens at home. I understand that operational and strategic information must be censored. It seems to me that what’s happening is way beyond that.
We should let the troops say it the way they see it and let the chips fall where they may.
I would much rather hear news form embedded writers and photogs for true, compelling reportage. The immediacy and raw emotion literally grab you and suck you in. There’s no comparison.
Leave the “analysis” for the journo-remfs and talking heads on the Big 3. 4? 5?
Plus, to transmit images/stories all you need is your laptop and sat phone. No need to go back inside the wire.
Journalists are trained not to empathize with their subjects. It’s just business, not personal. You’re supposed to tell the story, not care about it. Maintain your objectivity at all costs.
The trouble is that a) war is an incredibly personal experience, and b) the pronouncements of ivory-tower J-school profs (not unlike the journalists in Baghdad, come to think of it) it’s impossible to be completely objective about any story. Can’t do it. Everybody has their preconceptions, especially when it comes to Big Stories like wars.
For some, their preconceptions fit them perfectly for being an embed. They believe in the soldier’s story and want to tell it. Occasionally they get very upset when soldiers turn out to be rough around the edges. Preconceptions again. I don’t think you get that as much as you used to, but still.
For others, the soldier’s story doesn’t fit their preconceptions, so they’re not interested. They can tell the story they want to tell from Baghdad – they don’t need to get shot at to get their story. As Fumento observed, they don’t even need to go to Baghdad. Looks good on the old resum*
Journalists are trained not to empathize with their subjects. It’s just business, not personal. You’re supposed to tell the story, not care about it. Maintain your objectivity at all costs.
The trouble is that a) war is an incredibly personal experience, and b) the pronouncements of ivory-tower J-school profs (not unlike the journalists in Baghdad, come to think of it) it’s impossible to be completely objective about any story. Can’t do it. Everybody has their preconceptions, especially when it comes to Big Stories like wars.
For some, their preconceptions fit them perfectly for being an embed. They believe in the soldier’s story and want to tell it. Occasionally they get very upset when soldiers turn out to be rough around the edges. Preconceptions again. I don’t think you get that as much as you used to, but still.
For others, the soldier’s story doesn’t fit their preconceptions, so they’re not interested. They can tell the story they want to tell from Baghdad – they don’t need to get shot at to get their story. As Fumento observed, they don’t even need to go to Baghdad. Looks good on the old resum*
Ack. Left out a critical word. “Despite the pronouncements,” it should read in the second paragraph. Sorry about the weird characters, too. Old browser must be responsible, I guess.
Some people might have preconceptions about war in general, but any specific ones they have about Iraq they’ve likely gotten from the MSM, if that is their only news source.
Life is busy these days and I find most people I know prefer to be spoon-fed their news in measured doses. They don’t care to dig deeper to find the real truth. Which is a pity because they remain ill-informed and in the dark.