Embedded war correspondents are limited in their ability to provide an unbiased and comprehensive view of war. Being embedded with a single military unit restricts reporters from seeing the full scope and impact of the conflict. They are also subject to ground rules set by the military that censor what they can report. True coverage of war requires speaking to civilians and multiple sides, not just the experiences of the embedded unit. Overall alternatives like minimizing embedding time or using new technologies can provide better war reporting.

1. Embedded War
Correspondents are a
Bad Idea

2. What is an embedded war correspondent?
• An embedded war correspondent is a
reporter who is assigned to a military unit
and travels with them.
• The reporter will file reports with the unit,
reporting on battles, events and the troops
themselves.
• Reporter usually stays with the unit for
weeks, sometimes even months, at a time.

3. Why does embedding exist today?
• Embedding is accepted by the majority in the
media as being the best way to cover war.
• It is considered relatively safe, and embedded
reporters get the best look at the front lines and
the best understanding of the troops themselves.
• Reporters have been embedding with troops
during war in some capacity for years. The
practice dates back as far as World War I.
• But because you’ve done something for years,
does that mean it’s still a good idea now…?

4. Embedded war correspondents are a
bad idea, and here’s why.
• Despite their great look at the war, embedded
reporters don’t get to report most of what they
see.
• This is due to the military placing restrictions on
certain types on information that reporters can’t
release, thanks to a “Ground Rules” contract that
all embedded reporters have to sign.
• But it’s also partially due to news organizations’
desire to portray a more sanitized, patriotic view of
the war, so readers won’t get offended.

5. But wait! There’s more!
• In addition to those tangible restrictions, there is
also the pressure that’s placed on the reporters
themselves to write good things about the troops
they’re with.
• Would you want to get on the bad side of the
only people who are standing between you and
the enemy?
• Conflict of interest situation.

6. Seeing the bigger picture
• Embedded reporters, even when they do have
reports published, still don’t see the whole picture
of the war.
• By always being with a particular group, the
reporter only sees them, their attitudes, their
conditions and the events that they are involved
with.
• The reporter does not get to write about civilians
who are caught in the middle of the conflict. And
even when they try, civilians might not talk with
troops around.

7. Arguments in support of embedding
• There is no other way for reporters to
appropriately cover the front lines!
 So the reporters should travel with the
troops to the front line when something
is going down. Then when the
operation is over, the reporter could fall
back to central command, and join a
different military unit for the next
operation. Who said a reporter has to
be with a specific group of soldiers for
weeks at a time to do that?

8. Arguments in support of embedding
• But what about the intimate look into the
lives of the troops!?
• Embedded reporters do get the best look
into the situation of the troops, but like I
said before, they don’t get any look at all
into the lives of other troops, or the
civilians.
• A reporter who deals with many different
military units all over a war zone will notice
differences and be able to compare.

9. Arguments in support of embedding
• Won’t it be easier to get a military officer to talk
if you’re embedded?
• Just because something’s more difficult
doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
• Besides, is a job being more challenging
really a bad thing? By working harder,
you’ll probably get better information than
you would if you just got spoon-fed
information that may or may not be good
all the time.

10. Arguments in support of embedding
• Embedding is the safest way to cover war!
• The million dollar defense.
• Embedding is the safest way to cover
war, and that, along with the military’s
ability to control the information, is the
reason for its continued existence.
• Unembedded reporters are out there, as
are freelancers, but considering safety,
what’s the best solution?

11. Alternatives to embedding
• Minimize the time reporters spend with a
particular military unit when traveling alongside the
troops is necessary.
• Reporters who are waiting between operations to
cover should try and go out to talk to civilians and
experience the real cost of the war. Doing so with
a couple bodyguards would be preferable.
• Take advantage of modern technology while
reporting.

12. The future of war reporting?
• Twitter updates from Iraq?
• A photographer posting a complete image
gallery of all of his/her photos online, including all
of the ones that were “too real to be printed.”
• With more news outlets appearing online, a more
comprehensive look into multiple wars at the
same time? (As opposed to the current tunnel
vision of one international story at a time.)
• Reports or blogs from the soldiers themselves?
• How will the military adapt?

13. Conclusion
Are embedded war correspondents a good idea?
NO!
• The conflict of interest coupled with the
restrictions and censorship make the process
journalistically unethical and ineffective.
• Especially given that there ARE alternatives.