Media and War: Iraq

Most people do not to put themselves in dangerous situations. They do not wish to have bullets miss them by millimeters and do not want to run the risk of losing their lives to improvised explosive devices carefully place on roadsides by people whom want to take their lives. Most people never want to see a person, possibly a friend, lose their lives do to extreme blood loss from losing an arm or a leg. Most people never want to experience the horrors of war first hand. Soldiers are not the only people who put their lives on the line. There are those who prepare for battle in a different way. They do not arm themselves with weapons and ammunition. They arm themselves with cameras and video equipment. These individuals are fighting for the right of information. They have seen firsthand the heartbreak, the victories and the closeness of Soldiers. Media reporters have begun a new era of reporting wars. Never in the past has a war been so widely broadcasted. Reporters during the second Iraq War have gotten up close and personal with the ugly faces of war.

Beginning in 2003, journalists were embedded with military units. Embedded journalism “refers to news reporters being attached to military units involved in armed conflicts” (Wikipedia). In this never before attempted mission, reporters were given the opportunity to become closely involved and report from the front lines. There were around nine hundred and twenty official embedded slots offered to the media. The media organizations were offered those slots, which were divided among the different branches of the military. The Army held the most opportunities for reporters to become embedded, three hundred and fifty one slots, while Special Operations held only fifteen slots. However, not all of the embedded slots were used. Reports vary, but estimates of embedded reporters, journalists and television crews soared over five hundred at the beginning of the second Iraq War. Over three thousand reporters and television crews were scattered within the region (Media at War). There were freelance journalist, television personnel and others in country during the beginning stages of the war. As the fighting continues the numbers have dropped consistently, few remain embedded at this point. The access to the fighting was not limited to large scale media outlets; members of the media community were all given access. Seventy percent of allotted slots were given to the national media, ten percent to local media and twenty percent to international media sources (Reporting from the Front, page 51).

While embedded reporters had been granted never before given access to the front lines the risks were high. Many concerns were voice at the beginning and during the embedded period. Safety of civilian reporters was a major concern throughout the operations. While many reporters were embedded, estimates range between fifty and sixty individuals who were actually directly involved within combat (Media at War). Soldiers have an abundance of training on how to handle combat, the goal of the training is to ensure when in a combat zone and direct combat Soldiers know their mission and roles. Soldiers simulate combat situations and stresses before they ever deploy to a war torn country, reporters do not. However they did receive a small amount of training to ensure their safety. Unilateral reporters did not receive such training therefore, were at a higher risk. The Soldiers were then given the task of ensuring the reporters safety and security. They could not however, guarantee security of individual reporters not embedded within their unit. Reporters who chose to leave their embedded units or were never embedded to begin with ran the even higher risk of being injured, captured or killed. Non embedded reporters were called unilateral reporters, they caught rides with military forces whenever they could and went were ever they could, they would in an essence “surf the convoys” (Reporting from the Front, page 159). There have been casualties amongst the news community, reporters, television crews and journalists have all paid the ultimate price in reporting news front the front lines. From the start of the second Iraq War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, two hundred and fifty six individuals have lost their lives according to the International News Safety Institute (http://www.newssafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5425&Itemid=1004. deaths began at the start of the war and continue to this day. Death is quite a penalty to pay for giving the world the opportunity to witness war.

There were also many concerns about the information that the reporters would be allowed to release to the public. Some sources believe that the military censored and withheld information from the public as a way to persuade the people of the world into believing the war was just and necessary (Weapons of Mass Persuasion). However, a very large concern was the operational success and the safety of Soldiers and the media. In the very beginning of the embedding processes journalists and news companies were required to sign documentation concerning what they could and could not report on. “No details of future operations, no private satellite telephones or cell phones, no travelling in their own vehicles whilst in an embedded status, no photography showing level of security or an enemy prisoner of war or a detainee’s face, nametag or other identifying features” (Media at War, page 16). “Under the embedding guidelines, journalists agree not to disclose exactly where they are or everything they see.” (Terence Smith, www.pbs.org). Military operations and safety depended on the reporter’s discretion. If a reporter gave out the wrong information, they could have possibly endangered themselves and the success of future missions. Locations, times, dates and other intelligence information is kept secret for a reason, the safety and success of individuals at war depend on secrecy. Information could not be allowed to pass into the wrong hands. Lines were drawn and were expected to be followed. If a journalist, reporter or other news source crossed the line, they were asked to leave or escorted out of the country and away from the unit they were embedded with. In March of 2003, three reporters were asked, or made to leave the country. Peter Arnett, reporter NBC, agreed to be interview by an Iraqi controlled television channel without authorization. Because of his actions he was not only asked to leave Iraq, but he lost his job. Philip Smucker was escorted out of the country because of a live CNN interview in which he “provided to much information about troop position” (Reporting from the Front). Minute to minute details of the war were readily available. Technological advances let people, who were safe inside their homes across the oceans of the world, see what war is like first hand, in real time footage. Security of those in harm’s way was taken seriously.

Individuals covering the war hand many different reasons for risking their lives to bring home the news. Some, like Anne Garrles from National Public Radio, wanted to be the “eyes and ears on the ground”. Ed Timms, Dallas Morning News, went to “provide my newspaper’s readers with some insight into the situation in Iraq” (Reporting from the Front). Patrick O’Donnell, author, went to tell the Marines who took Fallujah story’s. Some of the reporters saw massive military casualties, seventy percent of the unit O’Donnell was embedded with, did not make it home. Reporters, journalists and others felt the world deserved to know what was happening in Iraq. Some reporters concentrated on causalities, some on rebuilding and some on the stories of the people affected by the war. For many family members and communities the reports from the media was news of their loved ones overseas. Small town newspapers had journalist embedded, and those men and women were a direct line to their children, mothers, fathers and friends fighting in Iraq. The articles written by reporters were sometimes the only news family received about the units fighting in Iraq. Others like Bill Owens “took pictures of people and sent them back to wives and mothers via emails” (Reporting from the Front page 159) Having embedded media allowed for the first time family member’s real up to date information their loved ones could not give them.

While in country, embedded reporters were expected to stay within their units unless they were compelled to do otherwise. While embedded they were at least somewhat protected. The media members were not bound to stay with the units forever, they were allowed to leave whenever they felt it was necessary for them to do so. Once ready to leave, they were allowed to, as time and security allowed. Many individuals decided the risk was too high for them to stay embedded with some units, such as the ones who were the first into Fallujah, those units which did sustain high casualties. The reporters were not made to stay with the units, by no means was it required for them to continue if they felt their lives were in jeopardy. Many reporters never saw combat actions and those who did will likely never forget it.
Many first happened within the war that would not have happened without the reporters and journalists being so close to the action. Cheryl Diaz Meyer, a female photographer, was embedded with a Tank Battalion. After telling a female officer in the military what unit she would be embedded into the female officer replied, “You know, if you were a woman Marine, you’d be making history. There are no women who will be as forward in battle as you will be.” (Reporting the Front, page 91) Women are simply not in Tank Battalions, which is a combat driven career in the military, which women are not allowed to do. It was the first war where reporters were embedded along the troops and it was the first war which had so many reporters as causalities.

Reporters and military personnel lived side by side and endured the same hardships together.
There was concern that the reporters would not be objective because of the growing relationships with the Soldiers they were with. Some major news organizations told their employees to use the term them, not we, especially when doing live coverage. Some found that difficult because they were with them and went through everything the Soldiers went through. “It’s generally people who have not been embedded who say, ‘You can’t say we.’ They didn’t live it.” (Cheryl Diaz Meyer, Reporting the Front, page 94) Reporters were directly affected by the actions the military members took while embedded. They had a vested interest in the success of operations; their own survival depended upon it. It is hard to remain unbiased when your life it in the hands of others. “Journalists were slowly enveloped into an unfamiliar occupational world of the military from which there was no chance of distancing themselves.” (Media at War, page 62) Living amongst Soldiers for an extended period of time teaches empathy and sympathy.
Reporters that were embedded told more than a story. They gave family members piece of mind in small town newspaper additions. They bonded with troops and share their lives. They showed the public the different faces of war. The media covered casualty numbers along with welfare missions combat roles and elections. Sometimes they divulged too much information that could have risk people’s lives, but as a whole they contributed to the people’s perception of war. They risked their lives to get information to the masses, and while doing that some civilian reporters and journalists lost their lives. They paid the ultimate sacrifice for their jobs and in doing so they showed some of the true horrors of war.