Armchair Pundits

Time To Rethink Imbedded Journalism

Funny how garbage like this happens around sweeps time. MSM has gone apoplectic concerning the recent shooting of an insurgent in a Fallujah mosque. It seems the scent of an Abu Gharib like scandal, has sent reporters scurrying for their laptops and cameras with a renewed sense of ratings glee. Once again, a questionable decision has set us back light years in our efforts to keep the peace and win the hearts & minds of Iraqi citizens. The herculian efforts of our Marines have lead to the obliteration of insurgents and their strongholds (a good thing). Through this process, our troops have uncovered the blood drenched butchering chambers of those who torture, slaughter, and behead, with impugnity. Meanwhile, such effort and bravery from our troops is overshadowed, as MSM puts forth it's best efforts to palliate, and the moral equivalency arguments become rampant yet again. Hugh's post yesterday was spot on, as he delineated the lack of clarity in such thinking.

All of this serves to remind me, as a citizen of this great nation, that I need to assist the war effort. As such, I think it is high time we engage in thoughtful discussion concerning the merits of inbedded journalism. I wonder if NBC photo-journalist Kevin Sites, thought about the potential fallout when he sent the video to his producers? Did he think about how it might play on Al Jazeera? The broader Arab world? Did the images shown on video give us a context as to what the marine had just been through? From watching the tape, you almost get the sense that the victim [in this case] was just an innocent in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Powerful image; however, he was in fact a combatant. Let's keep in mind that the victim, in the preceding hours was probably trying his best to kill this very marine and his brothers. Emotionally volatile situation, don't you think? Check out this report, particularly the bottom half as it gives thought to context.

I would have liked to have seen some discretion on the part of the reporter. I think reporters used to know what that was a long time ago. For instance, it was commonly known that JFK was a philanderer, but that wasn't something you read much about in those days. Was it out of respect for the president? Good of the country? Who knows-because today, the right to know trumps the need for discretion or responsible reporting. Why should we care what they put on tv? We the people need to know! I have argued repeatedly that war is hell. There is no such thing as a politically correct war, where only enemies die and innocents never suffer. In the fog of such destruction, horrible things can and do happen. That doesn't make it right, but that is reality. To paraphrase Peggy Noonan (of WSJ Opinion Journal fame), where did we get the idea that war was something other than what it has always been? Awful. Garbage like this happens and always has. It always will. Again, that doesn't make it right, but the actions of one marine are not representative of all marines. Unfortunately this line has become more blurred and our armed forces find themselves denigrated all the more viscerally. Media reporting such as this, have lead many to speculate on how the MSM of today would have reported during WWII. Lileks gives us a great example. It gives one pause doesn't it? I wonder what the cameraman was thinking as he photographed the insurgent's death?

Wow, they killed an enemy right in front of me! Poor slob. Never saw it coming. I can't believe they killed him like that. What are they thinking? Did he deserve this? Well, he was trying to kill us earlier, BUT...I have never seen a human being die. This is so surreal.

posted by Grisby @ 10:46 AM