[Thumper]

ABC is doing a special on their embedded journalists going in with the boys. What are your opinions on this?

I think it's fascinating. Brass at this point is saying censorship rules will be almost non-existent. The journalists (yes, the lefty bunch) seem to agree so far.

In fact, these journalists seem amazingly optimistic, considering their usual stance concerning censorship. Evidently, this one is going to be All Access. Gives me renewed assurance that we are indeed the good guys.

To keep this gun related, does anyone know if these guys will be allowed personally owned weapons? I was involved last time, and I remember some interviewer from the UK making a big deal about his Hi Power. Yeah, 9mm at 1100 meters...he didn't even have a tangent sight...

;)

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

One was interviewed yesterday. No, they don't have, and don't want, weapons, personal or otherwise.

As long as the journalists don't endanger the troops, I'm in favor.

- pdmoderator

[Waitone]

Time will tell if it was a good idea. I understand the reason and it MAY be a good way to control newsfeeds. If I was a commander I would not want any unaffiliated "journalist" broadcasting live during my operations.

However, what will be the response when the US enters Bagdhad and the Iraqi's sense liberation. What happens when they begin to engage in that time honored tradition of retaliation, retribution, revenge, and settling of accounts. What will our embedded "journalists" do when the film a summary execution? You just know unpleasantness will show great on eye witness news. You just also know the military will want that stopped.

Should be interesting.

[Ironbarr]

are embedded time bombs - or worse - like juggleing grenades without pins.

On TV yesterday I caught one of those "We're out here, next to the Iraqi lines. It's midnight and dark. We can see the lights of Iraqi trucks out on the roads. It's 'scary'." guys showing what it's like to be there with the troops.

Then his cameraman turns the camera and shows, for the world to see, four or five troopers in night vision gear - the camera light in their faces yet.

That embedded fool should have been embedded in 5 feet of sand far as I'm concerned... stupid - absolutely stupid. 'Course, the troopers were in that Catch22 mode. But I'll bet they had their ideas.

IMO - if they want to be embedded, they should stand outside sick bay of a hospital ship - or around a field triage. But then, like Patton, I think they wouldn't rate that privelege.

My $point-Oh-Two.

-Andy

[synoptic]

Wasn't this tried in Vietnam somewhat with very bad repercussions? I just remember hearing something about live broadcasts from the war and how it really didn't help the public opinion.

If it means they stay out of the way of our troops, I am content with not knowing exactly what is going on over there all the time. I just have a feeling this is going to cause problems.

[Zundfolge]

I'm not sure what I think about this.

Uncensored pictures from the front can be misinterped ... like the famous picture of the South Vietnamese officer executing the "civilian" ... turns out the civilian was a VC terrorist. I think the leftist journalists know they can spin the pictures to make the US look bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/museums/images/pgallery/vietcong.jpg

[CZ-75]

Ticks also embed themselves.

[Justin]

I saw the same program, and found it really fascinating. For the first time in recorded history, we'll be able to watch battles and conflicts unfold in realtime. Of course, doing this is a big leap of faith with regard to how this war will go. If everything's going well, support for the conflict will probably increase. If the military ends up getting bogged down in urban conflict or chem/bio weapons attacks, the resulting bad publicity could be many times worse than what happened in Somalia.

And there's probably a hundred other different ways that this could impact how the war is fought and its outcome.

Wasn't this tried in Vietnam somewhat with very bad repercussions? No, they talked about VietNam, and there was a 3 day lag between when the film was shot, and when it aired.

[4570Rick]

I'm remembering Sam Donaldson interviewing troops about Desert Storm, then signing off GIVING HIS LOCATION .:cuss:

I'm remembering troops landing on the shores of Somalia.:fire: :banghead:

I don't think the talking heads should be anywhere near our troops.:mad:

[Thumper]

I'm remembering troops landing on the shores of Somalia.

No kidding...remember the guys dragging the Zodiacs by the glow of the floodlights?

Also, most of these journalists looked like lard rumps.

Oh well, I still think it'll be fascinating.

[S_O_Laban]

Journalsts are not known for their common sense. Case in point. There in a war zone and say they don't want any weapons. Ummm.....:confused: :confused: I'm sure Saddumb and the boys will be sure to take care of them, If you "know" what I mean.:evil:

[jsalcedo]

I read that the embedded journalists are having to go through a 6 week (basic) training.

They don't want out of shape reporters slowing the soliders
down. (I hear its hapened in the past.)

[Thumper]

The guys they kept showing last night were obese.

[synoptic]

Hopefully this is just a large misinformation campaign. We did a good job giving the iraqis false info last time, maybe they are planning on doing it again. I have a feeling there would be more military opposition to this if there wasn't something more to it.

[p35]

Anybody else catch that Doonesbury strip where the soldier was asking for permission to "embed" Ashleigh Banfield? First time in years that strip's been funny!

[mons meg]

I'm currently reading Andy Rooney's war memoir, and it's fascinating how they went about it back then. Rooney and most of his compatriots at Stars and Stripes magazine were actually in the Army. They had the backing of General Eisenhower to preserve their editorial autonomy as well.

Of course, there was no way they could have given positions away in realtime...

[trooper]

Jeeze, Zundfolge...

You don't NEED to misinterpret this one to get bad PR (and rightly so). No way to just execute a prisoner, be he a terrorist or not.


Regards,

Trooper

[buzz_knox]

In the incident in question in Vietnam, the VC had just launched an ambush against the general. The prisoner had been captured during the fight bearing arms. Under martial law, what the general did was legal, if brutal.

As for the journalists, there's good and bad. The bad is that they are likely to misrepresent what they see based on their own biases. The good is that video evidence should refute a lot of it, and they will also serve as a hedge against Saddam getting away with his plan to have Iraqi troops dressed as American and British soldiers kill civilians, and blame it on us.

[bogie]

When I was a kid, I wanted to be Ernie Pyle. When I grew up, I was a military journalist.

[Joe Demko]

Yep. Journalists suck. Good thing that virtually everything you know about events outside your house comes from sources other than journalists.

[buzz_knox]

Yup. Without journalists, we'd never have known such amazing things like: Ford trucks explode when you attach rocket motors to their gas tanks; the US used nerve gas to kill NVA troops and assasinate American defectors; assault weapons are the primary choice of gangbangers; and gunowners are all KKK members, who want to overthrow the gov't.

[Blackhawk]

After Vietnam, I certainly don't have any positive bias toward the idea, but I'll wait to see how things work out....

[D_Burchfield]

Are they going to issue the journalists one of those precious Chemical suits?:D