Embedded Reporters--Unintended Consequences ???


April 18, 2003, 10:36 AM
Just noticed something about broadcast news coverage coming out of Iraq.

On several occasions I've seen and listened to reports talking about things firearms with a greater degree of comfort and accuracy than I seen and heard in the past.

Vocabulary is accurate, proper, and expressive. There doesn't seem to be any stretching to describe what they see.

AK's are referred to as AK's, not assault weapons. M-16's are differentiated from shotguns.

Pistols ae referred to as 9mm pistols.

My question.

I know the press corp and the future leaders of the media just received an education in the reality of war and the character of the American military personnel.

Has the media inadvertently and unintentionally been educated in the reality of firearms?

If you enjoyed reading about "Embedded Reporters--Unintended Consequences ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
April 18, 2003, 11:09 AM
We can only hope. :)

Henry Bowman
April 18, 2003, 11:59 AM
Or maybe those black guns are OK in the hands of the government. They become evil assault weapons again in the same (civilian) hands back home.:banghead:

Or, maybe, you're right.:)

Byron Quick
April 18, 2003, 11:59 AM
They are certainly more knowledgeable now than they were. Hopefully, that will be a good thing.

Thought: Anyone know any of these guys? Or know anyone who does know them? Would probably be worthwhile to invite them to a range.

April 18, 2003, 12:02 PM
I'm surprised that others haven't made this connection. You will be seeing all of these, or most as the case may be, going out around other journalist? and forever more they will not believe the "Colonel Blimp" concept of the military. They will question the fallacies that are spouted to them while in school.

How much of an impact will it have? From little acorns great oaks grow. When you learn to question some of your indoctrination the rest will at some time follow.

April 18, 2003, 12:09 PM
Heh, I started feeling a little better about Koppel after his little bit on the wonders of the lowly MRE...

April 18, 2003, 12:27 PM
Henry's got it.
It's an M16 or M4 in the hands of our Military, but in a Civvie's hands it's an assault weapon.

April 18, 2003, 12:51 PM
Remember the reporters had to go through an abbreviated basic training course? I remember as it was in the local papers for a couple days, it was at Fort Dix in NJ.

April 18, 2003, 01:18 PM
It probably also made a difference depending on who you were watching. I spend most of my time watching Fox News when I'm catching up...for that "fair & balanced" coverage :D

April 18, 2003, 04:45 PM
From what I can tell, most of the 'grunt' reporters that were embedded (I'm really starting to hate that word) are either of the ‘been there done that’ war reporter or ex-military themselves. And maybe they’ve seen the realities of firearms up close and personal, unlike the talking heads in the suits back at headquarters.

My ¢.02

April 18, 2003, 05:10 PM
A few of those reporters got into some dicey situations. I remember one who was riding in M113 APC whose column got caught in an ambush. He found himself spotting Iraqis and pointing out their positions to the .50 cal. BMG gunner and others on the APC.

He watched one Iraqi he had pointed out to the gunner get hit by the 50 cal. and "splattered" against a wall.

The M113 is not heavily armored, and the reporter knew that. Most of the time he usually rode in a Bradley fighting vehicle.

I am a little surprised at Ted Koppel traveling as an imbedded reporter. He is not exactly a spring chicken. I thought his reports were pretty good.

April 18, 2003, 05:19 PM
The one thing I've found amusing is the news types in the studios were calling the Iraqi firearms "AK-47s" while the "feet on the ground combat veteran reporters" used the more stylish "Kalashnikov" name to describe the rifles.

Mal H
April 18, 2003, 05:40 PM
I think a few have already touched on the main reason why the embedded reporters are giving some relatively unbiased reports. They, of course, either asked to be included or were asked to go based on their experiences and lack of hesitation to go into such situations. I doubt that any reporters or camerapersons, male or female, would have gone along if they were of the "Oh no! Guns! Evil, evil! Get me outta here!" type. I have been very impressed by some of the cool heads they showed in some very dicey situations.

April 21, 2003, 03:16 PM
While it may now be 'stylish' for american reporters to call them Kalashnikovs, that's always the normal term outside the U.S., or at least in europe and the middle east.

Likewise in the UK, "armalite" or "armalite rifle" is the usual term for an AR-15/M16 regardless of who manufactured it.

April 21, 2003, 10:44 PM
I think it was Newt Gingrich on Hannity and Colmes who was saying that this embedding will give the next generation of reports a better respect for the military. LIke Dan Rather and Co. reported and lived through the Vietnam era and that is where they learned to dislike the military and government and probably there anti ways. This new breed have learned to respect what the military does and maybe that will lead more support of the second amendment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Embedded Reporters--Unintended Consequences ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!