Being an embedded journalist in a war zone has its benefits. “Being an embedded reporter also means a journalist has official “accreditation,” with the unassailable right to be in a particular area with the military,” said Dan Rather, a well known television journalist.
The question here though, lies in whether or not being an embedded journalist is the best way to report on a war.
According to Rather, “Embedded journalists…could be given better access and mobility to gain a better overall perspective of events occurring in the battle zone.”
If this is true, then how can people be sure that they are getting all, as well as the most accurate, news from reporters in places like Afghanistan and Iraq? When award-winning journalist Jeremy Scahill gave his accounts from being an un-embedded journalist in Afghanistan he had many stories to share that the main media has never touched on. (To view some of Scahill’s work, click here)
If a journalist is embedded, he or she are restricted to going where the military goes, and to where they can be provided protection. This does not always lend itself to providing a journalist with the best facts or experiences upon which they can base their stories.
Scahill pointed out during his speech that most embedded journalists in Afghanistan spend their time in the more modern cities, surrounded with restaurants like Pizza Hut and coffee shops, in which he called a “war with cappuccino.”
Since both embedded and un-embedded journalists exist, Americans should start to think about getting their news from a combination of both, and not just relying on big media to bring them their news on the wars.