Job Discussion Forums

[bnix]

Watching the news on the war in Iraq(I only get BBC where I am at)...I keep hearing the phrase "embedded journalist"to indicate a reporter,etc.attached to the US Army,the British,forces,etc. Why "embedded"? Anyone know? This conjures up quite an incongruous mental picture.Is this usage limited to BBC,or in general usage?Anyone know if this use of"embedded" is a journalistic invention or simply militaryspeak?Formerly people would say something like'the journalist attached to the Special Forces".Does "embedding" differ significantly from being"attached"....or is it just military lingo?

[johnslat]

Dear bnix,
" Embedded " has become one of the most overused words of this " armed conflict " ( it's not REALLY a war ). It's " military jargon ", and the military, as usual, can never resist taking a simple expression ( attached to ) and transforming it in its own special way ( e.g. " Yes " to " Affirmative " ).
Regards,
John

[Shonai Ben]

Have you also noticed that the word "folks"
has been used way,way too much since
Bush became President?
They even refer to the enemy as folks.

[Roger]

I don't even get BBC here in China, but the term "embedded journalists" is a new and faddish moniker that we have got to accept, if not in good grace then at least with appropriate cynicism!
If anybody has ever had any doubts about certain media being in the hands of certain national "leaders", then now is the time to climb down from the palm tree and feel the hard reality under one's feet.
Those who can read news in languages other than (American) English know which of the "famous" TV stations and "news-"papers are mouthpieces of Greedy Brush of Washing Town, W.C., capital of Illusistan! We have known that there are essentially two factualities - facts that anybody can see if they are willing to see, and facts that others want us to believe in!
Living in Third-World countries, we immediately learn to rely on our own sensorial perceptions, and we know we must take news from the media offered by our host countries with a pinch of salt; for some this war (lead by Greedy Brush, Uncle Rummy, Auntie Risible et al.) is a belief-shattering experience, a wake-up call that reminds them that even in the so-called "free" world information is being manipulated by the mighty! Don't refer to them by name if you dislike their lies and propaganda - you will be called "antiillusistanist" or, maybe, "antiillusistalinist".
But that should not detract from the discovery that even the followers and blind believers and naive supporters of Greedy "Dude" Brush in his personal vendetta against a self-proclaimed ruler of a small country in the Near East need to be constantly brainwashed, lied to, deceived and misled by so-called "journalists".
These "journalists" go to bed with the military in exchange for physical protection and those news that the military deem consumable.
What was the neologism of the year in 1991?
"Collateral", as in "collateral damage"!
Yes, if you are not a cynic you would never think up such quaint terminology!

[scot47]

"Embedded journalist" is a euphemism for "tame journalist" or "journalist who will write good things". In another country some years ago they gave them a more honest label - "Propagandakompanie".

We are living through an era in which all the worst prophecies of George Orwell have gradually come true.

[johnslat]

Dear scot47,
Aha - perhaps it's all the result of a typo. Instead of " embedded ", it should have been " inbedded ", since those " journalists " ( hmm. almost had a typo myself there; I first wrote " journalosts ", which, come to think on it, might have been more appropriate ) are " in bed " with the military ( in all probability, both literally and figuratively ).
Regards,
John

[gerard]

There is a great article on znet---sorry no link but I think it's www.zmag.org or do a msn search. It was an interview with Fisk of the Independent UK newspaper when they got him out of bed after some bombings. They called the piece "embedded journalist" as in just got out of bed HA HA hA ... It details the scare tactics the coalition use to try and get journalists to leave---"There is an Iraqi plot to kidnap journalists..." They said the same in the last Gulf war and Kosovo and and and.. It is a pack of lies. Great article. As for the term "in bed with the military " sounds right...

[Reesy]

"Embedded journalist" is more than just a new faddish monicker adopted by major media outlets looking to add sophistication to their newscasts. It is an official policy of the American government which was formulated in the months prior to the present Iraq war. As far as I know there are no "embedded journalists" with British forces. Officially, it is intended to give the television watching public never before seen first hand access to the battlefield. It has also been heralded as a way to give media unbridaled access to all facets of the conflict.

The reality of course is entirely different. All embedded journalists were required to go through one month of "training" (i.e. indoctrination) prior to the conflict with the battalion/company/outfit with which they are embedded. To further ensure that their loyalties lie in the right place, all of their reports are monitored and screened by the commanding officer before being cleared for broadcast.

So far, I believe two embedded journalists have been sent home for giving sensitive information that endagered the lives of soldiers during live reports to news anchors. One journalist said "I am 100 miles south of Baghdad." Apparently that was too specific for Central Command and the journalist was immediately dismissed. By the way, I live about 100 miles south of Tokyo. A hundred bucks says that based on this information, you could lob 1000 Tomohawk missiles in my direction from your location and not hit me.

The uninformative and biased reporting of the embedded journalists has been well documented elsewhere so I won't go into it here. Suffice to say, it is another lame attempt by the current American government to tell its people that its polices are protecting and expanding their "freedom" and "liberties" when in fact, the country is becoming more and more like a police state everyday.

By the way, many journalists (Americans among them) have complained that the American military has been very harsh and heavy handed with non-embedded journalists that they encounter in the field. Not surprising, since the stories that these journalists report cannot be properly censored.

Evidence to this fact is the much publicized story (outside of America) about two Portuguese "non-embedded journalists" and their harrowing ordeal last week. In short, they were beaten, robbed, illegally detained and deported by American forces. They had as much right to be in Iraq as embedded journalists and possessed all necessary documentation to illustrate this fact. I believe The Guardian ran a story about them a couple days ago if you want to read about it yourself.

In short, "embedded journalist" is more than just a catchy buzzword. It is another attempt to shield the TV watching public from reality, all the while telling them that they are being given "unprecedented" and "minute by minute" coverage of the war. It is a shame, of course, that so many people appear to be buying such nonsense. It is a downright disgrace and disservice that the major American media outlets are not emphatically demanding that they be given the right to do their job independent of such blatant government censorship. They are an embarassement to the proud legacy of their profession.

[richard ame]

Hi fellow posters

Thought I would chip in my pennysworth in to this issue,it is relevent and says a lot ab