the embedding of reporters

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#21
wat-sam said:
Thanks to everyone who has replied to the forum. Hopefully i'll be able to use some of the comments as several of them make good points and prove some of my objectives are.

The Ross Kemp series will also feature in my report as I managed to get someone to record it, though I have not yet got the copy.

Also, if anyone saw on ITV news at 10 at the start if the week, there was a short segment on the troops in Afghanistan. The reporter had given some squaddies camrecorders so they could record their thoughts and experiences. I think think was a particularly effective way of demonstrating life on the front line, especially when they lost comrade Corporal Lawrence, as the soldiers used the cameras as a confession both almost.

And i'm glad my name causes some people so much amusment!
The whole series is on youtube, here is the first episode to start you off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uVUmXaFCM
 
#23
wat-sam said:
Also, if anyone saw on ITV news at 10 at the start if the week, there was a short segment on the troops in Afghanistan. The reporter had given some squaddies camrecorders so they could record their thoughts and experiences. I think think was a particularly effective way of demonstrating life on the front line, especially when they lost comrade Corporal Lawrence, as the soldiers used the cameras as a confession both almost.

!
Is that artical/footage on the web ? ( I can't find it )
 
#24
Adam(KOS) said:
wat-sam said:
Also, if anyone saw on ITV news at 10 at the start if the week, there was a short segment on the troops in Afghanistan. The reporter had given some squaddies camrecorders so they could record their thoughts and experiences. I think think was a particularly effective way of demonstrating life on the front line, especially when they lost comrade Corporal Lawrence, as the soldiers used the cameras as a confession both almost.

!
Is that artical/footage on the web ? ( I can't find it )

yeah:
http://www.itv.com/News/Ten/default.html

its the first link under the 'Afghanistan Week' heading.
 
#25
So, there seems to be quite a split in opinion on the subject of reporters.

Those of you who did experience an embed, did the experience chance your perception of them for better or worse?

And those of you who don't like them, why is that? Were you the subject of some bad press at the hands of one of them or is it because the Army in general recieves a lot of stick from the media?
 
#26
CharlieBubbles said:
Perturbed said:
CharlieBubbles said:
The question has to be, by have so-called news reporters in the front line, how can the troops do thier job, without thinking "Will this land me in court, for doing the job I was trained for", as well as " The protection of said news reporter, takes away from the job WE are here to do"!

Do those in the news profession understand "The Squaddie" - NO!
From my POV pretty much the only decent, substantial and supportive reports have come from those journalists that got embedded. I can agree that it makes the job harder to have to look after a reporter. Wether it is worth the effort is debateable, I suppose it depends on wether you want the public to get the truth or not.
Was the Panorma report from Monday the TRUTH?

If the media fully understood and the general population cared, perhaps much would change and for the better.

As far as this topic is concerned, I should make my position clear: I'm a cameraman and I have worked in a number what we call hostile environments (not just war zones), attached (or as it's now known, embedded) with several Nation's Armed Forces.

I have posted here before (Bigeye) but my military experience is negligable: a stint at Browning Barracks in 83, a pre-RCB course and a few other things (I don't include 4 years in Her Majesty's ACF). I have family and friends who are still serving and generally I would be deemed to be pro-armed forces. However, although I'm not a journalist (I'm a technical) most posters here will regard me with suspicion and at worst with hostility so let me state the following:


I'm NOT repeat NOT in favour of deep longterm imbeds with UK units engaged in frontline activities. MY reasons are as follows:

- It's dangerous and no matter how many courses you attend as a newsgatherer and the norm is about a week (albeit sometimes with a group such as AKE - based in Hereford and all ex UKSF) nothing will prepare for the sudden realization that the other side is trying to KILL YOU!!!
- Your presence as a cameraman can be distracting to the units you are observing.
- You are basically an ill-fitting spare part. I always try to make it clear that I'm self sufficient and that I have my own trauma kit etc. I rarely carry a firearm and then only for protection against big animals!)
- Often the reason for being at the frontline is as much to do with the Journo trying to make a name for himself as the actual story.
- What is actually broadcast often doesn justify the risks; The sights and sounds during and after a firefight/contact/detonation/strike are not pleasant and certainly would not pass the editor in most western news bureaus.
-Let the guys get on with it. It's a war and let's face it sometimes the rules are the second casualty after truth. The public just need to know the job has been done, the methods are irrelevant.

That said, it's partly thanks to the media that crap politicians get castigated for equipping frontline battalions with sub-standard kit and for highlighting the reality of certain far way conflicts.


There are plenty of cameras to hand regardless of the presence of journalists, in the form of mobile phones and digital cameras.
 
#27
Bigeye2 said:
-
- What is actually broadcast often doesn justify the risks; The sights and sounds during and after a firefight/contact/detonation/strike are not pleasant and certainly would not pass the editor in most western news bureaus.
This is something i was thinking.

Think back to Ross Kemp's show... At no point do I remember even seeing Terry, or what the Anglians were shooting at.

Whilst I loved the show, did Kemp really need to be mixed in with the guys, sitting in positions taking fire?
Im sure he was a distraction.
 
#28
VarSity said:
Bigeye2 said:
-
- What is actually broadcast often doesn justify the risks; The sights and sounds during and after a firefight/contact/detonation/strike are not pleasant and certainly would not pass the editor in most western news bureaus.
This is something i was thinking.

Think back to Ross Kemp's show... At no point do I remember even seeing Terry, or what the Anglians were shooting at.

Whilst I loved the show, did Kemp really need to be mixed in with the guys, sitting in positions taking fire?
Im sure he was a distraction.
Although I saw a preview copy some time ago I don't recall too many details. Although the producers claim that the viewer will witness the reality of a conflict clearly this is not the case:


Kemp's insruance premiums must be a little rich.
 
#29
I perhaps shouldn't say this but I do feel a degree of sympathy for embeds: until recently, when they wrote unexpectedly "pro" items they were sometimes (depending on their employers) accused of "losing their objectivity" or "developing Stockholm Syndrome".
At the moment, with something of a bow wave of media attention and (with the apparent exception of Peterborough) public support, increasingly supportive and honest items are appearing all the more frequently (note the Guardian of today's date).
Perhaps this is a temporary state - I suspect it may be - but we are gaining from it.
Damn... cynicism surfacing again... but has anyone else encountered a journo in the field who is more ally than an ally thing from 1st Bn the Ally Regt? I was asked to take a series of somewhat rambo-esque shots of one such US hack in Baghdad some years back. I was glad not to be in shot with him as he made me look like a civvie in comparison. I can only imagine his study wall now has some 1000 yard stare shots of his harrowing two weeks in theatre.....
 
#30
Unlocked and bumped to help Sam get more responses
 
#32
And now they are as one. Thanks OB :)
 
#33
Personally, I believe the embedding of journalists was the act of traitors so they could use real time intel and broadcast it to your enemies for their use thereof. Are there embedded journalists with Chinese troops? With Russian Troops? With the taliban? Why not? Why do journalists only get embedded with our troops?

There are hundreds of examples where embedded journalists have given vital information to our enemies, often deliberately by their editors in my opinion, like that incident during the Falklands when a planned British assault was broadcast by the BBC. And who knows what tracking devices are in their equipment? Didn't the French slip information to Hussein during the Gulf War that would have allowed him to pinpoint the exact location of every embedded journalist in Iraq by tracking their equipment?

I'd even go so far as to say we would be as well embedding Chinese spies as giving journalists front line real time intel on what our military is doing during a time of war.

This isn't to say that journalists are traitors, not at all, though a few of them most definitely are, it's who they pass the information to that concerns me. Why isn't the information passed through our military commanders first? And don't give me that freedom of speech bullshit argument. Giving intel to our enemies during a time of war under the guise of reporting is not freedom of speech, it is the act of traitors who should be hanging by the neck from lamp posts.
 
#34
GeorgeMaciver said:
Personally, I believe the embedding of journalists was the act of traitors so they could use real time intel and broadcast it to your enemies for their use thereof. Are there embedded journalists with Chinese troops? With Russian Troops? With the taliban? Why not? Why do journalists only get embedded with our troops?

There are hundreds of examples where embedded journalists have given vital information to our enemies, often deliberately by their editors in my opinion, like that incident during the Falklands when a planned British assault was broadcast by the BBC. And who knows what tracking devices are in their equipment? Didn't the French slip information to Hussein during the Gulf War that would have allowed him to pinpoint the exact location of every embedded journalist in Iraq by tracking their equipment?

I'd even go so far as to say we would be as well embedding Chinese spies as giving journalists front line real time intel on what our military is doing during a time of war.

This isn't to say that journalists are traitors, not at all, though a few of them most definitely are, it's who they pass the information to that concerns me. Why isn't the information passed through our military commanders first? And don't give me that freedom of speech bullshit argument. Giving intel to our enemies during a time of war under the guise of reporting is not freedom of speech, it is the act of traitors who should be hanging by the neck from lamp posts.
My bolding.

Perhaps that is because we actually have very little to hide. Just a thought.
 
#35
Yes, and a good thought and a good point. Just wish the information they gleaned was filtered through our commanders first before being sent to Newspaper editors. I mean, our personal letters home are still vetted aren't they? But battlefield information from which tactics and strategy can be formulated is sent often during battle to Newspapers editors who detest the military and who are constantly looking for ways to weaken us. Call me paranoid if you like but I just find that rather scary.
 
#36
i think they may have rethought their media programme because it has gone so badly wrong in the past, like in Veitnam which was considered a complete media disaster. and you never know if something is going to work until you try it. although embeds have been around since the crimean war, Iraq was a first as the technology that correspondents had was unlike anything theyd had in the past. war is always a good story, its a matter of life and death, the pubic want to know what it going on through out. because of this, reporters were under immence pressure to file copy in real time, if not live, something the army had to provide for. although copies from embeds are reviewed by Media Ops staff first, there are still the unilaterals which the Army can do nothing about.
 
#37
GeorgeMaciver said:
Yes, and a good thought and a good point. Just wish the information they gleaned was filtered through our commanders first before being sent to Newspaper editors. I mean, our personal letters home are still vetted aren't they? But battlefield information from which tactics and strategy can be formulated is sent often during battle to Newspapers editors who detest the military and who are constantly looking for ways to weaken us. Call me paranoid if you like but I just find that rather scary.
First off there is usually an agreement that they will not broadcast any sensitive information that endangers the troops they are with. If they cannot agree to that they will not be taken along. Case of one US reporter, Renaldo or something? who was sent packing after reporting on locations of troops during Telic 1.

Nope your mail is not vetted and hasn't for certainly over 20 years.

Yep I'll call you paranoid. :roll:
 
#38
Bigeye2 said:
VarSity said:
Bigeye2 said:
-
- What is actually broadcast often doesn justify the risks; The sights and sounds during and after a firefight/contact/detonation/strike are not pleasant and certainly would not pass the editor in most western news bureaus.
This is something i was thinking.

Think back to Ross Kemp's show... At no point do I remember even seeing Terry, or what the Anglians were shooting at.

Whilst I loved the show, did Kemp really need to be mixed in with the guys, sitting in positions taking fire?
Im sure he was a distraction.
Although I saw a preview copy some time ago I don't recall too many details. Although the producers claim that the viewer will witness the reality of a conflict clearly this is not the case:


Kemp's insruance premiums must be a little rich.
Thanks for that contribution but you yourself said my military experience is negligable.
 
#39
Ord_Sgt said:
GeorgeMaciver said:
Yes, and a good thought and a good point. Just wish the information they gleaned was filtered through our commanders first before being sent to Newspaper editors. I mean, our personal letters home are still vetted aren't they? But battlefield information from which tactics and strategy can be formulated is sent often during battle to Newspapers editors who detest the military and who are constantly looking for ways to weaken us. Call me paranoid if you like but I just find that rather scary.
First off there is usually an agreement that they will not broadcast any sensitive information that endangers the troops they are with. If they cannot agree to that they will not be taken along. Case of one US reporter, Renaldo or something? who was sent packing after reporting on locations of troops during Telic 1.

Nope your mail is not vetted and hasn't for certainly over 20 years.

Yep I'll call you paranoid. :roll:

Geraldo Rivera is the guy you're talking about, well-known idiot.

A lot of the stuff we're seeing lately eg. Ross Kemp or the Commando series is shown on TV months after it is filmed, doesn't give anything away. Surely with the recruiting problems the British forces have stuff such as this which shows them in a positive light should be encouraged.
 
#40
GeorgeMaciver said:
Personally, I believe the embedding of journalists was the act of traitors so they could use real time intel and broadcast it to your enemies for their use thereof. Are there embedded journalists with Chinese troops? With Russian Troops? With the taliban? Why not? Why do journalists only get embedded with our troops?

There are hundreds of examples where embedded journalists have given vital information to our enemies, often deliberately by their editors in my opinion, like that incident during the Falklands when a planned British assault was broadcast by the BBC. And who knows what tracking devices are in their equipment? Didn't the French slip information to Hussein during the Gulf War that would have allowed him to pinpoint the exact location of every embedded journalist in Iraq by tracking their equipment?

I'd even go so far as to say we would be as well embedding Chinese spies as giving journalists front line real time intel on what our military is doing during a time of war.

This isn't to say that journalists are traitors, not at all, though a few of them most definitely are, it's who they pass the information to that concerns me. Why isn't the information passed through our military commanders first? And don't give me that freedom of speech bullshit argument. Giving intel to our enemies during a time of war under the guise of reporting is not freedom of speech, it is the act of traitors who should be hanging by the neck from lamp posts.
The Goose Green incident had nothing to do with embedded journalists, the information was prematurely given by the MOD in London to the media. As for these hundreds of other incidents- please give us some actual examples.
 

Latest Threads

Top