war reporters

During the early days of the Iraq war—think back to 2003—“embedded reporters” were allowed to travel with U.S. troops into battle and do reports from locations in the combat zones. Do some research into this reporting and give your opinion about the appropriateness of reporting news in this manner. Why was this done? Should this have been allowed? How do you think the soldiers felt about reporters “tagging along”? Cite some actual reporters and describe their reports (don’t forget to cite sources). Have war-reporting techniques changed in the current war coverage?
Having embedded reporters with U.S. troops during war is a double edge sword. It does allow the world to see how the U.S. handles itself during contingency operations and gain national and international support for our actions. This can also provide our enemies and potential enemies a valuable insight for our tactics, responses and equipment. They can also twist and distort this information for propaganda for their cause.
I do believe that this is a good limited practice as long as it is properly monitored by military public affairs. I know that clearing every story before it is released is considered censorship but if it saves soldiers lives and does not negatively affect morale I feel it is valid. Embedding reporters can also distort what is really happening on the battlefield when they transmit inaccurate information. “In 2003 the embedded reporters transmitted inaccurate information correspondents for several news organizations reported seeing a convoy of up to 120 Iraqi tanks leaving the southern city of Basra, and most news outlets reported a large troop movement. However the next day, a spokesman for the British military said the "massive movement" was really just 14 tanks.” 1
Being a soldier myself I know how we love to tell our story because we are very proud of what we do and the people we serve with. Journalists are given limited training on what to expect and know the rules they must follow in order to not become a burden to the units they are assigned to. Journalists cannot give specific details of locations, disclose classified information or outline the future plans of their unit. These “baby sitting” tours are usually limited in duration to just a few weeks at most to limit the impact. For those that stay longer they become part of the team and are looked at as part of the family. Some critics believe that this closeness makes it difficult for journalists tell their story objectively if their safety is in the hands of the soldiers they are reporting.
Former BBC reporter Martin Bell stated about his experience that “Embedding' journalists... has brought warfare home to us as no war has been brought home before”. 2 This does however come at a high cost. As of October 2008, 153 journalists have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq since 2004. On April 2003 Julio Parrado and Spanish reporter was killed by a missile that severely injured several members of the unit he was reporting on. Unit members described him honest, genuine and a true friend. Parrado’s newspaper stated he had reported how fond he was of them too.3
War-reporting techniques have changed in the current war coverage with satellite phones and computers that allow communication in real time almost anywhere in the world. The military closely monitors who they allow in the field with our soldiers and set clear rules for their reporters. The U.S. and the world have also come to expect access to instant information on both the home front and the front line. I doubt that is going to change anytime soon.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/embed_3-27.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2885179.stm
http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/29/1607519.aspx