Dangerous

The number of embedded reporters in Iraq is at all time low…

BAGHDAD The number of embedded journalists reporting alongside U.S. troops in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level of the war even as the conflict heats up on the streets of Baghdad and in the U.S. political campaign.

In the past few weeks, the number of journalists reporting assigned to U.S. military units in Iraq has settled to below two dozen.Late last month, it fell to 11, its lowest, and has rebounded only slightly since.

During the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, more than 600 reporters, TV crews and photographers linked up with U.S. and British units. A year ago, when Iraqis went to the polls to ratify a new constitution, there were 114 embedded journalists.

“This is more than pathetic,” said Sig Christenson, a reporter for the San Antonio Express-News and president of Military Reporters and Editors, a journalists’ group. “It strikes me as dangerous” for the American public to get so little news of their military, said Christenson, who recently returned from an embedded assignment in Iraq. (emphasis mine)

2 thoughts on “Dangerous

  1. The “Embeds” have always struck me as a way of controlling the news. Does anyone know if the decrease in embeds is (as the article implies) also a decrease in total reporters. Or is it a case of reporters leaving the embeds to get a less scripted exposure?
    Although I must alsonote that the embeds have done a job of turning up some of the war atrocities commited by their units also. Less reporters in Iraq means the odds of a unit commiting atrocities is more likely to get away with it.

  2. Sorry, I still think being embedded was pathetic, and a greater danger to news gathering. I know of several “unembedded” journalists who are getting news of Iraq out. Problem is, they aren’t on the MSM.
    But it’s still journalism. What’s pathetic and dangerous to the republic, is what passes for journalism in the MSM.

Comments are closed.