Some colleagues, readers, and friends have suggested the dispatches I published from Iraq as an embedded reporter might not be reliable, even if true, because I only saw what the United States Army wanted me to see. CBS news anchor Katie Couric said as much about her own coverage when she first arrived in Baghdad in September.
I’ve had the same thoughts myself, and I quietly wondered if I should disclose them. I chose not to, though, because my experience, as it turned out, didn’t actually warrant it.
The Army hooked me up with the 82nd Airborne Division in the Graya’at district of Baghdad in July. There hadn’t been any violence there since early in 2007. The soldiers hadn’t suffered a single casualty—not even one soldier wounded. How convenient, I thought, that the Army sent me to such a place. I appreciated not being thrown into a meat grinder and shot or blown up, but Graya’at did strike me as a dog-and-pony-show sort of location. Maybe it was. It could certainly function as one, if that’s what the Army intended.
Nice piece. I especially like this quote from Col. Silverman:
I think he's being a tad polite. It is definitely NOT the media's job to synchronize it's agenda with the military, nor even attempt to do so.
Alan,
Agreed.
Likewise, it is not the media's job to have an anti-military agenda.
Absolutely, Michael -
See this post for a discussion.
A.L.
Michael;
No argument from me on that. The issue can get a little fuzzy, however, when the two agendas conflict with one another, but perhaps that's a discussion for another day.
You deserve a huge amount of credit for putting yourself at risk to get a first hand view of things and to document the war. I'm an amateur photographer myself (I see a Nikon D200 strap in one of your photos...just got one last year; great camera. Does it hold up well there, as the older Nikons' were famous for doing?). As much as those of us here in the States might speculate on the situation based on the MSM reporting (again, another topic for discussion!) there can be no substitute for your own eyes.
Alan,
The Nikon has held up very well so far.
Of course. What do you expect them to do? Anyway, they have other reasons for not putting you in the thick of battle than mere propagandistic concerns. By the way, you might be interested in the Wounded Warriors Project. It's a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness for U.S. troops severely wounded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this conflict. Here's a link:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow
Thanks,
Jeff
Any journalist who wants to go into the thick of battle is allowed to do so. I haven't heard of a single off-limits place in Iraq at any time.
So have you gone there ("heat of battle") a few times, Michael?
Lest you be tempted to answer avedis, Michael, be advised that it's Happy Hour at the Gastrointestinal Lounge, and his personality is unencumbered by its customary cordial restraint.
Ha ha Glen made a funny............
I'm just saying that someone like Michael, who porputes to show us the "real" Iraq probably wouldn't want to leave that aspect of the Iraq reality out of his reportage. No?
Nowhere near as funny as impersonating the very person you now interrogate, though. Right?