In any war there is news coverage to the warring parties' publics; this war is no different. But there is a significant difference in the way the war is being reported and that new reporting process is part of the military's new way of fighting.

Embedded Reporters is the new term that delineates the method of reporting used to report back to America. This method limits the objectivity of coverage and the objectivity of the reporters. This embedded reporter methodology projects the military's overall new way of war-fighting.

Instead of having reporters who are traveling independently in the war zone to get a total and accurate picture of the war, as has been the technique reporters have employed in the past, in this war, American reporters are traveling with the military, inside armored military vehicles, and are able to have actual pictures of the frontline military in battle. This seems to have advantages heretofore not enjoyed by reporters and their publics, yet there is a serious problem with these embedded reporters and their reporting.

The other night while listening to an embedded reporter, the fighting became fierce and the US military was retreating from its military position, as the reporter spoke. His coverage was abruptly stopped--they lost contact with him. But before losing contact, he clearly stated in an excited voice that the battle was intense, and we have to retreat, go back. This was poor war-reporting diction used by that reporter. The military does not want the public to see its trillion-dollar military on retreat. When coming back in his next report, that reporter had nothing to say about that temporary retreat.

This demonstrates the problem with these embedded reporters: they are limited in what they can report. The military places restrictions on them and says that those restrictions are placed on the reporters for the security of military forces. That may be true, but it is not the total reason for the restrictions placed on reporters.

But even were it the sole reason, that does not change the effect of the picture we get from the war front. We are not getting an accurate picture of the war with embedded reporting.A reporter may be on the front lines, but he/she is restricted by the military in what can be reported, and those limitations distort the picture.

It is a given that embedded reporters, based on the military restrictions and limitations imposed on them, present to their public a distorted picture of the battle. Those reporters can only report what the military allows and therefore wants them to report. Important information may not be shared with the public, and importance is determined by the military, not the reporters. Any reporting of partial truth is not accurate reporting--a half truth is a whole lie. This is the serious problem that embedded reporting imposes on reporters.

The various news services may have jumped at an opportunity for embedded reporting, but, in reality, the military out-classed them. Mass media wanted to have live coverage of the war, but the cost of live coverage has been to not have complete coverage and to have restricted coverage. Any thoughtful observer realizes that type of coverage is not objective news.

The military knew what type of war they would fight in Iraq, but the news media did not. And the media's ignorance to the type of battle and their eagerness to become embedded reporters gave the military a tactical advantage over the media. The media fell victim to their own eagerness and their own ignorance.

The type of battle the military has fought, as our ever-present on TV Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has said, is like no other battle we have fought. This Iraq campaign is more psychological warfare than anything else. The military has totally co-opted the news media and is using it as a military arm of its psychological warfare.

Daily, even hour by hour, we never cease seeing the delighted face or hearing gleeful sounds of Rumsfeld, as he says to the Iraqi soldiers, "Do not use chemical or biological weapons against us; do not set oil well afire; do not obey orders to fight back, here is how to surrender, this will be a war like none other, of shock and bombardment, etc." And the media reports every word to Iraq and to America.

Next comes George Bush with the same message directed at the Iraqi soldiers and people; the last of these civilian soldiers is Tony Blair, who has killed his political career following Bush into Iraq, and he says the same thing. While America's leaders are using psychological warfare against the Iraqi people, they use quite a bit of it on Americans--a people already trained and tamed into believing too much of what their political leaders say. "We did not chose this war," for an example!

The mass media has not yet seen that they have been out classed by US war planners in their embedded reporting strategy, that they have become an extension of military warfare, and that their embedded reporting is restricted and distorted reporting. []

Frank A. Jones