Embedded Journalism: The Questions of Objectivity and Bias

The term “embedded journalism” became extremely popular during the Gulf Wars, when the reporters were attached to the American military units during the conflicts. The fact that the reporters were “eating and sleeping alongside soldiers”[1] causes a great controversy and questions the objectivity of the embedded journalism. In the eyes of the critics embedding is often associated with propaganda and partial demonstration of the war reality. Obviously, from one perspective the embedded journalists do share the feeling of patriotism with the soldiers; they overcome various hardships together and in this tense situation it is extremely difficult to maintain the objective view of the reality. Also, the government has a total monopoly as it fully controls what information to be shown or hidden to the audience. Even though these are the important disadvantages of the embedded journalism, from another perspective, embedding is the only method to generate immediate, more precise and meticulous data from the conflict area which was previously impossible before the emergence of the embedded journalist.

Three articles “How ‘Embedded’ Reporters are Handling the War”, “The Dangers of Embedded Journalism, in War and Politics” by David Ignatius, and “The Benefits of Embedding Reporters” by David Verdi analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the embedded journalism and with the help of the examples visualize the practice of embedding. In the first article the author lists several advantages of the method of embedding including its quality to have the immediate connection with the audience, its capacity to generate the accurate data and etc. Before the practice of embedding, writes the author, “the coverage was thin and journalists, who were miles away from the action, found it almost impossible to check the facts”. The author names one of the biggest advantages of embedding its quality to generate the accurate and precise data. Also, another noticeable “advantage is that you get to see what’s going on at a very localised level”[2]. These are indeed important advantages; however, the “localization” of the perspective can also have various disadvantages which are only slightly mentioned by the author.

With regard to disadvantages, Ignatius lists and discusses them in the second article. The biggest disadvantage of embedding is its single-sided perspective of the reality. “We can’t understand what we don’t see; we can’t explain a conflict if we hear from only one side”, writes the author and stresses the importance of objectivity during the military conflict. Observing the events from the inside position hardly ever generates the accurate data and in the majority of cases acts more the purpose of the propaganda. Ignatius visualizes the embedded reporters as “journalists inside the bubble”[3] and compares them to unilateral reporters in terms of the objectivity. With the use of his own example he comes to the conclusion that “although my visits [as an unembedded reporter] were brief, I was able to see things that the embedded journalists could not”[4]. Even though the author highlights the negative sides of the embedded journalism, he also stresses the necessity of embedding during the military conflict, as the neutral journalism is hardly ever achieved during the war.

In the third article Verdi argues that the focal point of all embedded journalists is the same, so the data generated is usually narrow and one-sided; however, the author also stresses the quality of this method to have a direct and instant connection of the people to the battlefield. “This would not be the first time reporters were on the battlefield, but it would be the first time we could see and talk with them, live”[5], writes Verdi and explores the emotional reactions of the people about the instant news broadcasting from the battlefield. Due to the fact that the specific TV channels have various restrictions what should be shown in the television and what should not, the horrible anticipation of unknown or hidden never faded away in people. Verdi also stresses the importance of impartiality of the emotions while making the reports in the battlefield and analyzes its difficulties while being the embedded reporter.

In the era of the modern technological advancement, globalization, and interconnectedness there is a huge demand from the audience of receiving the instant information. In contrast to the past, embedded journalism is necessary in the modern times as it serves the function of the direct and instant transmission of news from the battlefield to the living rooms of the people. With the help of these journalists ordinary people have an opportunity to receive the deeper information about the conflict area and the soldiers. Even though their perspectives are usually single-sided and they only focus on the small picture instead of the big one, as Verdi points out embedded journalists constantly strive to free themselves from the emotional bonds and to generate the objective information. Since it seems almost impossible for the embedded reporters to fully eradicate the patriotic feeling from their hearts, the bias will always exist in their reports; however, the fact that these reports give the viewers the better understanding of the conflict as well as the immediate connection with the battlefield makes embedding the necessary and frequently practiced form of journalism especially during the military conflicts.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2885179.stm

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2885179.stm

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001100_pf.html

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001100_pf.html

[5] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4441056/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/benefits-embedding-reporters/#.VT4DHyFVikp

From Bread Queues to American Liberalism – the Role of Soft Power in the Cold War

The majority of the wars throughout the history of mankind were won by the superiority of one side in terms of the military power; however, the example of the Cold War, which was a more ideological war, shows the opposite. The Cold War is an illustrious example of the case when the excellence in the military force is not enough to win the war. American soft power and the spread of the liberal ideology was the primary contribution that, along with the military and economic powers, triggered the end of the Cold War.

Three articles How pop culture helped win the Cold War[1] by Dominic Sandbrook, Modern Art was CIA ‘weapon’[2] by Frances Stonor Saunders, and Who Caused the End of the Cold War?[3] By Joseph Nye are greatly centered on the role of soft power in the Cold War. Sandbrook in the first article develops his point and argues that “the man who really ended the Cold War was not Ronald Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev – but Phil Collins (Sandbrook)” and analyzes the huge impact of the spread of American liberalism during that period. In the Cold War “the personal became political. […] It touched almost every aspect of life: the books you read on holiday, the films you saw at the cinema, the music you played in your student bedsit (Sandbrook)”. Since people have enormous power, the American government, along with the media, communicated all types of pro-American messages that promoted American liberalism to influence the public opinion. The Hollywood media, screening James Bond movies demonstrated “an astounding advance towards comfort and prosperity (Sandbrook)” which could have never been provided by the Communist economy. The concert in 1987 at the Berlin Wall is a great example how people inside the Communist regime strived toward the Western culture.

The spread of American ideology and liberalism was everywhere, even in the field of art. The second article centers on the way CIA sponsored the famous artists like Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, and Mark Rothko to promote the modern art – abstract Expressionism. All these Avant-garde paintings symbolized the idea that American art was sophisticated and free from political constraints. Since the Soviet regime showed non-conformity to all types of art that was against the Soviet rigid patterns, this freedom of expression was extremely enticing for the Soviet artists. These abstract paintings were everywhere “in the marble halls of banks, in airports, in city halls, boardrooms and great galleries (Saunders)”. This extremely intensive spread of American freedom of expression seemed to be successful as it greatly contributed to the end of the Cold War.

Obviously, American soft power was not the only factor that triggered the end of the Cold War. As Nye discusses in the third article, along with the spread of American cultural values, there were other factors like the decline in the Soviet ideology, economy, resources, and others that contributed to the end of the war. The death rate was increasing inside the Soviet Union and people were often starving to death because the scarce food resources. Also, the Soviet Union was not able to keep up with the technological advancement; there were 50,000 personal computers in the Soviet Union, while 30 million in the United States (Nye). All these economic factors also contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union which was not only the external, but also an internal process.

All these images that the American media communicated, promoting the liberal ideals, were enkindling the fires of desires among the people living under the Soviet regime who were living in the extreme poverty, queuing for bread, while “millions of British consumers were shopping for new microwaves, video recorders and compact disc players (Sandbrook)”.  These people under the Soviet regime were struggling and even sacrificing themselves to leave borders of the Soviet Union and to achieve freedom.

The wonderful example how people in the Soviet Union were desperately eager to join the American liberalism is the incident commonly referred as “Aeroflot Flight 6833”[4] that took place in Georgia in November 1983. Seven young people coming from Georgian elite families attempted to hijack the plane to flee from the Soviet Union. All these hijackers were young Georgian artists, painters, and actors who were protesting the absurdity of the Soviet regime. The attempt seemed unsuccessful and the hijackers could not reach their goal – the pilot landed back in Tbilisi. As one of the conspirators explained during the trial, all they wanted to “have a better life and live in a free society.” They received the death penalty and were shot in 1984. Nobody knows their place of burial. Later, one of the hijacker’s diary was published where she writes how she wanted to listen to Pink Floyd, wear blue jeans, and freely express herself without the fear of being murdered. This accident became extremely popular and was later named “The Jeans Generation” (Jinsebis Taoba). Famous writers wrote about the “The Jeans Generation” and even today it is staged in the private Liberty Theater in Tbilisi.

This is just one example how deeply the Soviet people were influenced by the messages that the American media constantly communicated. Ironically, some of them were ready to sacrifice themselves but to wear blue jeans even for one time. Even though the American art was greatly banned inside the Soviet Union, people secretly consumed various types of Western art which were full of anti-Communistic propaganda. All these propaganda, promoting liberalism, the freedom of expression, and the “American dream” hugely contributed to the decline of the Soviet mentality and thus triggered the internal collapse of the Soviet Union.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10441108/How-pop-culture-helped-win-the-Cold-War.html

[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/who-caused-the-end-of-the_b_350595.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_6833