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
nutsamelitauri 