New Study Calls Pentagon's 'Embedded' Media Program an Iraq 'Victory' for Bush

Debate over the "embedded jouurnalist" program run by the Pentagon since the weeks before the Iraq invasion in 2003 has long raged, with some claiming that it gave reporters valuable close access to action while others saying that the journalists were severely compromised within it. Now sociologist Andrew M. Lindner, writing in the spring issue of the American Sociological Association's Contexts magazine, describes what is billed as the only sociological study to date of the substantive content of media coverage during the first six weeks of the Iraq war.

Lindner found that journalists embedded with American troops emphasized military successes more often than they covered consequences for Iraqi citizens.

"The embedded program proved to be a Pentagon victory because it kept reporters focused on the horrors facing the troops, not the horrors of the civilian war experience," said Lindner, who is completing his doctoral dissertation at Penn State University. "The end result: a communications victory for an administration that hoped to build support for the war by depicting it as a successful mission with limited cost.

Lindner's conclusions are the result of a content analysis of 742 news articles written by 156 English-language print reporters in Iraq during the first six weeks of the war.

A press release from the magazine summarizing the findings concludes as follows.

"Lindner and his colleagues examined disparities in the news coverage of the three primary types of journalists reporting from Iraq: reporters embedded in the Pentagon's program, those stationed in Baghdad and independent reporters with freedom to roam the country.

"His findings reveal how the context of the embedding program may have limited reporter access and hindered the spread of war-related information to the wider public. According to Lindner's research, embedded reporters most extensively covered the soldier's experience of the war. Nine out of ten articles by these reporters quoted soldiers.

"'With the vast majority of embedded coverage citing U.S. military sources, as long as the soldiers stayed positive, the story stayed positive,' Lindner said.

"Baghdad-stationed reporters provided the most extensive coverage of the consequences of the invasion. Half of the news articles produced by these journalists reported on civilian fatalities, compared with just 12 percent of the articles by embedded reporters.

"While embedded reporters were most likely to tell the military's story, and local consequences were well represented by Baghdad-stationed reporters, independent reporters produced the most balanced coverage depicting both sides of the story.

"These reporters, not limited by location or source availability, covered combat and military movement nearly as frequently as embedded reporters but were at least twice as likely to cite Iraqi sources and cover civilian fatalities.

"The study's findings, combined with Lindner's telling of the history of war reporting, shed light on the relationship between the media and the military as the United States' government debates continued military involvement in Iraq and potential invasions of other countries."

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway.

Comments

[smajda]

Here is Lindner's article in Contexts, available for free online, if anybody wants to read the source for this post:

http://contexts.org/articles/spring-2008/controlling-the-media-in-iraq/

[burnt]

Thank you Mr. Mitchell

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

You have to love the homophone:

"In Bedded" is more like it.

[Ramus]

Duh. Well of course embedded reporters are going to be reporting stories that reflect positively on the people who are protecting them and feeding them and relating to them every day. Things might not go so well for the embedded reporter if he/she did not report the troops activities in a postive light. That was always the problem with imbedded journalists...it severely slants the reporting. HOw smart do you have to be to figure this out?

[PioneerKing]

the main stream media is still selling Americans lies about the war and the main stream media's efforts to sell McCain as a "straight talking maverick" is just as bad.

[GhostintheMachine]

The MSM is liberal.

[GhostintheMachine]

Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success

Five years ago this week, an international coalition of troops led by the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship in just three weeks. Since then, Iraqis have voted in free democratic elections to seat a representative parliament; Saddam and several of his henchmen have been tried and convicted in public war crimes trials; and a bloody insurgency fomented by al Qaeda in Iraq is in retreat after a surge of U.S. troops and a shift to more aggressive counter-insurgency tactics.

Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news " setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops " while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

[GhostintheMachine]

Fewer U.S. Dead = Less
TV Coverage of Iraq

One year ago, liberal journalists depicted the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq as a certain failure. "A lot of people are going to go to bed tonight terrified," MSNBC"s Chris Matthews opined just minutes after President Bush announced the policy on January 10, 2007. Other journalists were only slightly more subtle. "Many experts warn, it"s too little, too late," NBC"s Jim Miklaszewski argued on the January 8, 2007 Nightly News. The next morning on NBC"s Today, the network"s graphic describing Iraq was "Lost Cause?"

At the same time, leading Democrats left themselves no wiggle room as they, too, denounced the surge. Senator Barack Obama called it "wrong-headed" and countered with a proposal to pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq by March 2008. Senator Hillary Clinton came back from a quick trip to Iraq to declare: "I am opposed to this escalation," while another Democratic candidate, Senator Joe Biden, blasted the troop surge as "a tragic mistake."

One year later, the President"s surge strategy is well on its way to succeeding. The Iraqi parliament has passed several laws meeting required political reconciliation benchmarks. Attacks in Baghdad have fallen up to 80 percent in the past twelve months, Reuters reported February 16. Deaths among Iraqi military forces and civilians have dropped by more than two-thirds, from more than 2,000 per month in early 2007 to fewer than 600 per month since November.

[Ramus]

And you are a paid employee of the Pentagon? What a crock.

[GhostintheMachine]

CMPA reported: "Majorities of all major groups in the population, including 70 percent of
self-described liberals, now see a "fair amount" or "great deal" of bias in the news. In general,
perceptions of bias rise along with levels of education and political participation."
# "Those who see a liberal tilt outnumber those who detect a conservative bias by more than a
two to one margin. Forty-three percent describe the news media"s perspective on politics as liberal,
compared to 33 percent who see it as a middle of the road, and 19 percent who find it to be
conservative."
# "Even self-described liberals agree: 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22
percent who find the news to be conservative."
# "These findings challenge the argument of some journalists that bias is purely in the eye of the
beholder. Although conservatives are three times more likely to see liberal rather than
conservative bias, moderates and liberals alike see liberal bias in the media twice as often as they
see conservative bias," CMPA concluded.

[miatch]

How many asked can even define Liberal or Conservative? Why is it that you think being Pro-Iraq War is the conservative viewpoint? Are you calling Ron Paul or Bob Barr liberals?

There is a long and proud anti-interventionist thread to the conservative branch of American thinking.

[racom]

Come on, they had to do a study to understand this? The purpose of the management of news coverage was obvious from the beginning. After the media was blamed, wrongfully, for the Vietnam outcome the pentagon and DC pols made damn sure there would not be damaging photos or news that would get out. As bad as our media had already performed they wanted insurance and the 'embedded' farce was born. You want news, go to McClatchy or IPS for a start.
No news here!!!

[SpaceCadet]

I guess the study is kind of pointless. The reality-based community already suspected what it concludes, while the faith-based community will studiously ignore any scholarly research that doesn't support their beliefs. And the corporate media, who are pretty much embedded in the Bush administration anyway, won't mention it at all.

[radiclib]

.
.
Nice going, media.
Cheerleaders for an unjust, unprovoked invasion.
They used you for propaganda.
If they are war criminals, what does that make you?
.
.

[jmpurser]

I propose that henceforth "embedded reporters" be known in the trade as "ticks".

[RumiSouth]

How about "in-bedded" reporters?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Beat me to it. ;-)