I still haven't bothered to learn links.
The article: http://www.redandblack.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/11/09/455274a46fbfe
The Response:
This article expresses, to me, a very interesting depiction of the inflated vision of importance and entitlement of journalists held by Mr. McDearmon.
The job of an embedded military journalist is apparently quite difficult. That's expressed in this article quite articulately. However, all the wrong aspects of being difficult are harped on. You didn't get to take photos and get witness reactions to a sniper attack in the center of a town. You were forced to remain indoors during a firefight. And you didn't get to take photos of a dead child. If that's not loss, I surely don't know what is. The military is keeping you on a short leash. But at the end of the day, who is being inconvenienced more? I can promise you it is not the journalist.
The military does not need journalism to propel it through a wartime situation. I'm nearly positive that they could execute most of their maneuvers without ever being badgered for questions or photographed in the heat of battle. The journalist on the case is a distraction and an added difficulty. He is one more mouth to feed. He is one more thirst to quench. He is one more pair of shorts that needs to be washed. And most importantly, he is one more back that needs to be covered.
Who is going to get in trouble if the journalist gets shot? The military. Who's going to get in trouble if the journalist lives long enough to publish some sort of detractory statement about proceedings in Iraq? Why, you guessed it. It's not going to be the Washington Post. It's going to be the Pentagon. So now you have a unit who's having to babysit a reporter who, at best, doesn't actively contribute to the success of their missions, and at worst will get them into some sort of physical or morale-based trouble. The journalist gets in the way during life-or-death situations. When it's just your unit, it's pretty easy to help out. Everyone has each other's back. But here sits the journalist, like a baby bird, unarmed, unaware, and apparently completely uncaring of the danger he's in. Now a soldier has to make a choice between a battle buddy and someone who thinks it's a good idea to stick his head out of cover during a sniper attack. You don't have to play Counterstrike to know why that might be a poor decision.
Unfortunately, journalists are not soldiers. They're not protecting themselves or others. Apparently, they're not even trained on the basics of self-preservation. During those 'moments of captivity' Mr. McDearmon was being held relatively hostage, a sergeant had to relegate 3 able-bodied, armed soldiers to stand guard so he was not hurt. The real kicker is the men who are forgoing battle and placing their neck on the line in order to protect yours are the men you won't even bother to interview because they don't have enough rank.
Yes, it's important for reports of the action to come back to the American people. It's important for them to know what is going on and what is being sacrificed, what is working and what is not. But it is ridiculous to expect the higher-ups in the military to sit around discussing combat strategy and mission objectives over the din of mortar fire. It is ridiculous to assume that just because the story is interesting, it is necessary. This story does not advocate wartime journalism or the honesty of the military in their dealings with the press. It advocates the journalism that will win the most visceral responses in the hometown press. There are no stories of the communications corps, or the units building infrastructure. There is only chagrin and disheartenment that the journalist was not able to stand in the line of fire over the body of a dead child, taking photos to send back home. That is not transparent or representative journalism. That's pandering, and it's yet another reason why the military is probably less than thrilled to deal with the media and its representatives. When you examine the situation, really, can you blame them?
This begs another opportunity, however. If you don't enjoy the way the military handles reporters, feel free to attempt to handle yourself. Poke your head out from behind the tank, run into the middle of the fire, and point your camera at the very first suicide bombing victim you see. I'm sure the lightning-fast reflexes learned in Grady will protect you from the less-than-friendly natives. This new prospective will grant you greater access to The Real Story, the thing you so desperately want to capture. But just remember- you may not enjoy delivering an abbreviated version of events, but it's even less likely your editor will accept a half-finished, blood spattered tablet when they finally send you home.
The Response:
This article expresses, to me, a very interesting depiction of the inflated vision of importance and entitlement of journalists held by Mr. McDearmon.
The job of an embedded military journalist is apparently quite difficult. That's expressed in this article quite articulately. However, all the wrong aspects of being difficult are harped on. You didn't get to take photos and get witness reactions to a sniper attack in the center of a town. You were forced to remain indoors during a firefight. And you didn't get to take photos of a dead child. If that's not loss, I surely don't know what is. The military is keeping you on a short leash. But at the end of the day, who is being inconvenienced more? I can promise you it is not the journalist.
The military does not need journalism to propel it through a wartime situation. I'm nearly positive that they could execute most of their maneuvers without ever being badgered for questions or photographed in the heat of battle. The journalist on the case is a distraction and an added difficulty. He is one more mouth to feed. He is one more thirst to quench. He is one more pair of shorts that needs to be washed. And most importantly, he is one more back that needs to be covered.
Who is going to get in trouble if the journalist gets shot? The military. Who's going to get in trouble if the journalist lives long enough to publish some sort of detractory statement about proceedings in Iraq? Why, you guessed it. It's not going to be the Washington Post. It's going to be the Pentagon. So now you have a unit who's having to babysit a reporter who, at best, doesn't actively contribute to the success of their missions, and at worst will get them into some sort of physical or morale-based trouble. The journalist gets in the way during life-or-death situations. When it's just your unit, it's pretty easy to help out. Everyone has each other's back. But here sits the journalist, like a baby bird, unarmed, unaware, and apparently completely uncaring of the danger he's in. Now a soldier has to make a choice between a battle buddy and someone who thinks it's a good idea to stick his head out of cover during a sniper attack. You don't have to play Counterstrike to know why that might be a poor decision.
Unfortunately, journalists are not soldiers. They're not protecting themselves or others. Apparently, they're not even trained on the basics of self-preservation. During those 'moments of captivity' Mr. McDearmon was being held relatively hostage, a sergeant had to relegate 3 able-bodied, armed soldiers to stand guard so he was not hurt. The real kicker is the men who are forgoing battle and placing their neck on the line in order to protect yours are the men you won't even bother to interview because they don't have enough rank.
Yes, it's important for reports of the action to come back to the American people. It's important for them to know what is going on and what is being sacrificed, what is working and what is not. But it is ridiculous to expect the higher-ups in the military to sit around discussing combat strategy and mission objectives over the din of mortar fire. It is ridiculous to assume that just because the story is interesting, it is necessary. This story does not advocate wartime journalism or the honesty of the military in their dealings with the press. It advocates the journalism that will win the most visceral responses in the hometown press. There are no stories of the communications corps, or the units building infrastructure. There is only chagrin and disheartenment that the journalist was not able to stand in the line of fire over the body of a dead child, taking photos to send back home. That is not transparent or representative journalism. That's pandering, and it's yet another reason why the military is probably less than thrilled to deal with the media and its representatives. When you examine the situation, really, can you blame them?
This begs another opportunity, however. If you don't enjoy the way the military handles reporters, feel free to attempt to handle yourself. Poke your head out from behind the tank, run into the middle of the fire, and point your camera at the very first suicide bombing victim you see. I'm sure the lightning-fast reflexes learned in Grady will protect you from the less-than-friendly natives. This new prospective will grant you greater access to The Real Story, the thing you so desperately want to capture. But just remember- you may not enjoy delivering an abbreviated version of events, but it's even less likely your editor will accept a half-finished, blood spattered tablet when they finally send you home.