Controlling the news with 'embedded' journalists

In the first of a three-part series on censorship in America, we examine how coverage of the recent Iraqi conflict was profoundly influenced by Washington

By Michael Mehas, The Inquisitor's United States Editor: 27 April 2003

Iraq did not prove to be a popular war, especially in the early days. US opinion polls swung up and down in the months preceding the conflict, demonstrating indecision as to whether military action was justified.

Given the large anti-war rallies taking place in the US and elsewhere, government war planners implemented a sweeping system of changes designed to control virtually all information emanating from Iraq. To accomplish this, hundreds of journalists from selected Western media agencies were "embedded" into the US military. The hand-picked reporters, photographers and camera crews were first trained in military discipline and then assigned to front-line units, where they were instructed to follow guidelines that would eliminate coverage damaging to the war effort.

Of course the US military didn't frame it quite that way. "We want to be able to protect that information that is going to determine the success of an operation, and we don't want any reporting that's going to unnecessarily jeopardize those individuals that are executing that mission," deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations Bryan Whitman told the US Public Broadcasting Service. "I have never met a journalist, particularly one that's traveling with that unit, that would have any interest in compromising the mission of the unit."

Whitman admitted that final control over all dispatches would rest with military unit commanders. "Clearly there is a need to protect any operational security out there," he stressed. "Reporters will be pre-briefed. They'll be debriefed if they come in contact with sensitive information on what it is that is inappropriate to either report on or inappropriate to report on at this time because it will affect the outcome of the operation or endanger the personnel that are engaged in that operation."

In other words, any military commander who believed it beneficial to the interests of the Department of Defense to allow journalists to see sensitive information that would normally be restricted, could first subject the reporter to a security review of their coverage.

The Pentagon rules resulted in a dearth of coverage of some of the war's most newsworthy events. In the early days there was almost no access to Iraqi civilians or prisoners of war. Reportage of so-called 'friendly fire' incidents resulting in soldiers' deaths was strictly controlled. Even the questions asked of military officers in press conferences often appeared tame and non-confrontational.

Concerned that soldiers might anonymously criticize their own commanders or leak news of civilian deaths as occurred in the Vietnam war, the Pentagon required that all interviews with military personnel be conducted on the record. In Iraq, any military staff violating this rule would face disciplinary action.

Journalists were also prevented from using their own means of transport in Iraq, which limited their access to battle zones and prevented them from seeing anything the military didn't want them to see. And journalists were specifically warned by military staff that the use of their satellite phones could make them targets for friendly fire. While it's doubtful that these phones could have ever been construed as military targets, the threat worked and the journalists lost independent communications access.

Former CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw was one of the many war correspondents to speak out against the Pentagon rules. "The idea of journalists allowing themselves to be taken under the wing of the United States military to me is very dangerous," he said. "I think journalists who agree to go with combat units effectively become hostages of the military, which can control the movements of the journalists and, more importantly, control their ability when they file their stories."

Censorship of the media was not limited to the Iraqi battlefield. Once they were sent to the US, journalists' reports were subjected to strict scrutiny by corporate media editors. On January 27, 2003, CNN released a document entitled, "Reminder of Script Approval Policy," which required reporters to send all of their copy to officials in Atlanta to ensure it was suitably "balanced." This represents some of the most rigorous self-censorship demonstrated by the Western media since the Cold War of the late 1950s and early 60s.

Award-winning British journalist Robert Fisk quoted extracts from the document in writing for the London-based Independent newspaper. "All reporters preparing package scripts must submit the scripts for approval," it reads. "Packages may not be edited until the scripts are approved... All packages originating outside Washington, LA or NY, including all international bureaus, must come to the ROW (editors) in Atlanta for approval."

"A script is not approved for air unless it is properly marked approved by an authorized manager," the document continues. "When a script is updated it must be re-approved, preferably by the originating approving authority."

On January 31, CNN staff were told that a new computerized script approval system would allow "authorized script approvers to mark scripts in a clear and standard manner." Fisk noted that CNN had a history of doctoring reports even before their latest edicts. He cited an incident that occurred in the Israeli-occupied West Bank where a report had been doctored to produce pro-Israeli accounts of atrocities committed against Palestinians.

Of course, military commanders working hand-in-glove with the media is not a novel process. Until the Korean War of 1950-53, few journalists in any Western democracy ever really challenged the official version of events presented by government and army sources.

Press criticism reached its height in Vietnam, with more than 2,000 accredited reporters roaming freely through battle zones interviewing ordinary soldiers rather than relying on Pentagon's picture of the war. There were scattered reports of news stories endangering US troops or military operations, but the major impact of the media's coverage was to strengthen anti-war sentiment back home.

Afterwards, many in the military blamed the press for losing the Vietnam war. Thus, Pentagon officials decided to restrict press coverage of future US-involved wars. In 1983, all journalists were barred from the initial invasion of Grenada. In 1989, the Pentagon selected a dozen reporters to cover the invasion of Panama and restricted them to a small airport until nearly all the fighting had ceased.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the White House and the Pentagon imposed unprecedented censorship on media coverage. American military activities in the region were mostly off-limits to journalists. Defense Department censors cleared battlefield dispatches, photos and video footage.

Journalists were allowed to travel only in "pools" of up to 18 reporters each to visit US military units in the field. Reporters were then selected by news organizations for each pool and military escorts accompanied them into the field. Pool reporters distributed their dispatches to their news organizations and to all other non-pool reporters who were required to remain near the Kuwait border in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, or in Riyadh, the Saudi Arabian capital.

For its part, the Pentagon said the rules were designed to protect American troops, military operations, and the journalists themselves. "There is a clear and present danger in today's instant-communications age, which may put our troops at risk, Rear Admiral John Bitoff said. "Our enemies are watching CNN."

None of this made the press very happy. After the first Gulf War a committee representing most major US news media opposed the government censorship. They cited the responsibility of the press to report accurate news, not just what military officials wanted reported. They expressed their concern that the rules limiting the press's access to the most newsworthy events posed a clear and present danger of another kind to the American people: military interference with free expression.

While many news reporters have already expressed their concerns, the executives running most of the US news media have largely accepted their circumscribed role in war coverage with disturbing ease. Perhaps the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 still haunt and constrain them. Perhaps they are afraid of losing their jobs. Either way, truth has become yet again a casualty of war.