Embed Me Down

|

I must have very low standards as I've been pleasantly surprised by the quality of the embedded reports, both print and electronic. Except for the dopey use of night vision cams in a city that still has the frickin' lights on, or on vehicles that have their running lights blazing, I've come away knowing more about the who, what, when, and where than I did going in. (The why remains sketchy.)

I also get a kick out of the technology that can bring me nearly perfect live shots of network talent racing across the desert. But it does lose a little something when you find out that instead of the tip of the spear, your anchor is perched on a tank recovery vehicle, the armored equivalent of a caboose.

The embeds also give us what is sure to be a meme for this war: reporters in badass sunglasses. But if someone says "shock and awe" one more goddamned time…

NEXT: Shock and Awe, not Aw Shucks...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am interested to know what others think, but it seems to me that the embedded news people focus our attention [and perhaps, more importantly, Iraqi attention] right where the US military would like it focused.

    Perhaps keeping the Iraqi’s focused on the troops rushing around in the South keeps them preoccupied, when the trump card may well be the surrender/defection of the Republican Guard around Bagdad.

  2. Seems to me the embedded reporters only see what they are shown. They are willing pawns of the US propaganda machine.

  3. Re: Warren

    See what they’re shown? Would you rather have the gunho reporter stock up their SUV and try to outrun the 3rd Army, and getting shot at the same time (that’s from both side of the conflict)?

  4. Just wondering. How come the lights are on? I thought when a city was being bombed the first order of business was a blackout.

  5. Lefty, leaving the electricity flowing is meant to communicate to the Iraqis that this is war on the regime, not them.
    I actually enjoy the mental image of some guy watching the Shah Kennaw on TV–eating some popcorn–and looking out the window for a better view. It’s kinda Hitchcockian.

  6. With RADAR, night vision and LASER, blackouts don’t matter. Since the coalition forces are targeting military and C&C, the infrastructure (electricty and water) should remain largely intact.

  7. How about showing baby’s limbs being broken piecemeal, by Uday’s henchmen, while their parents are forced to watch. How about showing young Iraqi boys (informers) being fed, feet first, into shredders designed for ripping up large plastic material — screaming as they die — while Saddam’s sons are grinning ear to ear. How about showing THAT to the world for a sickening change.

  8. >>Would you rather have the gunho reporter stock up their SUV and try to outrun the 3rd Army, and getting shot at the same time (that’s from both side of the conflict)?

  9. Shock and Awe.

    Take that, Taylor!

  10. I don’t think Lefty meant the “coalition” not taking the power out, I think he meant the “bombees” turning the lights off so as not to make it easier for the enemy to see. You know, like London in WWII.

    Perhaps it doesn’t matter anymore.

  11. EMAIL: pamela_woodlake@yahoo.com
    IP: 62.213.67.122
    URL: http://photo.online-photo-print.com
    DATE: 01/20/2004 05:48:42
    The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.