Looking back, I think we lost a lot when we accepted the notion of "embedded" reporters.

[Bonobo]

I am not the most gifted of writers and I am not sure I can do justice to this incredibly important issue.
But I do have a good sense of danger, I think. I do have a good bullshit meter and a sense of proportion.

I knew, as many of us did at the time, that "embedded" reporting was the very essence of losing free media. We felt it, didn't we? But maybe, at the time, it was hard to fully appreciate the long-term consequences-the more elusive and hidden effects on our collective minds.
A strong and aggressive media is of tremendous import in a democratic society. Without it, I do not think it is possible to have a truly educated and informed electorate. But even worse, to have a media that is serving the needs of artificial collectives such as corporations -whose interests do NOT lie with those of the People- is a downright danger.

I am writing this mostly because the point has once again been hammered home with the BP oil disaster and hearing that BP is scaring off even high profile news organizations and threatening them with arrest. It seems unbelievable, I know, but it happened and we are forced now to try to understands where we are at this point. And it is a scary answer.

The 'embedding' of reporters was a very dangerous slippery slope and I am afraid it has been slippery indeed. We have slid all the way down into a truly frightening alliance of government and corporations. When you combine this with our generally dropping level of literacy, the future begins to look an awful like the kind of Dystopian images we have seen portrayed in films like "Rollerball" or "Idiocracy".

I have always felt that one of the most overlooked and underappreciated psychological mechanisms is the ability to manipulate people's expectations. You can see one example of this in political campaigns when incumbent presidents try to lower people's expectations for their debate performances. GWB was a master of this type of thing. Another example was when companies switched from having live operators answering calls from their customers to having phone systems. Even at a young age, I knew that once people accepted this declining level of corporate responsibility, it would not be something that would ever improve. Once people's expectations for how they can be treated is lowered, it is nearly impossible to raise it up. The Health Care debate is another example. Most countries in the world would not accept the current poor health care available. That is because they are accustomed to being treated better. It is not because Americans are dumb or placid. It is simply because they do not EXPECT any better.

This is how I view the issue of the Media and the "embedded" phenomena. I think it lowered our level of what is acceptable and we came to believe that a free press just isn't as vital as it really is.

As expected, I do not think I did this issue justice with my OP. But I DO think it is a HUGE issue. One that I hope more eloquent DU'ers will pick up.

I don't want recs, I just want more people to talk about this.

[msongs]

1. embed = in bed. embedded is a control mechanism for PR purposes nt

[lonestarnot]

7. Without a doubt.

[pocoloco]

2. There was a choice?

Don't forget, BP is a big part of the MIC.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Even 60 minutes is tainted now

You have Scott Pelley who is the most obvious CIA stooge on any network news show, and they get frequent "guest appearances" from CNN's Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper who even admitted to attending "CIA summer camp" when he was younger, but denies any further involvement after that.

Speaking of CNN, Wolf Blitzer has a long list of right wing extremist baggage behind him. He's worked for AIPAC, the Likud propaganda rag Jerusalem Post, and was the middle east correspondent for Pat Robertson's "CBN News" before he became TimeCNNWarnerAOL's poster boy.

[scentopine]

4. Once the fairness doctrine was trashed and media monopolies

allowed, we were doomed. As a nation we historically do the right thing, not as quickly as we should but we do. Or used to.

Without an independent and fair media, civil rights, vietnam war, McCarthy, we'd are a completely different country.

Democrats and republicans view the media as a simple propoganda tool to enrich their fortunes. "Embedding" keeps control.

Now comes net neutrality and Obama is taking a predictably centrist stance on this issue. Fortune 500 will ultimately prevail in this pro-corporate environment, of course, and the internet will become just another collection of cable tv channels.

The rich and powerful know that they need to control the message to stay in power. Too bad for us.

[county worker]

5. Someone is going to make a documentary about the spill like the killing of dolphins in Japan

was made into a documentary and won an Academy award I think or was nominated.

[snot]

11. too little, too late.

ok, that's an overstatement; but docs long after the fact and seen by few are an inadequate substitute for a real, independent media.

[bananas]

6. Didn't that start with the Panama Invasion?

IIRC, it was only US media that was censored, people in the US receiving TV broadcast from Mexico were able to watch live uncensored on-the-scene video.

[defendandprotect]

8. Who gave us a choice????

[Cetacea]

9. You didn't need a great op for that thread.

You reported a very important breaking story. You can always write a dedicated op on the "new journalism".

It's unfortunate that the imagery that helped stop the Vietnam war helped create the current situation that we and journalists find ourselves in.
BP is not about to let photographers capture dolphins gasping for air (as reported in someone's blog) and hundreds, perhaps eventually thousands of dead sea turtles washed up on formally white beaches. And even if some journalists manage to get the goods will their stories even be published?

[KharmaTrain]

10. Some Of The Best War Reporters Were Embedded

Ernie Pyle during WWII and many reporters during Vietnam. There is something to be said of being up close in a war zone that brings the war home no matter how the military tries to spin it. The problem is the number and quality of reporters and the corporate domination of our media. In those past wars there were a lot more reporters who could cover a lot more action...especially in Vietnam. It was the large number of reporters who covered that war that made the Pentagon leery, and many were embedded. The competition among the various news agencies, magazines, newspapers and television brought a large amount of information back.

During Vietnam it could have easily been said that the media was cheerleading as well, but the competition is what pushed for the eventual revelations of My Lai and the Pentagon Papers. Today, we have a handful of corporates that dominate the flow of information and trying to do it as cheaply as they can. Most news organizations either pool talent or hire stringers and foreingers to do the reporting...putting as little "skin" in the game as they can. The few who are there are generally hunkered down in safe zones...the networks not only worried about getting a reporter injured but the insurance libabilities that go along with it. If they're going out, it's going to be in the most secure situation they can.

There have been some very good and brave reporting in the Iraq and Afghan wars...you just don't see them if you stick with the corporate news cables. Nat Geo had an excellent series on both wars and there still are intrepid reporters like Sy Hersh who brought out Abu Grahb.

Give people a little bit of credit...many are able to read through the lines these days and are getting information from many different sources. While we're stick stuck in the ugly wars, they aren't some valiant "patriotic" mission it was originally framed to be. Health care, no matter how flawed, was still passed despite all the negative propaganda and the corporates are struggling to keep themselves from going bankrupt.

[snot]

12. But we're in dam' sad shape cf'd to where we shd be, or wd be if we still had the media of, say,

the Viet Nam war era.

Sy Hersch is a hero; but he can't be everywhere.

and "and the corporates are struggling to keep themselves from going bankrupt."?? All that means is, employees and subcontractors are hurting, while senior execs continue to collect the big bucks.

[ljm2002]

13. Totally spot on!

I knew it at the time - the first Iraq invasion, AKA the Gulf War. I could not believe the "news" organizations rolled over for it. And I knew it spelled the end of our free press in any meaningful sense.

Oh, they still allow a free press of sorts. The key word there is "allow". But when it comes to reporting on the important stuff, about what the government and the plutocrats are up to, there is no free press allowed. There is no access to information, or it is tightly controlled.

And yes, the incident with the Coast Guard and BP together chasing away CBS reporters brings it into stark relief. These were *CBS reporters*, for crying out loud, not like it was a couple of bloggers!

The fact that we citizens just sit idly by while this shit goes on is beyond depressing.

We need to organize. We don't need a centralized march on Washington, we need 5000 marches in every city in the nation, and we need to target government offices and corporate offices. Or maybe a citizens' takeover of the broadcast media -- take them over, they are after all using our airwaves.

I know, I know: dream on.