Are Embeds Dead?

Two unfortunate consequences are likely to flow from the demise of Gen. Stan McChrystal because his incautious, career-killing over-sharing with a reporter for Rolling Stone.

1. Opportunities for reporters to witness the inner workings of military commanders firsthand will dry up, at least in the short run.

2. The credibility of mainstream defense media will take an unfair hit, as critics pounce on the “revelation” some journalists have are not been reporting everything they see and hear, in return for continued access.

But, “Did Rolling Stone Just Kill War Reporting?” as the Atlantic wire so bluntly put it?  Short answer, No.  But there will be a chilling effect while the military and the media do a hotwash on the rules of the road for future high-level embeds.

And for now commanders are not going to want reporters talking to their troops on such an incendiary subject as whether the President did the right thing in sacking McChrystal.  I’m sure virtually everyone in the military has an opinion, and that some blame McChrystal, and some blame the media, and some blame both.

But here is what’s NOT to blame: the embedding process that gives as much access as possible to reporters so they can get as close to the truth as possible.

While everyone’s going to be gun-shy for a while, things should return to normal fairly soon.  Despite the common criticism that embedding fosters a too cozy relationship between the military and the media, the fact is, on the whole, it increases the knowledge base of military reporters and improves the general accuracy and quality of their reporting.

While its true that distance can give perspective, there is this perverse notion that the less a reporter knows, and therefore the less empathy he or she might feel for the subject, the better the reportage will be.

Which brings up the notion that reporters are compromising their duty to report the whole truth, by agreeing to keep off-color jokes, personal gripes, and casual asides off-the-record.

As I wrote in my previous post (What WAS he thinking?) there’s no question that in order to gain access and get a more realistic picture of what’s happening at the commander level in a war zone, reporters have to be willing to put a lot of stuff off-the-record.  And to gain the trust of a commander like McChrystal, you have to show you are more interested in the big truths than the small, admittedly sometimes telling, anecdotes that make for spicy copy.   But that doesn’t mean reporters who agree to keep some private things private, are pulling their punches.  Nor does it mean they would turn a blind eye to a significant or embarrassing newsworthy event, such as witnessing a possible war crime, or overhearing an obviously racist epithet, or a direct violation of military law, such as the provision which makes contemptuous words about civilian leaders a court-martialing offense.

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.“
Article 88, UCMJ

McChrystal was not done in by Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings. He was hoist on a petard of his own making, by uttering imprudent comments and permitting a command climate in which his subordinates were allowed to mock their civilian overseers.  The fact they thought they could do this in front a reporter shows, as everyone has noted, extremely poor judgement.

But if there is one lesson that has been made “McChrystal clear” by the downfall of the “Runaway General,” it’s that reporters covering the U.S. military cannot expect to hear the unvarnished truth coming from military officers in public, on-the-record forums.  Reporters covering the Pentagon are well aware that if a commander say, has misgivings about a mission, or the progress of the war, he expresses them at great peril.  A certain amount of candor is seen as building credibility. Too much, and you’re out.

So the only way reporters can get at the larger truths is to agree to ground rules that will allow commander to operate as usual and NOT have to ensure all their utterances are politically correct.  Reporters don’t ignore the facts, or cover them up. They figure out how to convey them in a way that does not put their sources at risk.

The result is usually more accurate reporting that gets closer to the ground truth — especially the acknowledgement of failure and shortcomings — than one would get from the briefings at the Pentagon.  If anyone thinks for a minute that the real story of the war can be gleaned from Pentagon spokesman standing behind a lectern in the Pentagon briefing room, they need to go back to journalism school

Reporters who agree to keep persiflage private, are not out to make the military look good.  They are after a larger truth that can only be found under the cloak of anonymity.  Yes, that cloak can also mask a self-serving agenda, but that’s a big part of the journalist’s job: separating spin from real perspective.

The relationship between the military and the media remains tense, as it should be.

Hear more about this, in a discussion recorded for the PBS NewsHour with me, and Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute.

Jamie McIntyre was CNN’s Senior Pentagon Correspondent for 16 years.  He’s now an Adjunct Professor of Journalism at the University of Maryland, and blogs regularly about military and media issues at http://​www​.lineofdeparture​.com

Tags: Embeds, McChrystal