You should give a small warning about the content of the photographs; there is some gore and somewhat disturbing content. I recognize that this is the point, but a content warning wouldn't be a bad thing, regardless.

That said, it is a very insightful video. The whole idea of "embedded" journalists was just asking for governmental abuse.

I agree, the ethics of embedded journalism is what needs discussing.

I remember the NPR coverage of Reagan's war on Grenada, in which reporters basically snuck onto the island and did their jobs without asking permission from the military. They reported on the bombing of a hospital by U.S. forces. Wonder how THAT would have been covered under the current rules.

And yet, images of some of the worst of the worst of what's going on manage to get through and been seen.

A video called "Fallujah- The Hidden Massacre" comes to mind (google video) and leaves everyone who sees it utterly speechless. But anyway, I guess the military wants to minimize the chance of images like those in the Fallujah video getting out (I had no idea white phosphorous could do that to living tissue) and raising questions like "Why are we egregiously violating the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons in Iraq?" (FYI: WP is a chemical weapon because it works for anti-personnel purposes by reacting with the water in our bodies, burning us from the inside-out until just a skeleton wearing clothes is left; it's really spooky how it leaves the clothes relatively undamaged but handy too since everything alive in it's path dies and most of the dead people's and animal's flesh has been incinerated so no annoying rotting corpse issues BUT the infrastructure is left intact, a win-win-win for the good guys! We ARE the good guys, right?).

By embedding journalists within combat units I guess the military is following some old and wise political advice: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It seems to me that anyone capable of exposing the Fallujah massacre (if I were responsible for it) would be someone I'd consider an enemy. And if people or factions within the military are doing things like Falluljah and trying to hide or cover them up then they need to be exposed, removed and prosecuted as war criminals for the sake of our national security; every atrocity committed makes more people pissed off at us (to say the least) and some might even do something about it.

So, does the First Amendment not apply outside U.S. borders, even in the context of a country we invaded and were occupying? Just who the hell do the arrogant pricks responsible for this BS think they are? Oh, wait, they did get away with it. All of it. So I guess they think they're pretty powerful, perhaps even more powerful than the Constitution allows. Apparently they're right, and that does not bode well for the future of this country.

I think all of you above should watch the video again...

My students had an interesting discussion about this video today in class (a war and media class). Many students saw the benefits of visually recording images of war (no matter how disturbing) so that those at home could understand what was is like. Other students, though, felt like the photographer went too far and was too intrusive. We talked about how war is not just a public matter (that a nation experiences), but a personal experience for service members. Their anger toward the photographer when he photographs the female service member who lost her arm, shows how some moments of war are seen as more private-- as about a personal relationship between the people serving in a war zone. Documenting such a personal moment was inappropriate, they argued.

Aside from that, though, the military has a LONG history of dictating what pictures could be taken during war. During WWII every single image that came out during the war was vetted by the military. During Vietnam the military had very little control over the media, and journalists roamed the country taking photos that people saw on their TVs back at home. Often these were gruesome images, and when public support dwindled, the military and government saw declining war support (and the eventual loss of the war) as the media's fault. So, since then, media during war have been tightly controlled. Grenada is a great example of the media rebelling against a black out, and as a result, the military formed a Military-Media Relations committee. During more recent wars, the press pool and embedded reporting program (where journalists sign agreements as to what they can photograph and cover) has helped the military maintain control over journalism during the war.