Embeds’ Perceptions of Censorship

7/27/2019 Embeds Perceptions of Censorship

1/27

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 14 January 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789363144]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mass Communication and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653676

Embeds' Perceptions of Censorship: Can You Criticize a Soldier Then HaveBreakfast With Him in the Morning?Thomas J. Johnson a; Shahira Fahmy ba College of Mass Communications Texas Tech University, b School of Journalism University of Arizona,

Online Publication Date: 01 January 2009

To cite this Article Johnson, Thomas J. and Fahmy, Shahira(2009)'Embeds' Perceptions of Censorship: Can You Criticize a SoldierThen Have Breakfast With Him in the Morning?',Mass Communication and Society,12:1,52 77

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15205430801950650URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205430801950650

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653676http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205430801950650http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205430801950650http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653676http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf


2/27

Embeds Perceptions of Censorship:Can You Criticize a Soldier Then Have

Breakfast With Him in the Morning?

Thomas J. JohnsonCollege of Mass Communications

Texas Tech University

Shahira FahmySchool of Journalism

University of Arizona

This study examines a survey of embedded journalists worldwide to exploretheir opinions about press freedom and the degree to which they believe theirreports were censored during the Iraq War. Our findings suggest most journal-ists took a social responsibility approach to freedom of the press during thewar in Iraq, saying the needs of the media and the military need to bebalanced. Overall, embeds reported that they experienced little censorship inIraq and explained that they did not self-censor their stories.

Initial reports out of Baghdad were almost giddy as journalists claimed theembedded program provided them with unprecedented access to military

Thomas J. Johnson (Ph.D., University of Washington, 1989) is Marshall and SharleenFormby Regent Professor in the College of Mass Communications at Texas Tech University.

His fields of interest are public opinion and political communication research, particularly

how people use the Internet and the effects of online sources for individuals.

Shahira Fahmy (Ph.D., Missouri School of Journalism, 2003) is Associate Professor in the

School of Journalism at the University of Arizona. Her research interests focus on visual com-munication with an international perspective as well as new media, gatekeeping, agenda build-

ing, and media performance during wartime.

Correspondence should be addressed to Shahira Fahmy, School of Journalism, 845 N. Par

Ave., Marshall Bld. 325, P.O. Box 210158B, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail: sfahmy@email.

arizona.edu

Mass Communication and Society, 12:5277Copyright# Mass Communication & Society Division

of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication

ISSN: 1520-5436 print=1532-7825 online

DOI: 10.1080/15205430801950650

52

Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


3/27

troops and almost complete freedom to cover the war (Bernhard, 2003;Ganey, 2004; Kelley, 2003; Ricchiardi, 2003). However, after the Iraq

War dragged on and violence escalated, opinions about the amount of free-dom reporters enjoyed became less laudatory (Kahn, 2004; Schechter, 2003).Journalists began reporting cases where the government withheld or limitedaccess to information as well as intimidated journalists (Strupp, 2005).Furthermore, the embedding process came under increased criticism as jour-nalists and political observers noted that embedding limited reportersaccess to sources and led to self-censorship as reporters developedfriendships with the troops they covered and therefore avoided writing arti-cles critical of the military (Jensen, 2003; Kulish, 2003; Schechter, 2003).

Many journalists and scholars have analyzed how well the media per-formed in Iraq as well as how much freedom they enjoyed there. However,few researchers have surveyed the journalists themselves to determine howmuch censorship they believed embeds experienced in Iraq. Also, moststudies that have examined free press attitudes of journalists have beenlargely descriptive, not examining factors that predict attitudes toward cen-sorship. In particular, little attention has been paid to how source selectioninfluences attitudes toward press freedom. This study surveyed journalistswho were embedded with troops in the Iraq War to explore their opinions

about freedom of the press and the degree to which they believe their rep-orts were censored during the Iraq War. This research also focuses on thedegree to which the journalists beliefs about how freely they were allowedto report the Iraq War were predicted by their demographic characteristics,their ideologies, the types of sources they relied on, and their general attitudes.

PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD PRESS FREEDOM

Scholars fear that if public support for media rights declines, it will be easierfor public officials to pass laws to restrict journalists abilities to gather andreport the news as well as for the courts to restrict press freedom (McLeod,Sotirovic, Voakes, Guo, & Haung, 1998).

U.S. studies consistently show that the American public exhibits moderateto strong support for freedom of the pressin the abstract (Andsager,Wyatt, & Martin, 2004; Immerwahr & Doble, 2001; Langer, 2005;Protho & Grigg, 1960; Wyatt, 1991).

However, as First Amendment Center ombudsman Paul K. McMasterss

(2004) notes, there is a disconnect between the publics view of the FirstAmendment in theory and in practice. Although the public may express un-easiness about government directly censoring the press, they will supportefforts to suppress objectionable content such as nudity and graphic images,

EMBEDS PERCEPTIONS OF CENSORSHIP 53

Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


4/27

support laws to require the media to present a balanced view on issues, andbelieve that press rights can be trumped by other rights (Andsager et al., 2004).

MEDIA SUPPORT FOR PRESS FREEDOM

A journalist for the Columbia Journalism Review, speaking before a group ofBritish and American business leaders, asked for a show of hands on whofelt there should be government restrictions on the press. British hands wentup; not a single American hand moved. Most of the Americans, Lambert(1998) said, seemed to be puzzled by the question. This suggests that free-

dom of the press may appear fundamental in the United States but that viewis not always shared abroad (see Amin, 2002; Hafez, 2002).

Studies consistently show, not surprisingly, that the press is more likely toadvocate media rights than is the general public (Gaziano, 1987; Urban,1999). For instance, Wyatt and associates (Wyatt, Andsager, & Bodle,1994; Wyatt, Smith, & Andsager, 1996) found that on 25 of 26 measures,the press was more likely to support media rights than was the public. How-ever, studies suggest that press support for First Amendment rights is hardlyabsolute or unconditional. Most reporters believe that First Amendment

rights need to be balanced against other needs.Few studies have directly examined journalists support for press free-

dom. However, several studies have explored surrogate measures of pressfreedom, such as journalistic values and support for controversial presspractices (e.g., Gaziano, 1987; Weaver, Beam, Brownlee, Voakes, & Wilhoit,2006; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986, 1996). These studies suggest few journalistsare absolutists but rather concede journalistic rights need to be balancedagainst other rights. For instance, Gaziano found that although journalistsmay have been more likely to run controversial stories than the public, few

journalists supported absolute press freedom. In nearly all cases, the major-ity answered that they would sometimes rather than always report thestory, a finding supported by other researchers (e.g. Voakes, 1997). Simi-larly, Weaver and associates (Weaver et al., 2006; Weaver & Wilhoit,1986, 1996) found that support for most controversial reporting practiceshas declined over the last 2 decades.

PRESS CONTROLS AND THE EMBEDDED PROGRAM

Although there is little dispute that the press in Iraq has enjoyed morefreedom than in any other recent U.S. war, observers debate the degree towhich media coverage was controlled in Iraq.

54 JOHNSON AND FAHMY

Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


5/27

After being roundly criticized for restricting press coverage in the PersianGulf War, the Pentagon realized it needed to remove these shackles in the

war in Iraq. The government developed the embed system in which journal-ists were placed with front line and rear echelon military units before andduring the Iraq War. The Pentagon guidelines promised that embeddedreporters would get complete access to service members and operationalcombat missions and that all interviews would be on record. In return,the journalists had to agree not to release 19 categories of information,including specific numbers of troops, aircrafts or units, information regard-ing future operations, and medical information about the wounded(Katovsky & Carlson, 2003). Commanders could also impose news embar-

goes, such as when they blacked out coverage at the beginning of the groundwar (Kulish, 2003).

The stated purpose of the embedded program was to improve militarypress=relations and to improve journalistic accuracy by moving reportersout of press conferences and Baghdad hotels and providing them with afirsthand look at military operations (Bushell & Cunningham, 2003; Folken-flik, 2003; Katovsky & Carlson, 2003; LaFleur, 2003; Shepherd, 2004).However, the government realized by stationing reporters with the military,reporters would likely identify with those they cover and willingly write the

news from a U.S perspective (LaFleur, 2003; Rodriguez, 2004). As Lt. Col.Rick Long, former head of media relations for the U.S. Marine Corps, saidat a conference on war coverage, Frankly our job is to win the war. Part ofthat is information warfare. So we are going to attempt to dominate theinformation environment (Kahn, 2004, p. 20). From the military perspec-tive, the embed program served that end.

PRESS FREEDOM DURING THE IRAQ WAR

Journalists, at least during the early days of the war, praised the embeddingsystem as a success both for providing the press relatively unfettered accessin covering the war and for improving media relations with the military(Bernhard, 2003). Supporters judged the embed process a success for severalreasons.

First, supporters claim the government largely lived up to its promise ofallowing reporters to cover the war free of censorship as long as reportersabided by the rules that forbade revealing sensitive information such as

troop movements (Bernhard, 2003; Ricchiardi, 2003). Surveys of embedsfound that they were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about how much freedomthey were allowed under the system. A study of 50 journalists found thatabout 93% said they could not imagine that any alternative to the embed


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


6/27

program would have given them as much access, provided a more firsthandview, or been as comprehensive (Ganey, 2004). Fahmy and Johnson (2005)

reported in their survey of embeds that nearly 8 in 10 (79.6%) said thatoverall the embedded journalists believed they were successful in reportingthe war.

Second, embedding allowed reporters to get firsthand reports in real timefrom military units, giving the public a fuller sense of the horrors and con-fusion of war and greater insight into the workings of the military (LaFleur,2003; Ricchiardi, 2003). As Harvard professor Nancy Bernhard (2003)noted, If embedding yielded some gee-whiz admiration for soldiers andtheir hardware, mutuality also yielded a great deal of public education about

military life and procedures (p. 87).Third, the embed process provided reporters with greater access to the

battlefield and a greater understanding of what was happening onthe ground than journalists enjoyed in previous wars. Reporters said theywere often privy to briefings where they were given specific informationabout the military objectives of a specific operation, allowing them a betterunderstanding of the conflict. Although they were not allowed to reportinformation such as when and where an operation would be launched, suchmilitary briefings provided them with information that reporters back in

Washington, who were reporting the war through attending Pentagon pressbriefings, lacked. As a reporter indicated to Fahmy and Johnson (2005),

What embedding has done is to make it possible for media organizations tobetter understand what is really happening in the fog of war, rather thanmaking guesses and assumptions based on reporters who didnt witness whathappened, but merely arrived two or three days later. The embed experienceopened my eyes about how often and easy it has been in the past for reputablenews organizations to get it wrong (p. 311).

Finally, although critics contend that reporters got too close to theirsources and abandoned their objectivity, supporters argued that militaryofficials also developed bonds with reporters and provided information ontroop movements and military strategy that they otherwise would not havegiven (Girardi, 2004). Similarly, journalists claimed that embedding was justlike other beats reporters covered. Journalists are professionals; getting closeto their sources doesnt prevent reporters from asking the probing questionor reporting negative stories (Dillow, 2003). Indeed, although reporterscoverage was overwhelmingly positive during the early days when the troops

met little resistance, coverage became more negative when Iraqi forces slo-wed down reporters in their march toward Baghdad, with some reportersarguing that the war was quickly sinking into a Vietnam-like quagmire(Friedman, 2003; Smolkin, 2003).


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


7/27

But although the embed process initially garnered considerable supportamong reporters, others questioned whether the embed process provided

as much freedom as its supporters claim. First, observers charged that theembed rules were not set up to provide reporters with complete freedomto report the war but to ensure that the militarys version of the war wasthe only one being reported. Reporters were prohibited from traveling inde-pendently, which meant they could only go where the military took them.Also, they had access to few sources other than the military. Because inter-views had to be on the record, lower level service people were unlikely to becandid with reporters for fear of punishment. Officers were allowed to cen-sor copy and restrict electronic transmissions for operational security.

Operational security could be defined as whatever information field com-manders wanted to keep hidden (Al-Kindi, 2004; Arnott, 2003; Bushell &Cunningham, 2003; Jensen, 2003).

Second, critics charged that objectivity was the first casualty ofembedding. The embed process created a Stockholm syndrome(Bernhard, 2003; McLane, 2004) where reporters would come to identifywith the soldiers in their units much like prisoners have been found to some-times identify with their captors (Brandenburg, 2005; Finney, 2005; Schech-ter, 2003). Reporters could not remain objective when they had to depend

on the military for food, shelter, transportation, information, and theirown protection and information (Ganey, 2004; Kalb, 2003; McLane,2003; Reese, 2004). As 60 Minutes correspondent and World War II reporterAndy Rooney said, Its very difficult to write anything critical about a guyyou are going have breakfast with the next morning (as cited inKurtz, 2003). Indeed, critics noted several examples of U.S. embeds losingobjectivity. For instance, some reporters wore flag lapel pins and much ofthe reporting took on a cheerleading, can-do tone (Friedman, 2003).

Content analyses of war coverage offer conflicting perspectives on how

positive embed coverage was. Some studies suggested embeds presented amuch more positive view of the war than the unilaterals (nonembeddedreporters) because embeds developed a trust in the military officials theycovered and adoptedat least to some degreethe militarys values(Cooper & Kuypers, 2004; Haigh et al., 2006; Lewis, 2006; Pfau et al.,2004; Pfau, Haigh, et al., 2005; Pfau, Wittenberg, et al., 2005). However,another study found that embed coverage was overwhelmingly (91.2%)neutral (Aday, Livingston, & Hebert, 2005).

Finally, critics noted that although the embed process may have worked

reasonably well because the U.S. military enjoyed considerable success inthe ground war, they questioned whether the military would have trampledpress freedom if a battalion was lost in a chemical attack or if theIraqi National Guard had put up more resistance (McLane, 2004). Indeed,


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


8/27

when the combat gave way to the military enforcing a dangerous andbloody peace, reports of censorship increased. The president of the Asso-

ciated Press Managing Editors, Stuart Wilk, contended that camera disksand videotapes had been confiscated from photojournalists, some journal-ists were detained by U.S. troops and some reporters were shot at(Folkenflik, 2003).

SOURCES AND SUPPORT FOR PRESS FREEDOM VIEWS

Shoemaker and Reese (1996; also Reese, 2001) developed a hierarchy-

of-influence model to explain the relative influence of several factors onthe newsgathering process. They explored how individual factors, mediaroutines, organizational structures, extramedia forces, and ideological fac-tors influence what gets covered and how. Although each level has itsown range of influence, higher level factors exert more influence than lowerlevel ones. Shoemaker and Reese (1996; see also Reese, 2001) list sourcesamong a cluster of extramedia factors including interest groups, other mediaorganizations, advertisers, the audience and government controls. In thehierarchy-of-influence model, sources and other extramedia factors are

among the most powerful influences on media content, trailing only ideolo-gical factors. The theory was developed to try to explain patterns of mediacoverage, but the model has been adapted to examine journalistic attitudes(Berkowitz & Limor, 2003; Plaisance & Skewes, 2003; Voakes, 1997; Weaveret al., 2006; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986, 1996).

Several studies have explored the influence of sources on news practicesand different news values (Berkowitz & Limor, 2003; Weaver et al., 2006;Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986, 1996). Voakes (1997) found that those whoclaimed sources had an important influence on what they wrote were less

likely to support controversial newsgathering practices. However, littleattention has been paid to the impact of different types of sources onfreedom of press views.

Numerous researchers have found that source selection can have a majorinfluence on media content as news practices dictate that journalists onlyreport what they directly observe or get from other sources (Fishman,1980; Gans, 1979; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Similarly, although a widevariety of sources could be consulted for any story, the media rely heavilyon official government and business sources. Sources with political or eco-

nomic power normally do not hesitate to promote their perspective on thenews. Official sources have regular offices and full-time staff to providereporters with a ready supply of easily accessible information. Also, officialsources are often judged by news organizations as more important and as


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


9/27

being more credible than poorly funded and politically inexperienced grassroots organizations and are thus more likely to be cited (Mermin, 2004;

Shoemaker & Reese, 1996).Studies suggest that reporters rely heavily on government sources for

international stories (de Beer & Merrill, 2004; McQuail, 2005) and thatthe tie between the media and government sources is never stronger thanduring wartime (Fahmy, 2005a, 2005b, 2007a, 2007b). Scholars have notedthat embedded journalists reported the war more favorably than unilaterials(Haigh et al., 2006; Pfau et al., 2004; Pfau, Haigh, et al., 2005; Pfau,Wittenberg, et al., 2005), and Fahmy and Johnson (2007) suggested thatsourcing can explain at least some of the differences in coverage. Embeds

were largely limited to reporting on the unit they were assigned to. Becausethey relied heavily on military sources and what they observed traveling withthe military, their stories were more positive and focused on the dominanceof American troops and the joy of Iraqi civilians after the Saddam Husseinregime fell. Nonembedded reporters (unilaterals) witnessed the war from adistance and relied heavily on civilians. Their stories were more negative,focusing on the unpredictability of war and the frustrations of the Iraqipeople (Cooper & Kuypers, 2004; Fahmy & Johnson, 2007; Pfau et al.,2004; Pfau, Haigh, et al., 2005; Pfau, Wittenberg, et al., 2005).

Journalists also rely heavily on each other for story ideas, storyimportance, background information, and research for their own stories(Berkowitz & Limor, 2003; Breed, 1955; Burgoon, Burgoon, Buller, &Atkin, 1987; Fishman, 1980; Gans, 1979; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996).Indeed, a study of German journalists (Reinemann, 2004) found that

journalists relied most heavily on news agencies for story ideas, story selec-tion, and research, ahead of politicians or representatives of interest groups.Journalists ranked other media third in terms of searching for stories andselection of stories, and research ranked fourth. Younger reporters, who are

also likely to be less experienced, are more likely to rely on other media thanother reporters. Reinemann indicated that journalists rely on other mediafor some of the same reasons they rely on official sources, such as theyare reliable and are readily available at low cost.

Not all reporters are as likely to quote official sources, however.Although studies could not be found that have linked the role of journalistswith use of sources, reporters who support the adversarial role believe theyneed to be watchdogs and remain skeptical of powerful figures in govern-ment and business are likely to look beyond government sources for infor-

mation, including local experts, documentary sources, other journalists, andother news agencies. Those who support the disseminator role, whichemphasizes getting news of interest to the broad audience of news consu-mers quickly, may be more likely to rely on governmental sources that


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


10/27

are readily available and are judged as credible (D. Weaver, personalcommunication, March 17, 2005).

PREDICTORS OF PRESS FREEDOM VIEWS

Although studies suggest a host of demographic and political factors predictattitudes about freedom of press among the public, fewer measuresconsistently explain attitudes among journalists regarding freedom of thepress, whether press freedom is measured in terms of the political role of

journalists or their willingness to take controversial stances. Also, the influ-

ences of demographic and political factors have declined over the years.Age and ideology have consistently emerged as leading predictors of

support for controversial news practices. Studies suggest that those whoare liberal and younger are more likely to support both controversial news-gathering practices and an interpretive role, whereas older, conservative

journalists support a disseminator role (Gaziano, 1997; Weaver & Wilhoit,1986, 1996). Reporters who began their career during the turbulent 1960sand 1970s, when journalists actively questioned the concept of objectivity,favor a more investigative or adversarial press, whereras those journalists

who began their careers during the conservative 1950s, or during the Reaganand Bush years, may have been trained to be detached observers and tofavor a disseminator role (Johnson & Kelly, 2003). Weaver and associates(2006), however, discovered that neither age nor ideology made a differencein their most recent study, although perceptions of the ideology ofones news organization influenced reporters willingness to supportcontroversial reporting practices.

Education and gender have less of an influence on news values andsupport for controversial practices. Highly educated reporters support a

participant role (Johnstone, Slawski, & Bowman, 1971) and are less likelyto subscribe to the disseminator role (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986). Educationhas declined as a predictor, as more and more journalists have earned atleast a bachelors degree (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986, 1996). Weaver andWilhoit and Weaver and associates (2006) found no significant differencesbetween men and women in their studies of American journalists newsvalues and support for controversial news practices.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

This study examines how embedded journalists view freedom of thepress and how much censorship they experienced in reporting the Iraq


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


11/27

War. More specifically, this study addresses the following research questionsand hypotheses:

RQ1: How much censorship did embedded journalists perceive they experi-enced in reporting the Iraq War?

H1: Embedded journalists will more likely hold a situational rather than anabsolutist view of press freedom during the Iraq War.

H2: The more embedded journalists relied on government sources the lessthey believed the government censored information during the Iraq War.

RQ2: What is the relationship between embedded journalists reliance onforeign news sources and how much they believed the government

censored information during the Iraq War?RQ3: What is the relationship embedded journalists reliance on other

journalists in general and how much they believed the governmentcensored information during the Iraq War?

METHOD

A survey of embedded journalists was conducted January 20, 2004, through

March 10, 2004, to generate data to test the hypotheses and evaluate theresearch questions. To compile a list of about 400 embedded journalists, amultimethod approach was used. An unofficial list of names was first obtainedthrough the Pentagon. However, because the list did not include e-mail con-tacts or journalists affiliation, efforts failed to find contact information ofall embeds listed. (After numerous communications with Pentagon officialsto assist us with this project, Pentagon officials denied that the list evenexisted.) Additional names and contact information of embedded journalistswere obtained through personal contacts with news correspondents and jour-

nalism educators in the Middle East, Europe, and the Far East. Specifically,names and contact information of journalists covering the Iraq War weremostly provided via e-mail from educators and journalists from Germany,China, Iraq, and Egypt. Once the list of 400 journalists was compiled, perso-nalized e-mails were sent directing the embeds to a Web-based questionnaire.

Because this study aimed at exploring how much censorship embeddedjournalists believed they experienced in Iraq, correspondents who coveredonly the Iraq War as unilateral journalists were removed from the list.Moreover, journalists who got the approval to embed but who never cov-

ered the conflict as well as news professionals who only managed theembedded program in their news organizations (e.g., those in charge ofmaking arrangements for journalists to be embedded with the military) werealso eliminated from the list. Overall, it is estimated that 302 e-mails were


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


12/27

delivered successfully to embedded reporters. To increase the response rate,4 follow-up e-mails were sent to nonrespondents.

A total of 159 respondents completed the survey by the 1st week ofMarch. The response rate was 53%, an extremely high rate given the busyschedules of journalists (many of whom were still embedded in Iraq at thetime the survey was conducted) and the diffusion of Internet viruses, spam,and junk e-mail with potential respondents screening e-mails and deletingunfamiliar e-mail messages.

Using an online survey, the researchers had access to a limited number ofe-mail addresses. Nevertheless, the electronic survey method offered poten-tial efficiencies that include reducing costs, improving time lines, and over-

coming international boundaries (Dillman, 2000). Overall, cost effectivenessand timeliness, accompanied with the fact that many of the journalists werestill embedded during the military conflict, made the Web-based datacollection a practical survey method for this study.

MEASURES

Perceptions of Censorship During the Iraq War

The main dependent variable for this study was embedded journalistsperceptions of amount of censorship journalists endured during the IraqWar. Four Likert scale measures gauged attempts to control media coverageby the media, how much the media self-censored, and whether the publicreceived largely uncensored news: How much did the public information spe-cialists influence the news media during the Iraq War? How severe was themilitary control of embedded journalists during the Iraq War? To what extentdid the media impose self-censorship in the coverage of the Iraq War? Howmuch did the public enjoy their right to know during the Iraq War? Possibleresponses ranged from not at allto very much. The last question was recodedto range from very much to not at all, and the four variables were summed toform a Censorship index. The Cronbachs alpha for the index was .68.

Perceptions of Press Freedom

One of the main independent variables for this study was embedded journal-ists perceptions of press freedom. Respondents were asked whether

embedded journalists should be able to report anything they choose withoutprior military review. Questions on perceptions of press freedom and cen-sorship were either developed by the authors or adapted from a survey ofeditors of embedded journalists (see Shin, Adhikari, & Cameron, 2005).


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


13/27

Other related questions included whether the media should enjoymaximum access to military plans during conflict and whether they should

be free to visit any place they choose without army approval. In addition,embeds were asked to compare government control of information duringthe Iraq War to previous wars, such as the first Gulf War and the AfghanWar. Response categories ranged from not at all to very much. Theembedded journalists were further asked whether the media should havebeen less controlled during the war and then asked to elaborate viaopen-ended questions about their attitudes toward press freedom and theirperceptions of censorship in the Iraq War to provide a more detailedexamination of both issues.

Types of Sources

Government Sources

To test the relationship between attitudes toward press freedom and use ofgovernment sources, a government source index was computed. The indexwas composed of two measures: how often embedded journalists reportedthey relied on military public affairs officers and how much they reliedon U.S. government news releases for the coverage of the Iraq War. The

5-point scale ranged from never to regularly. The Cronbachs alpha testingthe reliability of the government source scale was .68.

Foreign Sources

A foreign source index was also computed. Respondents were asked toassess their reliance on international newspapers, foreign satellite channels,the BBC, and Al-Jazeera for the coverage of the Iraq War. Response cate-gories again ranged from never to regularly. The Cronbachs alpha testing

the reliability of the foreign source scale was .83.

Journalists

Finally a journalist source index was computed. The index was composed oftwo measures: how often respondents reported they relied on otherembedded journalists and on nonembedded=unilateral journalists for thecoverage of the recent Iraq War. Response categories also ranged from neverto regularly. The Cronbachs alpha for the index was .75.

Demographic and Political Variables

A set of background questions was used for descriptive and comparisonpurposes. This study specifically examined associations between perceptions


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


14/27

of press freedom and age, gender, education, and years of professionalexperience. Those surveyed were also asked about their political ideology

on a scale from extreme right wing to extreme left wing.1

Additionalbackground questions included nationality, international experience, andproficiency in foreign languages, as well as experience with nonembeddingreporting (if applicable) and coverage of previous conflicts.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed in two stages. First, frequencies were run ondemographic and political variables, source reliance, support for press free-dom, and media access in war reporting as well as perceptions of censorshipduring coverage of the Iraq War. Second, a hierarchical regression testedwhether reliance on government sources, foreign sources and embeddedand nonembedded journalists predict perceptions of censorship in Iraq aftercontrolling for demographics, political ideology, and support for press free-dom. Demographics were entered as the first block, and political ideologywas entered as the second block. Support for press freedom and accesswas entered in the third block. Source reliance indexes were entered last.Because of the small sample size, the p level was set at the .10 level.

RESULTS

Embeds: Demographics and Characteristics

A total of 159 embeds took part in the survey. Demographically, respon-dents were from 22 different countries, with 73% of the respondents comingfrom the United States.2 More than 9 in 10 reported they were White, and95% indicated at least a university degree. Respondents ranged in age from

25 to 60 years old, with a mean of 41. Men greatly outnumbered women(85.5% to 14.5%). Regarding political ideology, about two thirds ofthe respondents (66.1%) reported they were neutral, 25.7% consideredthemselves left wing, and 8.3% reported they were right wing.

1Because this survey targeted embedded journalists worldwide, we expected the typical

liberal versus conservative approach to be less appropriate in measuring political ideology in

an international context.2Although embedded journalists in this survey were from 22 different countries, 107 indi-

cated they were from the United States and 44 indicated they were from Canada, Australia,

and European countries. Only 8 respondents reported they were from countries in the Far East

and the Middle East. Thus, the overall small sample size of non-Western reporters made it

difficult to run statistical analysis examining differences in responses based on nationality.


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


15/27

In terms of work experience, embeds tended to have extensive profes-sional experience. Seventy percent indicated industry experience that ranged

from 11 to more than 20 years of reporting, and about 30% explained theyworked as journalists for more than 2 decades.

Regarding coverage of previous wars and experience with nonembeddingreporting, 71% covered previous conflicts and 37% indicated they alsoreported the recent Iraq War as nonembedded journalists.

Overall, embedded journalists represented a fairly international back-ground. About 7 in 10 indicated they were proficient with at least oneforeign language, with 38.1% reporting they were proficient with at leasttwo foreign languages. Regarding international experience, 60.5% lived out-

side their native country for at least 1 year, with 35% stating they livedabroad for a period that ranged from 6 to more than 20 years.

Embedded Journalists and Perceptions of Censorship in Covering

the Iraq War

RQ1 examined embedded journalists perceptions of how much censorshipthey experienced in the Iraq War. Although embedded journalists indicatedthat the media should have experienced fewer controls, they believe the

embed system provided them sufficient freedom to report the war.More than half (54.8%) agreed that the media should have been less

controlled during the war, but a sizeable portion of respondents (45.2%)reported that the media enjoyed sufficient freedom. On the other hand,more than half (62.1%) indicated no or little military control of embedded

journalists. Almost two thirds (65%) of the respondents reported thatpublic information specialists had no or little influence on the news media.In terms of self-censorship, half of the respondents (53.2%) reported themedia imposed no or little self-censorship. The means for these three ques-

tions ranged between 2 and 3, corresponding to little. Further, 7 in 10(70.4%) indicated the public largely enjoyed their right to know duringthe Iraq War. The mean was 3.87, slightly lower than the muchresponse category. (See Table 1 for detailed percentages and means ofresponses).

When comparing government control of information during the IraqWar to previous wars, around half of the respondents (55.2%) said therewas comparatively no or little control of information in the Iraq War.The mean was 2.62, which corresponded between the little and neutral

response categories. In comparing the Iraq War to the first Gulf War speci-fically, three fourths of those surveyed (74.8%) explained that there was noor little control. The mean was 2.06, which corresponded with the littleresponse category. When comparing the Iraq War to the Afghan War, the


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


16/27

majority of the respondents (58.7%) reported no or little control. The meanwas 2.54, which was between the little and neutral response categorieswith less than one fourth (19.2%) of the respondents indicating much morecontrol in reporting the conflict in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

Embedded Journalists and Attitudes Toward Press Freedom

and Access in War Reporting

The first hypothesis stated that embedded journalists will hold more of asituational than an absolutist view of press freedom during the Iraq War.Results show respondents believe, by and large, the media need to be freefrom government and military control, although journalists were hardlyabsolutists. Means of responses ranged between 2 and 3, corresponding toslightly agree, (or agree to neutral). H1 was, therefore, supported.

More than 60% strongly agreed or agreed that the media should enjoymaximum access to military plans during conflict (M 2.22), that

embedded journalists should be able to report anything they choose with-out prior military review (M 2.3), and that embedded journalists shouldbe free to visit any place they choose without army approval (M 2.36)(See Table 2).

TABLE 1

Responses to Questions Regarding Embedded Journalists Perceptions

of Press Freedom During the Iraq War

M

(%) ReportingNot at All & Little(%)

(%) Reporting Much& Very Much (%)

How much did the public

information specialists

influence the news media

during the Iraq War?

2.38 65 15.1

How severe was the military

control of embedded

journalists during the

Iraq War?

2.46 62.1 19.7

To what extent did the

media impose

self-censorship in the

coverage of the Iraq War?

2.71 53.2 25.8

How much did the public

enjoy their right to know

during the Iraq War?

3.87 14.1 70.4

Note. N159. 1Not at All; 2Little; 3Neutral; 4Much; 5Very much.


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


17/27

Embedded Journalists and Source Reliance

Table 3 details how embedded journalists assess their reliance on govern-

ment, foreign, and journalists in reporting the Iraq War. Overall, respon-dents did not regularly rely on a single type of source. All means ofresponses were smaller than 3, corresponding to sometimes.

In terms of government sources, reliance on information from militarypublic affairs officers ranked highest (M2.72), followed by reliance on theBBC (M 2.65), local expert sources (M 2.57), other embedded (M2.54), and nonembedded=unilateral journalists (M2.28). Reliance on

TABLE 3

Responses to Questions Regarding Embedded Journalists Reliance on DifferentSources During the Iraq War

M

% Reporting

Never & Rarely (%)

% Reporting Regularly

& Often (%)

Military Public Affairs Officers 2.72 44.7 26.9

The BBC 2.65 49 28.2

Other embedded journalists 2.54 48.4 18

Nonembedded=Unilateraljournalists

2.28 58.5 17

International newspapers 2.07 67.1 12.8Al-Jazeera 1.99 68.7 14

U.S. government news releases 1.82 74.1 6.9

Note. N159. 1Never; 2Rarely; 3Sometimes; 4Regularly; 5Often.

TABLE 2

Responses to Statements Regarding Embedded Journalists Attitudes Toward Press

Freedom and Access in War Reporting

M

% ReportingStrongly Agree &

Agree (%)

% Reporting StronglyDisagree & Disagree

(%)

The media should enjoy maximum

access to military plans during

conflict.

2.22 62.6 18.1

Embedded journalists should be

able to report anything they

choose without prior military

review.

2.3 62.3 23.3

Embedded journalists should be

free to visit any place they choose

without army approval.

2.36 62.1 22.4

Note. N159. 1Strongly agree; 2Agree; 3Neutral; 4Disagree; 5Strongly Disagree.


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


18/27

information from international newspapers, the Al-Jazeera network and U.S.government news releases ranked last (M 2.07, 1.99, and 1.82, respectively).

A hierarchical regression (See Table 4) showed no support for H2the

more embedded journalists relied on government sources, the less theybelieved the government censored information during the Iraq War. Aftercontrolling for demographics, political ideology, and support for press free-dom and access, results indicated the use of government sources (b .268,p< .01) significantly explained perceptions of censorship in the oppositedirection predicted. The more embeds relied on information from govern-ment sources the more they believed the government censored informationduring the Iraq War.

RQ2 and RQ3 examined the relationships between how much embedded

journalists relied on both foreign news sources and on their fellow journal-ists and how much they believed the government censored information dur-ing the Iraq War. After controlling for demographics, political ideology,and support for press freedom and access, results showed the use of foreignmedia (b .170, p< .10) significantly predicted perceptions of censorship.The more embeds relied on foreign media, the more they believed the gov-ernment censored information. Relying on fellow journalists did not predictperceptions of censorship.

Finally, it is important to note that in the hierarchical regression equa-

tion, younger respondents were more likely to perceive greater censorshipthan older respondents (b.335, p< .01). Further, respondents withhigher levels of education (b .185, p< .10), and more years of professionalexperience (b .270, p< .10) were more likely to perceive more censorship

TABLE 4

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results Examining Factors

Related to Embeds Opinions About Amount of Censorship

During the Iraq War

b p

Age .335 .001

Gender .098 .329

Education .185 .062

Experience .270 .092

Political ideology .115 .243

Support for press freedom .130 .178

Government source index .268 .007

Foreign source index .170 .089

Journalists source index .009 .935

Note. N159. F8.371, p< .000 (R .475, R2 .226, adjustedR2 .199).


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


19/27

than respondents with lower levels of education and a limited amount ofprofessional experience.

DISCUSSION

Many journalists and political observers have debated how much freedomjournalists enjoyed in covering the Iraq War. However, few researchers havesurveyed the journalists themselves to determine how much censorship theyexperienced in Iraq. Also, most studies that have examined attitudes of jour-nalists have been largely descriptive, not examining factors that predict atti-tudes toward censorship. This study examined journalists support of pressfreedom during wartime and to what degree they believed they were able tooperate in Iraq without censorship.

There is little question that journalists support press freedom more thanthe public (Gaziano, 1987; Urban, 1999), but it is unclear whether that sup-port is absolute or situational. That is, do the media believe freedom of thepress is unconditional or should be balanced against other rights? Studiessuggest that journalists are increasingly advocating a situational rather thanan absolutist position. Although reporters might be more likely than thepublic to run controversial stories, including ones involving the military,most reporters say they would sometimes rather than always reportthe story (Gaziano, 1987; Voakes, 1997; Weaver et al., 2006; Weaver &Wilhoit, 1986, 1996).

Although more than 6 in 10 agreed that press rights should generally takeprecedence over military rights, this study found that few embedded journalistsstrongly believed that journalists should have absolute freedom in covering thewar. Only about one third of the respondents strongly agreed that the mediashould enjoy maximum access to military plans during conflicts or be able toreport anything they choose without prior military review. Even fewer believedthat the media should have complete freedom of movement without militaryapproval. Therefore, most embeds in this study recognized that the press needsto be balanced against the rights of the military. As one reporter noted,

In a perfect world the media would have full access, no controls, the groundrules that all embedded journalists were required to sign provided sufficientsecurity controlsin essence a requirement for self censorship on securityissueslocations of units, future plans, etc. the media should always seekunlimited access. But the military, any nations military, has a legitimate

interest in keeping its plans private.

Surveys of embedded journalists indicated that the majority applaudedthe embed program (Fahmy & Johnson, 2005; Ganey, 2004; Shin et al.,


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


20/27

2005). At least one reason the embedded journalists supported the programwas that they felt the military did little to restrict their coverage. When asked

how severely the military controlled embedded journalists, more than 60%said they suffered little, if any, censorship. More than 70% said the embedsystem allowed them to live up to their social responsibility to report thewar fully, as they indicated the public enjoyed their right to know duringthe war. As one reporter stated,

In my case, and the case of the reporters around me, there was no attempt tomonitor what we said. We were allowed to go where we wanted, follow thebattalions we were interested in, to the best that logistics allowed. I wasamazed at the level of trust placed in embedded journalists. I had access towar plans, and a good deal of trust was placed in us that we would not revealthat planning prematurely.

Most reporters indicated that restrictions did not come from the militaryper se but from the nature of the embed process. Being stationed withspecific units limited where they could go and the amount of access theyhad to sources outside the military. As one embed indicated,

There were many cases when I wanted to stop, linger, interview more Iraqi

people, look more closely at a scene, but then (with no regard to my statusas a journalist) the convoy started moving and I was whisked away. Thisdid not happen because I was a journalist and they didnt want me seeingsomething.

However, about 20% said that coverage was restricted. Many indicatedthat although they enjoyed complete access to the military, other reporterswere stationed with units where the commanders were not as forthcomingwith information. Those who did feel they did not gain complete accessto military information said it was because the military and journalisticobjectives did not always coincide:

Military objectives are in direct opposition, often, to journalistic imperatives.Military personnel were more inclined to divert media from aspects of the warthat did not project a favorable image of their role. For example, there was nofootage of the bodies of American soldiers broadcast by television stationsor photographed by newspapers. Many of the statements made by militarypersonnel were not verifiable since we were not allowed access to the sameinformation.

Critics feared that embedded reporters could not remain objective whenthey had to depend on the military for food, shelter, transportation, informa-tion, and their own safety (Ganey, 2004). In this situation, the government


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


21/27

would not need to censor the embeds because they would censor themselves.About one quarter of the embeds said they censored themselves in covering

the Iraq War. Several embeds indicated they were free to report anything aslong as they did not reveal the units positions, obstruct the military duringcombat or not list names of dead or wounded. Therefore, embedded journal-ists did not assert an absolutist view that they had the right to report anyinformation they found about the war regardless of consequences. Rather

journalists claimed they had the social responsibility to provide the publica thorough understanding of the conflict without endangering the militarysmission and the life of the troops. Therefore, it is clear that most journalistsperceived that the rights of the press needed to be balanced against national

security interests and the safety of the troops.Age and ideology have consistently emerged as the strongest predictors of

freedom of the press measures, with young, liberal journalists being thestrongest advocates of an unfettered press (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986,1996). In this study, although young reporters may have been more likelyto contend that the government restricted press coverage in Iraq, ideologydid not factor in. But past studies measured press freedoms in terms of rolesof the press or support for controversial reporting practices in hypotheticalcases. This study investigated attitudes toward a concrete freedom of press

situation and undoubtedly reporters theoretical attitudes toward the role ofthe press in military conflicts were greatly influenced by their real-life experi-ences in Iraq. Reporters, regardless of their support for press freedoms, feltthat in general the government took a hands-off policy toward the press inIraq. Younger reporters were more likely to grumble about press controlsin Iraq because they had not covered earlier conflicts when the press wasmore restricted.

Past studies have examined organizational influences on attitudes towardpress freedom (Berkowitz & Limor 2003; Voakes, 1997; Weaver et al., 2006;

Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986, 1996). However, studies have not examinedwhether types of sources influence perceptions of censorship, even thoughreporters who take a more adversarial stand are more likely to seek outinformation from a variety of sources, while disseminators may rely moreheavily on the government for information (D. Weaver, personal communi-cation, March 17, 2005).

This study found that those who sought information from foreignmedia were more likely to claim the military imposed censorship on jour-nalists. Studies suggest that foreign news sources covered the war differ-

ently from U.S. ones (Vliegenthart & Schroder, 2006). For instance,foreign sources were about twice as likely as U.S. ones to frame the cover-age in terms of assigning blame to who started the war (Dimitrova, Kaid,Williams, & Trammell, 2005). Although Dimitrova and associates did not


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


22/27

believe differences reflected government censorship but rather the tendencyof the media to reflect their culture, the different perspectives of foreign

sources may have more clearly demonstrated the efforts of the militaryto spin a pro-coalition view of the war. However, this study defined gov-ernment sources as external ones (military public affairs officers and U.S.government news releases) not internal ones (soldiers and military officialsthey embedded with). Studies suggest that those who covered the war fromthe Pentagon rather than the battlefield complained that they received lit-tle information from the government and what information they receivedhad a strong pro-coalition bias (Fahmy & Johnson, 2007). Thus, although

journalists trusted information they were able to witness or received from

those they embedded with, they did not trust information they receivedfrom pubic affairs officials and government news releases. Indeed, theinformation they received on the scene may have contradicted informationsent by the government through its official releases.

Studies suggest that reporters rely heavily on government sources duringwartime (Fahmy, 2005a, 2005b, 2007a, 2007b). Scholars have noted thatembedded journalists reported the war more favorably than unilaterials(Haigh et al., 2006; Pfau et al., 2004; Pfau, Haigh, et al., 2005; Pfau,Wittenberg, et al., 2005), so it was anticipated that those who relied heavily

on government sources would be less likely to perceive that the governmentcensored information. However, this study found that the more the embedsrelied on government sources, the more they perceived that information wascensored. Perhaps those who relied heavily on government sources morecarefully scrutinized the information they received and were therefore morecritical of the governments handling of the media.

Reporters said they never or rarely relied on all sources listed includingforeign news, local experts and even Military Public Affairs Officers. There-fore, it was somewhat surprising that foreign and government sources had

the ability to predict perceptions of press freedom. One of the main criti-cisms of embedding is that it tethered reporters to a military unit, restrictingthe types of sources they could talk to. Fahmy and Johnson (2005) foundthat although journalists were overall pleased with the embed process, theyconceded that they provided only a small, fragmented perspective on thewar, whereas the broader picture of how the war was proceeding and theIraqi peoples reaction to it was lost. For instance, they found that reporterssaid that they had little or no contact with any Iraqi civilians except whenthey were on the roadside or desert path asking for food or water. Perhaps

type of sources might have had a greater effect in other situations, wherejournalists had access to a wide variety of individuals to interview.

This research found, then, that from the reporters perspective, theembed process worked. Embedded journalists surveyed indicated that the


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


23/27

government made few attempts to censor their coverage and gave thembroad access to information, giving the public greater insight than they

had enjoyed in previous wars. However, embedding appeared to also suc-ceed from the governments perspective to win the information war(Kahn, 2004). Journalists were restricted to military sources, ensuringthat its perspective on the war was the dominant one. Indeed, studies sug-gest that because embeds had to rely so heavily on military sources thattheir coverage was more positive than unilaterals (Fahmy & Johnson,2007). Also, although only a minority said they censored themselvesin reporting the war, they also indicated they carefully followed themilitarys guidelines of topics that they were not allowed to cover, indicat-

ing that embeds, indeed, had censored themselves in their coverage ofthe Iraq War.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

Although this is one of the first studies to examine the influence of sourceson attitudes toward censorship, the list of possible sources could beexpanded. This study did not explore the influence of local sources suchas Iraqi citizens. Also, because it appears self-evident that embedded

journalists would have to rely on soldiers and officers they were embeddedwith, this study did not include questions examining how muchembeds relied on them as sources. Furthermore, this study examined onlyembedded journalists perceptions of freedom of press and did not includeunilaterials, who were not tied to a single unit but had the freedom to coverthe war from more angles. However, scholars suggested that the Pentagonopposed independent journalists entering Iraq to cover the war andattempted to stymie their efforts to cover the conflict (LaFleur, 2003) andthat unilateral coverage was more negative because they relied largely on

Iraqi civilians for sources of information. Those who covered the war fromthe Pentagon rather than the field also reported frustration at the lack ofinformation provided by government officials, as well as the constant pro-coalition spin. Therefore, unilaterals and Pentagon reporters may havehad different views of press freedom in Iraq than the embeds have had.Future studies should include these other reporters. Further, it should benoted that this study explored not actual levels of press freedom or militarycontrol but perceptions among embedded journalists. Therefore, cautionshould be taken when trying to assert whether journalists were free to cover

the war without military restriction. Moreover, this study was conducted inearly 2004, before the escalation of violence in Iraq. Journalists complainedthat the government stepped up efforts to restrict coverage critical of thewar effort, as the initial military success gave way to enforcing a dangerous


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


24/27

peace (Folenflik, 2003; Strupp, 2005). Future studies should again surveyjournalists covering the Iraq War to see if they still maintain positive views

of the embed process and the access given to them in this conflict.

REFERENCES

Aday, S., Livingston, S., & Hebert, M. (2005). Embedding the truth: A cross-cultural analysis of

objectivity and television coverage of the Iraq War. Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics, 10(1), 321.

Al-Kindi, A. (2004). War against media during the 2003 Iraq War. In R. Berenger (Ed.), Global

media goes to war (pp. 333341). Spokane, WA: Marquette.

Amin, H. (2002). Freedom as a value in Arab media: Perceptions and attitudes amongjournalists. Political Communication, 19, 125135.

Andsager, J. L., Wyatt, R. O., & Martin, E. L. (2004). Free expression and five democratic

publics: Support for individual and media rights. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Arnott, B. (2003, May=June). Embedded=unembedded I. Columbia Journalism Review, 42, 4243.Berkowitz, D., & Limor, Y. (2003). Professional confidence and situational ethics: Assessing the

socialprofessional dialectic in journalistic ethics decisions. Journalism and Mass Communica-

tion Quarterly, 80, 783801.

Bernhard, N. (2003). Embedding reporters on the frontline. Nieman Reports, 57, 8792.

Brandenburg, H. (2005). Journalists embedded in culture: War stories as political strategy. In

L. Artz & Y. R. Kamilipour (Eds.), Bring em on: Media and politics in the Iraq War

(pp. 225237). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Breed, W. (1955). Newspaper opinion leaders and the process of standardization. Journalism

Quarterly, 32, 277284.

Burgoon, J. K., Burgoon, M., Buller, D. B., & Atkin, C. (1987). Communication practices of

journalists: Interaction with public, other journalists. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 125132, 275.

Bushell, A. & Cunningham, B. (2003, March=April). Being there. Columbia Journalism Review,41, 1820.

Cooper, S. & Kuypers, J. A. (2004) Embedded versus behind-the lines reporting on the 2003

Iraq War. In R. Berenger (Ed.), Global media goes to war (pp. 161172). Spokane, WA:

Marquette.

de Beer, A. S. & Merrill, J. C. (2004). Global journalism: Topical issues and media systems

(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York:

Wiley & Sons.

Dillow, D. (2003, May=June). Grunts and pogues: The embedded life. Columbia JournalismReview, 41, 3233.

Dimitrova, D., Kaid, L. L., Williams, A. P., & Trammell, K. D. (2005). War on the web.

Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics, 10, 2244.Fahmy, S. (2005a). Emerging alternatives or traditional news gates: Which news sources were

used to picture the 9=11 attack & the Afghan War? International Communication Gazette,67(5), 383400.

Fahmy, S. (2005b). Photojournalists & photo-editors attitudes & perceptions: The visual cov-

erage of 9=11 and the Afghan war. Visual Communication Quarterly, 12(34), 146163.Fahmy, S. (2007a). Filling out the frame: Transnational reporting and news practitioners atti-

tudes towards the visual coverage of war and terrorism. Saarbucken, Germany: VDM Verlag

Dr. Mueller e.K.


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


25/27

Fahmy, S. (2007b). They took it down: Exploring determinants of visual reporting in the top-

pling of the Saddam Hussein statue in national and international newspapers. Mass Commu-

nication & Society, 10(2), 143170.

Fahmy, S. & Johnson, T. J. (2005). How we performed: Embedded journalists attitudes and

perceptions towards covering the Iraq War. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,

82(2), 301317.

Fahmy, S. & Johnson, T. J. (2007). Embedded versus unilateral perspectives on Iraq War.

Newspaper Research Journal, 28, 98114.

Finney, M. (2005, May). Good embed: How the U.S. military improved favorability of coverage

through embedding journalists. Paper presented at the International Communication Associa-

tion annual conference, New York.

Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news; Austin: The University of Texas Press.

Folkenflik, D. (2003, December 24). Military, media have often-rocky relationship. Baltimore

Sun. Retrieved from http://www.baltsun.comFriedman, P. (2003, May=June). TV: A missed opportunity. Columbia Journalism Review, 42,2931.

Ganey, T. (2004). Mixed reviews on embedded reporters. St. Louis Journalism Review, 34, 2530.

Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding whats news. New York: Vintage.

Gaziano, C. (1987). News peoples ideology and the credibility debate. Newspaper Research

Journal, 8, 118.Girardi, M. (2004, Spring). Lens crafters. The News Media & The Law, 2123.

Hafez, K. (2002). Journalism ethics revisited: A comparison of ethics codes in Europe, North

Africa, the Middle East and Muslim Asia. Political Communication, 19, 225235.

Haigh, M. M., Pfau, M., Danesi, J., Tallmon, R., Bunko, T., Nyberg, S. et al. (2006). A com-

parison of embedded and non-embedded print coverage of the U.S. invasion and occupationof Iraq. The Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics, 11(2), 139153.

Immerwahr, J., & Doble, J. (2001). Public attitudes toward freedom of the press. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 46, 177194.

Jensen, R. (2003, May). The militarys media. Progressive, 2225.

Johnson, T., & Kelly, J. (2003). Have new media editors abandoned the old media ideals? The

journalistic values of online newspaper editors. The New Jersey Journal of Communication,

11, 115134.

Johnstone, J., Slawski, E., & Bowman, W. (1971). The news people: A sociological portrait of

American journalists and their work. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Kahn, J. (2004). Postmortem: Iraq war media coverage dazzled but it also obscured. Retrieved

from http://www.berkeley.eduKalb, M. (2003, March). War and conflict. Editor and Publisher, 24, 34.

Katovsky, B. & Carlson, T. (2003). Embedded: The media at war in Iraq; Guilford, CT: Lyons.

Kelley, S. E. (2003, July=August). Journalist back from Iraqi front lines calls embedded strategysuccess. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 22, 5758.

Kulish, N. (2003, December). Embed cred. The Washington Monthly, 5254.

Kurtz, H. (2003). Embedded in controversy. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com

LaFleur, J. (2003). Embed program worked, broader war coverage lagged. News Media & the

Law, 27, 47.

Lambert, R. (1998, November=December). Rebuilding trust: Some ideas from an outsideexpert. Columbia Journalism Review, 37, 3942.

Langer, G. A. (2005). ABC news poll: War and the media: Americans favor military secrecy overpress freedom during wartime. Retrieved from http://www.abc.com

Lewis, J. (2006, June). Shoot first and ask questions later: Media coverage of the Iraq War. Paper

presented to the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


26/27

McLane, B. R. (2004, Spring). Reporting from the sandstorm: An appraisal of embedding.

Parameters, 788.McLeod, J. M., Sotirovic, M., Voakes, P. S., Guo, Z., & Haung, K.-Y. (1998). A model of

public support for First Amendment rights. Communication Law and Policy, 3, 479514.

McMasters, P. K. (2004). Analysis: 2004 State of the First Amendment survey report. Retrievedfrom http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org

McQuail, D. (2005). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage.

Mermin, J. (2004). The medias independence problems. World Policy Journal, 28, 6771.

Pfau, M., Haigh, M., Gettle, M., Donnelly, M., Scott, G., Warr, D. (2004). Embeddingjournalists in military combat units: Impact on story frames and tone. Journalism & Mass

Communication Quarterly, 81, 7488.

Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Logsdon, L., Perrine, C., Baldwin, J. P., Breitenfeldt, R. E. (2005).

Embedded reporting during the invasion and occupation of Iraq: How the embedding of

journalists affected news reports. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 468487.Pfau, M., Wittenberg, E. M., Jackson, C., Mehringer, P., Lanier, R., Hatfield, M. (2005).

Embedding journalists in military combat units: How embedding alters television newsstories. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 179195.

Plaisance, P., & Skewes, E. (2003). Personal and professional dimensions of news work:

Exploring the link between journalists values and roles. Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly, 80, 833848.Protho, J. W., & Grigg, C. M. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of

agreement and disagreement. Journal of Politics, 22, 276.

Reese, S. D. (2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach.

Journalism Studies, 2(2), 173187.

Reese, S. D. (2004). Militarized journalism: Framing dissent in the Persian Gulf wars. InS. Allan & B. Zelizer (Eds.), Reporting war: Journalism in wartime. (pp. 247265). New York:

Routledge.

Reinemann, C. (2004). Routine reliance revisited: Exploring media importance for German

political journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 857876.

Ricchiardi, S. (2003, May). Close to the action. American Journalism Review, 2835. Available

from http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=2991.

Rodriguez, J. L. (2004). Embedding success into the militarymedia relationship. Unpublished

masters thesis, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA.

Schechter, D. (2003). Blogging the war away. Nieman Reports, 57, 9091.

Shepherd, A. C. (2004). Narrowing the gap: Military, media and the Iraq War. Chicago: Robert

R. McCormick Tribune Foundation.Shin, J.-H., Adhikari, D. N., & Cameron, G. T. (2005, May). What matters in embedded journal-

ism: New sources, news credibility, news control in embedded journalists reports. Paper

presented to the International Communication Association annual convention, New York.

Shoemaker, P. & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the message; New York: Longman.

Smolkin, R. (2003, June=July). Media mood swings. American Journalism Review, 25, 1623.Strupp, J. (2005). Five embeds booted out of Iraq in recent months. Editor & Publisher.

Retrieved from http://www.editorandpublisher.com

Urban, C. (1999). Examining our credibility: Perspectives of the public and the press. Reston, VA:

The American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Vliegenthart, R., & Schroder, H. (2006, June). Framing the war: A crossnational comparison of

newspaper framing of the Iraq War in four Western countries. Paper presented to the Interna-tional Communication Association annual convention, Dresden, Germany.

Voakes, P. (1997). Social influences on journalists decision making in ethical decisions. Journal

of Mass Media Ethics, 12, 1835.


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9


27/27

Weaver, D., Beam, R. A. Brownlee, B. J., Voakes, P. S., & Wilhoit, G. C. (2006). The American

journalist in the 21st century: U.S. new people at the dawn of a new milleneum. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Weaver, D. & Wilhoit, G. (1986). The American journalist: A portrait of U.S. news people and

their work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Weaver, D. & Wilhoit, G. (1996). The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. news people at the

end of an era. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wyatt, R. O. (1991). Free expression and the American public. Washington, DC: American

Society of Newspaper Editors.Wyatt, R. O., Andsager, J. L., & Bodle, J. V. (1994). Support for media rights: Cracks in the

media monolith myth. Mass Communication Review, 21, 156172.

Wyatt, R. O., Smith, S. S., & Andsager, J. L. (1996). Spanning the boundaries: Support for

media rights among public relations practitioners, journalists, and the public. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 8, 123135.


Dow

nloaded

By:

[University

of

Ari

zona]

At:

16:47

14

January

200

9

Embeds’ Perceptions of Censorship

Documents