In war zones, Do inbeded reporters with news channels pay any money towards the army?
February 17th, 2010 | by admin |They seem to recieve protection, body armour, vehicles etc is this all at the army’s expense. They look like they get in the way as well, is it worth it to the armed forces to have them there, its not excatly propaganda becuase they dont always show them in a good light, so why does the armed forces let them join. Anyone know ?
It’s a complete waste of time to have them there. The armed forces have to "allow" them to be present. The media is all pervasive these days which is not always a good thing.
Like the avatar by the way….The real flag of England.
7 Responses to “In war zones, Do inbeded reporters with news channels pay any money towards the army?”
By Roadrunner58-79 on Feb 17, 2010 | Reply
N O, The US Military should ban them because they do nothing and pay nothing and slant the news anyway that they see fit.
References :
By tatsgalore on Feb 17, 2010 | Reply
no they do not, they are just there to get in the way and give away the position of the troops
References :
By FutureMarine on Feb 17, 2010 | Reply
No the goverment should ban them because all they do is get in the F’n way in combat
References :
By LAVADOG_1/3 on Feb 17, 2010 | Reply
No they do not have to pay..
Embedded media are there to report what they see.. They also show the world that soldiers are not madmen killing everything in sight. Without reporters think about how many false accusations would exist..Reporters also show the world what we are up against.. The enemy can not start a propaganda war because the truth is in front of them,..What is there to hide? If we are truly there to do good then what is the harm in allowing the media to follow along? They show the good and the bad..and they also die when shot..
References :
By Hjaduk on Feb 17, 2010 | Reply
Just sucks when haji see’s that you have a reporter with you, so it makes you more of a target because they will think their attack will have a better chance of making the news if they attacked a convoy with a reporter.
References :
By this guy on Feb 17, 2010 | Reply
I agree with LavaDog. The reward is the Truth which benifits the USA. The problem is they don’t leave the Green Zone very often anymore. Most of the file footage they show on TV when they do a story is sometimes over 4 or 5 years old. They rely too much on untrained and unreliable sources now. They always say reporting from Baghdad which is kind of true but they haven’t seen the Baghdad outside the Green Zone in a long time. When the War just started there were reporters everywhere. You heard alot of great stories about Soldiers and Marines. Then as they dwindled and entrenched in their Green Zone hide aways walled off from the rest of the World we lost control of the truth. Now things are getting better and they are leaving more often. You are seeing more and more good news stories coming out not that they are leaving.
References :
By Trilobiteasaurus Rex on Feb 17, 2010 | Reply
It’s a complete waste of time to have them there. The armed forces have to "allow" them to be present. The media is all pervasive these days which is not always a good thing.
Like the avatar by the way….The real flag of England.
References :