Our embedded reporters during the war agreed to guidelines established by the military.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
During the war, in which several of our embedded correspondents were able to report from moving vehicles crossing the Iraqi desert, the use of technology made news gathering safer.
In Iraq, embedding allows us to put reporters in situations that would otherwise be too dangerous for them.
When you are covering a life-or-death struggle, as British reporters were in 1940, it is legitimate and right to go along with military censorship, and in fact in situations like that there wouldn't be any press without the censorship.
What the military will say to a reporter and what is said behind closed doors are two very different things - especially when it comes to the U.S. military in Africa.
If we were in a similar circumstance in the future I would want to make sure that our reporting was at least as diverse as it was during this most recent war.
In modern warfare, journalists are among the first responders, seeking out truth in the turmoil and wreckage, wherever it takes them.
Historically, war journalists have embedded themselves with one side, which means the greatest threat comes from the clearly delineated enemy of that side.
The Defense Department's plan to ban newspaper reporters from pool coverage of military operations is incredible. It reveals the administration to be out of touch with journalism, reality and the First Amendment.
One is to ensure that the war fighters and the intelligence analysts get the information that they need when they need it, in a format that's useful to them.
We advised them to do what they think proper against the war.