The readings this week were truly fascinating because they offered me new insights into problems I had never fully considered. I was especially captivated by the amount of information, much of it previously unknown, that these journalists were able to uncover. What struck me most, however, was how their methods of embedded reporting transformed the way stories could be told. Rather than observing from a distance, these journalists intentionally placed themselves within the worlds they were trying to understand.
By taking this approach, they were able to uncover details and perspectives that their readership would never have access to otherwise. Embedded reporting reveals information that typical news coverage would not be able to. The proximity, time span, and unique access these journalists had in these spaces allowed them to provide more nuanced insights.
The articles we were provided this week even showed this form of reporting to be particularly useful in holding governments accountable. Although journalists have been exposing government corruption for decades, embedded reporting allows them to do so with credibility that is hard to achieve otherwise. Accountability has long been missing in many governmental processes, and documenting how these institutions circumvent this process in the first place is important for global safety and prosperity. Each article this week helped show how deep the accountability crisis truly is.
The Guardian’s work on the Mossad’s effort against the International Criminal Court perfectly illustrates this tension. However, in order to write this story, a diverse set of journalists had to work together to help uncover sensitive information. This begs the question, what responsibility do journalists have when reporting on topics that have national security implications? They must contend with the public’s right to know the information, with the potential consequences that revealing that information would entail. I personally find this to be a challenging task when trying to hold a powerful entity accountable.
Likewise, Caitlin Dickerson’s work on the Darién Gap holds a different kind of power accountable. By following migrants through a notoriously dangerous jungle, Dickerson is able to reveal the personal stories of those making the journey. However, she is also able to expose the systemic failures and policies that put them at risk to begin with. Ultimately, this allows her to provide a link between the suffering migrants endure and the governmental decisions that allowed for it to happen. She is able to expose the consequences that Washington, DC policies have in a different country. Finally, I would be remiss not to note that by going to the location, she is also able to challenge narratives that deny the humanity of those who make the dangerous journey.
Doornbos’s reporting on Ukraine similarly helps show why Ukraine is still worth fighting for. Although coverage on Ukraine is not new, her coverage offers a unique moral lens that is hard to get with other forms of reporting. As governments and international organizations find new ways to break the law, avoid the truth, and crumble under pressure, it is journalism like this that can help expose their immorality.
Finally, although this form of journalism helps hold institutions accountable, I nonetheless believe embedded journalism can benefit these institutions as well. This form of journalism does not have to function solely as a mechanism for scrutiny. These institutions themselves can gain important insight into public perception. It may even help identify areas where policy and reality clash.
