When Deb first mentioned embedded reporting in class last week and specifically pointed to my own travels to conduct interviews for my project, I must admit I didn’t immediately grasp what she meant. However, after reading Doornbos’s reporting in Ukraine, Dickerson’s work in the Darién Gap, and listening to Mariana Baran’s In the Dark podcast about the Haditha massacre, I began to truly understand what embedded journalism is and why it matters so deeply.
Embedding reporting somewhat takes away the divide between journalist and subject, and reminds the reader that at the end of the day, they are both just people. The removal of that divide I think is necessary in this type of reporting otherwise a story cannot reach its full potential.
What makes embedded stories stand out to me is that they can’t be told from afar. Just as we want our loved ones present for life’s most meaningful moments, great journalism sometimes requires being physically present. Like Miriam and Raphi’s journey to Gummersbach, I found it necessary to travel to stadiums and soccer matches myself. Otherwise, journalism risks becoming mere hearsay, no better than tabloids. Through embedded reporting, more trust is needed, which ultimately results in greater credibility.
Baran’s persistence in the In the Dark podcast especially stood out to me. I was struck by how she and Parker Yesko went door-to-door to interview Marines, even when confronted with signs reading, “No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.” It felt almost movie-like when Baran drove through West Virginia searching for Colonel Gregory Watt, who led the first investigation into Haditha, and in the process lost cell service, getting lost, and even had to ask locals for directions. I was also curious how much flexibility her editors gave her; after all those FOIA requests stalled, many editors might have told her to move on. Yet it seems she had the backing to keep pushing, which ultimately allowed her to uncover something powerful.
Every story takes time, but with embedded journalism, excellence often comes at the cost of years of persistence. Should this level of commitment be the standard or should embedded journalism be able to happen with quicker turnarounds? Perhaps we already see glimpses of it when broadcast journalists report live from the scenes of car crashes or school shootings.
From these works, it’s clear that embedded journalism is for reporters who are gritty and unafraid to get dirt or even blood on their hands, both literally and figuratively. To me, it also raised questions of when that divide between journalist and subject narrows, does the power dynamic shift, and do the chances of exploitation from the journalist grow stronger or weaker?
