Embedded Broadcast Journalists:

Reporting Operation Iraqi Freedom from the Frontline

Literature Review

Tone of coverage

We anticipate the tone of the reports produced by embedded reporters will be more positive toward the military than those reports from non-embedded reporters, and we expect that the reports will be more episodic in nature. We present five theories from communication literature illustrating how this integration affected the reporter-troop relationship and subsequent reporting tone.

By becoming functioning members of the military units, the reporter’s objectivity is biased in favor of their new associates. The embedded reporters use the ideas set down in social penetration, organizational culture, organizational trust and organizational identity theories to become integrated, trusted team members. This bias facilitates the reporter’s producing more positive coverage of the military and its personnel. Bob Steel, from the Poynter Institute, an organization for journalists, says the embedding is health and allowed journalists to understand the complexities of war (PBS, 2003). One explanation for a possible bias is found in Social penetration theory.

Social penetration theory

This theory states that as relationships develop, communication moves from relatively shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more personal ones (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Originally proposed by Altman and Taylor in 1973, the theory has been expanded upon over the years. Altman and Taylor laid out a framework for examining interpersonal relationships. There are four stages in social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973). The orientation stage is the first stage where individuals get a feel for each other without revealing much detail about them. The exploratory affective exchange stage represents when individuals are more relaxed and open with one another. They will share some information with one another. The affective exchange stage is the stage of friendships and romantic relationships; it is a stage where intimate details are known about each other. The final stage, the stable exchange stage, is a long-standing intimate relationship.

Another major component of social penetration theory is that of breadth and depth of relationships. Relationships between individuals grow more intimate when personal and intimate details are gradually revealed. The orientation stage is typified by superficial behavior and communication. Communication becomes less superficial and more personal with the advancement of each stage (Miller, 2002). This is characterized as the breadth and depth of relational communication. The onion model of social penetration is the symbol to show how a relationship, like an onion, has layers that lead to a deeper point. It is a metaphor for breadth and depth (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
The third and fourth major pieces of social penetration theory are self-disclosure and reciprocity, respectively (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Self-disclosure occurs when an individuals reveals information about themselves. This disclosure may range from non-intimate to intimate (Miller, 2002). For example, saying “I am from Michigan” and saying “I used to dream of being an actor” are wholly different levels of self-disclosure (Miller, 2002). The former is a less-intimate detail while the latter is more intimate. Reciprocity essentially is the idea that when one person divulges intimate details about themselves, the person receiving the information will likely respond with a similar response (Miller, 2002). A final element of relationship development in Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory is the aspect of motivation force as a social exchange theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Altman and Taylor posited that when individuals meet they conduct a reward/cost assessment (Altman & Taylor, 1973). This assessment continues throughout the lifespan of the relationship. As relationship develops individuals look at the possible rewards of becoming increasingly intimate, however, the individuals also look at the cost of such actions. Taylor and Altman (1973) posited this is what motivates individuals to either withdraw from a relationship or self-disclose more.

Social penetration theory has been used by researchers to look at many different types of relationships. Its broad perspective makes this possible. For example, social penetration has been used to examine the relational development between nurses and patients (Williams, 2001), and to look at the ethical and moral decisions and their impacts on personal relationships (Baack, Fogliaso & Harris, 2000). These same concepts relate to how the embedded journalists developed relationships with the military members in the units. Greg Kelly, an embedded Fox News reporter and former Marine said the reporters were ‘emotionally invested’ in the combat operations and wanted the unit he was assigned to be successful (Carr, 2003). Another reason for a positive bias with embed reporting is based on organizational culture.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture is a set of practices seen as characteristics of an organization that distinguish it from other organizations and captures the essence of the organization and how it operates as a social collectivity (Meek, 1988). Every organization has its own unique culture or value set. Most organizations do not consciously try to create a certain culture. The culture of the organization is typically created unconsciously, based on the values of the upper management or the founders of the organization. History shapes the organizational culture by affecting values and beliefs that have developed over time (Park and Luo, 2001).

Organizational culture is the personality of the organization and is not limited to the organizational leaders and managers. Every member participates in the culture of the organization consciously and subconsciously. Culture is to an organization as personality is to an individual. Like human culture, the culture of the organization is generally passed from one generation to the next. The culture is comprised of the assumptions, values, norms, and tangible signs of organization members and their behaviors. Members of an organization soon come to sense the particular culture of an organization. Culture is one of those terms that are difficult to express distinctly, but everyone can sense it. For example, the culture of a large, for-profit corporation is quite different from that of a hospital, which is quite different that that of a university. You can tell the culture of an organization by looking at the arrangement of furniture, what they brag about, what members wear, similar to what you can use to get a feeling about someone’s personality. The culture is also made up of the organization’s practices of rites and ceremonies. Rites are elaborate dramatic activities that consolidate cultural expressions into one event, while rituals are the norms and behaviors that enact the rites. Rites and ceremonies are public events like retirement dinners, new member orientations, and award ceremonies, whereas rituals are less scripted behaviors like handshakes, coffee breaks, gift giving, and staff meetings. While these symbols are common in organizations, they lack conceptual distinction. While some of this is contested, researchers acknowledge patterned and repeated social activities serve an important role in maintaining an organization’s infrastructure (Putnam, Phillips, & Chapman, 1998).

Just as individuals process information, so do groups and units of people. In doing so, they develop collective belief systems about social arrangements. These include beliefs about organizational purpose, criteria of performance, the location of authority, legitimate bases of power, decision-making orientations, style of leadership, compliance, evaluation, and motivation; as well as consistency, consensus, and clarity. These beliefs can affect the personality of the group, including generating an increased sense of loyalty, commitment, and enthusiasm (Martin, 1992).
There are differing views on how this immersion in the military culture affects the journalists and their reporting. Susan Stevenson (“Pros and Cons,” 2003) from the Atlanta-Journal-Constitution believes the embedded reporters make the stories real, lending immediacy and humanity to the reports. While Syracuse University professor Robert Thompson warns, “When you are part of the troops that you’re going in with, these are your fellow human beings. You are being potentially shot at together, and I think there is a sense that you become part of that group in a way that a journalist doesn’t necessarily want to be” (“Pros and Cons”, 2003).

Embedded reporters become immersed in the culture and belief systems of the military service and unit they are assigned to. As they learn about the organization’s rites, beliefs, and ethics they start to understand and accept the level of organizational trust and comradeship among the military members. We believe the knowledge and acceptance of military norms will affect the tone and style of reporting.

As embedded reporters merge into the military culture, they also learn about the organizational trust, which can also bias their reporting.

Organizational trust. Organizational Trust has existed as long as man has been gathering together to work as teams. Webster (1996) defines organization as an administrative and functional structure (such as a business or political party) and trust as the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something; to place confidence. Research also found organizational trust is not only affected by individuals within an organization, but is affected by external organizations as well (Rogel, 2003). While trust is usually gained over time, in highly dynamic organizations in crises or crisislike situations, the members quickly form a cohesive collective mind. This swift-trust arises during dangerous, uncertain situations, such as combat (Soeters, 2000). This is reflected in comments made by embedded Cable News Network reporter Walter Rogers when one of the troops he was traveling with shot an Iraqi soldier who was sneaking up on their vehicle. “When you share an experience of danger – that together you have cheated death – it certainly has an effect on people” (Carr, 2003).

Organizational trust is defined by Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and Winograd (2000) as positive expectations individuals have about the intent and behaviors of multiple organizational roles, relationships, experiences and interdependencies. Although extensive research is limited, researchers have discovered successes of organizational trust through several methodologies. These include Galford and Seibold Drapeau’s (2003) five key building blocks, the development of a model of trust, consisting of the five dimensions for both individuals and organizations (Mishra, 1996; Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000), and Golin’s (2003) 10 commandments of organizational trust. Additionally, the need for trust (Mayor, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), how violations of trust affect an organization (Braun, 1997) as well as the importance of the role of the leader (Galford & Seibold Drapeau, 2003) are significant.
Organizational trust includes trust in the unit (organization), the unit’s mission and it’s leaders. This is only one of many examples of organizational trust from a military perspective. Organizational trust is an unwritten act occurring on a daily basis. The success or failure of an organization is dependent on organizational trust, or the lack of it.

It wasn’t until the early 1980’s that Barnes (1983) studied organizational trust independently. Barnes (1983) describes organizational trust as expectations individuals have about networks of organizational relationships and behaviors. Barnes goes onto say that networks of trust hold important implications for the organization’s ability to participate in adaptive organizational forms and succeed in crisis management.
In The Evolution of Cooperation, Axelrod (1984) identifies the importance of trust ranging within echelons of the organizational activities (teamwork and leadership). In recent years definitions of how individuals experience trust have gone from emphasis on intentions and motivations to behavioral orientations (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000). Organizational trust is viewed as positive expectations individuals possess about the intent and behaviors of multiple organizational members based on organizational roles, relationships, and experiences (Hosmer, 1995).
The embedded reporter is just as affected by organizational trust as the military unit members. As members of a military unit, the embedded reporters must build and identify with the same positive expectations the troops have about the intent and behaviors of the multiple organizational roles, relationships, experiences and interdependencies within the unit.

In the following pages, it is demonstrated how these attributes can be reflected in the organizational identity, another factor in an embed journalist developing a predisposition in their reporting.

Organizational identity

According to Albert and Whetten (1985) in their seminal article, “Organizational Identity”, an organization’s identity is comprised of their central, distinctive, and enduring features. Over the past 18 years, this idea has continued to be a foundation of organizational identity research, although researchers have also expanded their studies to embrace the
individual identity as it impacts the organizational identity (Rodrigues & Child, 2002).

In order to understand organizational identity, it is imperative to understand it’s concepts. Continuity and distinctiveness are the two identity requirements in both individual and organizational identity concepts. Identity is built around those attributes which satisfy a person’s need to have stability, while allowing them the flexibility to express their own distinctiveness (Whetten & Mackey, 2002). Organizational identity requires continuity for stability, and distinctiveness to help differentiate the organization or it’s product from competitors (Whetten & Mackey, 2002).

An organization’s identity is vital to preserving employee loyalty. In an era of increased availability of communications through live news, worldwide programming, and the internet, organizations have discovered that their internal audience, employees, are also their external audience. Employees can also be consumers of the organization’s products. This blurring of organizational lines requires organizations to ensure their identity is accurately portrayed to both the employee and the consumer. If an employee sees a different organizational identity being marketed to customers outside organization, the employee can become disenchanted with the organization, affecting that employee’s identity within the organization (Cheney & Christensen, 2001).

Managers study organizational identity to help initiate change within their organizations (Fiol, 2002), and to help combat perceived threats to the organization’s identity (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). On an individual level, understanding how people identify themselves with the organization can assist in predicting personnel turnover (Mael & Ashforth, 1995). Personal organizational identity can include an affiliation with both the company or organization with which an individual is employed, such as a newspaper, or with other people throughout a career field, such as journalism (Kuhn & Nelson, 2002).

As the study of organizational identity progressed, researchers saw the need to investigate how individuals identified themselves within the organization, with the organization’s identity, and with other groups (Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Russo, 1998; Kuhn & Nelson, 2002). The research expanded into how organizations identify themselves with other organizations (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996).

Early researchers consolidated organizational identity with the related constructs of organizational commitment and internalization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Identification can be defined as organization-specific, while internalization and commitment are not (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Social identity theory (SIT) has been used to link an individual’s identity to their perception of, and interaction within, the constructs of the organizational identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This identification with the salient group memberships within an organization helps a person define their perception of oneness or belonging to a group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

Researchers have studied how organizational identity affects the way organizations interpret issues, and the actions taken to correct problems. The organizational identity has the ability to shade and shape the organization’s interpretation of issues and the way it deals with the issues (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). People outside an organization, including researchers, investors or leaders of other organizations, scrutinize the manner in which an organization responds to issues because they use these actions (or inactions) to make character judgments about the organization and it’s members (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). The connection between an individual’s perception of the organization versus their sense of who they are and what their values are, influences how the individual responds to issues and their support of the organization in resolving those issues.

During the genesis of organizational identity studies, it was discovered that individuals may identify with multiple organizations. A case study of newspaper journalists showed that the identities of the research subjects included the newspaper (as an organization), and the career of journalism (as another type of organization or brotherhood). Because journalists are in a specialized skill group, they frequently identify themselves as being part of an organization even before they are hired to a specific newspaper (Russo, 1998). The study concluded there were positive relationships between organizational identification, professional identification, and job satisfaction.
As new members of the military unit, the embedded reporters built relationships with military members, linking their own identities with those of the military member and the units. This identification with the salient group membership defined the reporter’s perception of oneness or belonging to the group. The reporter’s identification with the units with which they were embedded was clear in the way they frequently used the term “we” during their reporting (Ricchiardi, 2003). This identification gave the reporters insight into the military members and their mission, building the foundations for open communication through positive relationships as defined through social penetration theory.
As the newest members of the military units they are assigned to, embedded reporters use the concepts delineated in organizational culture, organizational trust, organizational identity and social penetration to become integrated, trusted team members.

We’ve shown through theory and anecdotal evidence, embedded reporters were assimilated in the military units they were assigned to cover during Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a result, we posit that:

H1: Compared to non-embedded reporting, embedded journalist produce more positive coverage of
a) military generally, and b) its personnel.


Framing of stories

The reporters develop their news stories by choosing their perceived reality of the events and bounding, or framing the information. The reporter is embedded with troops who are now fundamental elements of the reporter’s existence. This affects the topic of the reports, emphasizing concrete and specific events of episodic news coverage.

Media Framing

Miller (2002) states that, “framing is a process through which the media emphasize some aspects of reality and downplays other aspects” (p. 262). The conceptual studies and explorations that led to Miller’s definition are the result of almost a century of scholarly research. Framing concepts have their roots in the observations and conceptual developments of Walter Lippman (1922) and Goffman (1974). While these early studies of media influence do not specifically refer to framing, the concept of creating “pictures in our heads” is attributed to Walter Lippman (1922) and is the same terminology used to define framing today (Infante, Rancer, Womack, 1990).

Walter Lippman, a newspaper columnist in the 1920’s, proposed that media created “images” in the minds of the public and that politicians should take heed with respect to those “pictures” being put in people’s heads (Infante et al, 1990). He proposed that media could control public opinion by focusing on selected issues and ignoring others (Kelton, 1997). As a newspaperman, he also warned the public that media firsthand experiences were limited, so the public should be wary when it depended on the media to report events. Lippman (1922) went on to stress that “facts of modern life do not spontaneously take shape on their own; they must be shaped by somebody…” (p. 345).
In the mid-1970’s, the concept of framing received increased attention from media researchers in the communication, sociology and political science arenas (Rees, 2001). Framing in general refers to the way the media organize events and issues in their reporting. Although an outgrowth of Lippman’s works, many scholars are credited with initial development of the concept of framing. The concept of framing, as we know it, is a result of works by Goffman (1974)
in his book Frame Analysis: An essay on the organizational of experience. He credits Bateson with originating the metaphor of framing (Takeshita, 1997). Maher (2001) stated that Bateson described framing as a certain set of rules for making and understanding messages. Bateson’s early concepts of “how” you frame versus “what” issues were framed did lay the groundwork for heated framer versus agenda setter discussions of today. Goffman (1974) defined framing as the meaning a person gives to a particular situation, referring mainly to face-to-face interpersonal encounters (Goffman, 1974). Takeshita (1997) explains that Goffman’s description could be interpreted as people using different frames for different types of media content. For example, if a person were watching a television advertisement, they would apply an advertising frame, which warns the person to take the communication at face value because they are trying to sold something. The person would apply different frames to drama’s and newscasts.
Concepts of framing come from both psychological and sociological origins. Psychologists define framing as “changes in judgment caused by alternatives to the definition of judgment,” while the sociological perspective on framing was derived from the works of Bateson and Goffman and focused on the use of story lines, symbols and stereotypes in media presentations (Takeshita, 1997, p.23). Researchers in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s expanded on Goffman’s work and developed a plethora of definitions for framing. Origins of the term “framing” in communication generally come from photography and cinematography, where framing refers to camera angles and styling of the message to set certain tones and messages (McCombs & Ghanem, 2001). Most researchers defined framing in general terms of the “effect” it had on the audience as well as by “how” it was accomplished (Ghanem, 1997).

According to Enteman (1993), frames “call attention to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements, which might lead audiences to have different reactions” (p. 55). Enteman (1993) also said that, “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communication context, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (p. 52).

Probably the most succinct definition was put forth by Tankard, Hendrickson, Silberman, Bliss, and Ghanem (1991) when they described a media frame as “the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion and collaboration” (as cited in Ghanem, 1997).

As media became a more powerful influence on public opinion, so did the interest in “what” the media was trying to interest the public in and more importantly “how” they were doing it. Framing methodology in the 1980’s and 1990’s became very popular because scholars saw this as the way to explore the process behind media influence.
Iyengar (1991) describes framing as “how” a news organization decides to cover an issue, relying on subtle differences in working, placement, and choice of stories. In examining news coverage Iyengar (1991) referenced the categories of thematic and episodic to explain styles of media reporting. Episodic news coverage focuses on concrete and specific events and the thematic focuses on the issue in a very general context (Iyengar, 1991). For example, Iyengar notes that political issues take on episodic framing with a focus on specific events, while thematic framing places the political issues in a context (Iyengar, 1991). Typically, the networks frame episodically when depicting public issues or specific events like a homeless person, unemployed worker or a bombing of an airliner because episodic frames make for good pictures (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). In contrast, the thematic news frame covers abstract subjects such as government welfare costs and changes in federal jobs programs in the form of expert talking heads or background reports (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). Given the fast pace of news today, networks tend to rely on episodic framework because it is visually appealing and consists of live coverage (Iyengar & Simon, 1993).
Iyengar and Simon (1993) reviewed three types of media affects that influenced public opinion during the Persian Gulf War, agenda setting, priming and framing. For the purpose of this literature review, the focus will be on framing. The examination of the Gulf crisis assessed the degree to which the network news was episodic and the effects the exposure to the news had on respondent policy preferences (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). For six months after the invasion of Kuwait, television and its viewers focused on the Iraqi occupation, the American buildup, the launching of Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). The researchers found that one-third of all the prime time newscasts between August 1990 and March 1991 were devoted to the crisis (Iyengar & Simon, 1993).
Through the process of framing, embedded reporters select some aspects of a perceived reality and make it more salient in a communication context, covering an issue by relying on subtle differences in how the story is developed and story or topic choice. Because the reporter is embedded with troops who are integral to the completion of a mission, the reporter’s choice of story topic emphasizes the concrete and specific events of episodic news coverage.

Through the concepts of framing, we predict:

H2: Compared to non-embedded reporting, embedded
journalists produce more episodically-framed stories.


In explorations and development of our hypothesis, some other interesting questions were raised and we took note on two in particular. We wondered in fact, what is the perception of the military personnel on the strategy of embedding media with combat units. This question led directly to a follow on question on how the perceptions were being formed based on where the military members were getting their news. Therefore we have posited the following questions:

RQ1: What are military personnel’s perceptions of the tone of news coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, their sense of other military member’s perceptions of the tone of coverage, and their sense of the public’s perception of the tone of coverage.

RQ2: What is the contribution of specific communication media to military personnel’s perception of the strategy of embedding?