You can be sure I keep turned to television news from and about Iraq these days and keep alert to "breaking news" as well as background analysis. I do so as at once a senior military officer and a professional journalist, and this yields a picture that differs from the usual. Both military and government briefers and news media people offer useful information, but both speak in self-interest and we must listen to both with critical discernment. Let's exegete what they say in light of the agenda peculiar to each.

The unique factor in current coverage of the war is the concept and presence of "embedded" journalists within particular deployed military units. I, and other military people, have observed a markedly higher level of accuracy from these individuals. They are on the "ground" with the troops, as the troops. They listen to grunts as well as commanders. They are less influenced (patronized) by PAOs (public affairs officers).

Most are skillful in collecting a lot of information quickly, and unit personnel seem to be doing

an adequate job in orienting them. Nonetheless, the reporters know far more than they understand. They regularly betray lack of understanding of facts and insensitivity to nuances. Feeling the corporate heart beat of a close-knit combat team just doesn't develop during a visit. Often they betray themselves not so much by what they say but how they say it--or what they don't think to say.

One reporter spoke of the 3-7th Cavalry "getting in over their heads" and having to call on the entire 3ID (infantry division) to come to its rescue. The fact is "the 3-7th Cav" (3d Squadron, 7th Cavalry [regiment]) is part of this division and is its screening force. Its mission is not to engage the enemy, but to locate enemy elements so the infantry units can engage and fight. What was observed is exactly what the cav is supposed to do.

I have heard several refer to "Calvary" instead of "cavalry."

I am a little surprised the government uses the quite accurate term "embedded" journalist, because I have been waiting for some cynic to refer to journalists "being in bed" with the army. This would imply loss of journalistic objectivity and lack of critical inquiry. Even professional journalists can suffer the "hostage syndrome," and we must be alert to reports being colored.

Those safely in the rear are at times downright silly and sometimes offensive. One reporter asked about a unit "scrambling" upon an alert. Gen Franks responded graciously: &uot;Now why would you say ‘scramble’?&uot; Another described how quickly and orderly an entire unit dispersed to defensive posture when attacked. The Atlanta desk asked, &uot;Were they trained to do this?&uot;

At a Pentagon press conference: &uot;Can you show us on the map exactly where these units are right now and where they will move next?&uot; The restrained answered was: &uot;No.&uot; (This is like leaving a penny tip for a bad waiter.)

Some of the reporters at CENTCOM FWD (US Central Command Forward) are downright hostile. They challenge every little thing CENTCOM says but throw at them idle rumors or actual disinformation from Iraq as if fact. One referred to "Iraqi soldiers shooting at a downed American pilot in the Tigris within Baghdad" and another to "the farmer who shot down the Apache."

Not to be entirely scandalized, however. Occasionally an unusually shrewd reporter will purposefully act dumb and craft a question to sound dumb in order to tease out an unguarded response. Some will feign hostility to provoke an exploitable reaction. The media people who disgust me, however, are those obviously overcome with personal anger and actually do assault the briefers.

We depend upon both officials and reporters but can identify the facts only by critical examination of all that is said. Even then we have not yet arrived at the truth, which requires our own thinking through. For this, we must all accept personal responsibility.

Dr. Wallace Alcorn’s commentaries appear in the Herald on Mondays