When a BBC journalist reports from Baghdad, his report is invariably
prefaced by the disclaimer that 'this report has been monitored by the
Iraqi authorities'.  No such disclaimer is used for reports from
journalists who are 'embedded' with the US or UK troops.  What
controls - if any - are 'embedded' journalists working under, and to
what extent are their reports either formally monitored/censored or
subject to informal pressure?  Did such journalists or their employers
have to sign anything which would restrict their freedom to report?  I
presume they will at the very least have agreed to remain with their
units and to be subject to military authority.

Authoritative sources - not just speculation - are of course
preferred.

Hello michael2,

The quick answers to your questions:
What controls - if any - are 'embedded' journalists working under, and
to
what extent are their reports either formally monitored/censored or
subject to informal pressure? ANSWER: Controls are listed in the last
article cited, their reports are monitored/censored but it seems that
a large portion of the responsibility is on the side of the military.
The idea is that the person supervising the journalists should keep
them informed of what can and cannot be reported. They can assign
supervisors to the journalists, but if there is no such supervisor,
the journalist must use their judgement. They can ask for
clarification, and the decision should come in "minutes, not hours"
from the people representing the military.

Did such journalists or their employers have to sign anything which
would restrict their freedom to report? ANSWER: Yes, the journalists
did have to sign. I found no indications that the organizations had to
sign anything, although the organizations did get to choose which
journalists would be representing their organization as embeds. (There
is still a way freelance journalists can become embeds, if an
organization agrees to sponsor them.)

Now for a more detailed answer/discussion:
I subscribe to the U.S. Department of Defense "News by Email" service
and that is how I found the first article I am quoting from:

Excerpts from this article that pertain to your question:
-"Reporters have rules they understand before they go into the field.
They know not to give away any data that could be helpful to the
enemy."
-""Embedded reporters and news organizations are trying hard to cover
the war while protecting operational security and the safety of the
people involved," Clarke said. "We have had very few problems thus
far.""
-"There are limits to what embedding can show. Embedded reporters
cover what they see. They are great at getting a company or battalion
look at the war."

Online Source for this Article: 
TITLE: Press and Military Seem to Appreciate Media Embeds
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/n03262003_200303265.html

As you guessed, the excerpts from the following article, also from a
military website, show that the embedded journalists do have to stick
with the troops:

"Still, the so-called "embedding" plan, which would place print and
broadcast journalists with troops deploying to the Persian Gulf, falls
short of the access reporters had in during the Vietnam War, the
Korean War and World War II.”

“Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said those days of reporters freely roaming
the battlefields are over. "You have to be linked up to a unit,
otherwise you'll get stranded, "Clark, who led the Kosovo air war as
NATO's supreme allied commander, said Tuesday. "You're liable to get
out in front of the forces and be put in place of danger, so the
embedding plan is the right way to go, at least initially. "Tensions
have run high between journalists and the Pentagon since early in the
war on terrorism in Afghanistan, where press-pool photographers were
locked in a warehouse by Marines to stop them from covering injured
U.S. troops."
TITLE: Pentagon to Assign Media to Front-Lines
HTML SOURCE: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:5B2Ref9RjP0C:www.goordnance.apg.army.mil/PDF%2520Files/OrdnanceReports0115.pdf+site:.mil+embedded+journalists+iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I also found one of the actual unclassified documents that states the
rules that members of the embedded media must abide by. I have read
through and noted some excerpts from this lengthy document. Note that
I focused on what they CANNOT DO, but the document also mentions what
they CAN AND SHOULD DO. You might want to read the article directly or
take a look at the summary I have provided for you. Sentences not in
full caps were written by me, all others were copied and pasted from
the actual article:

-“EMBEDDED MEDIA ARE NOT AUTHORIZED USE OF THEIR OWN VEHICLES WHILE
TRAVELING IN AN EMBEDDED STATUS.”
-“HOWEVER, UNIT COMMANDERS MAY IMPOSE TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS ON
ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSIONS FOR OPERATIONAL SECURITY REASONS. MEDIA WILL
SEEK APPROVAL TO USE ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN A COMBAT/HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE UNIT COMMANDER OR
HIS/HER DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. THE USE OF COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
WILL BE DISCUSSED IN FULL WHEN THE MEDIA ARRIVE AT THEIR ASSIGNED
UNIT.”
-“FREELANCE MEDIA WILL BE AUTHORIZED TO EMBED IF THEY ARE SELECTED BY
A NEWS ORGANIZATION AS THEIR EMBED REPRESENTATIVE.” (One of the
previous rules was that news organizations would be given embed slots,
not individual reporters).
-“3.F. EMBEDDED MEDIA OPERATE AS PART OF THEIR ASSIGNED UNIT. AN
ESCORT MAY BE ASSIGNED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE UNIT COMMANDER. THE
ABSENCE OF A PA ESCORT IS NOT A REASON TO PRECLUDE MEDIA ACCESS TO
OPERATIONS.”
-“3.G. COMMANDERS WILL ENSURE THE MEDIA ARE PROVIDED WITH EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE ACTUAL COMBAT OPERATIONS. THE PERSONAL SAFETY
OF CORRESPONDENTS IS NOT A REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM COMBAT AREAS.”
-“MEDIA WILL AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE CENTCOM/OASD(PA) GROUND RULES
STATED IN PARA. 4 OF THIS MESSAGE IN EXCHANGE FOR
COMMAND/UNIT-PROVIDED SUPPORT AND ACCESS TO SERVICE MEMBERS,
INFORMATION AND OTHER PREVIOUSLY-STATED PRIVILEGES. ANY VIOLATION OF
THE GROUND RULES COULD RESULT IN TERMINATION OF THAT MEDIA’S EMBED
OPPORTUNITY.”
-“THE STANDARD FOR RELEASE OF INFORMATION SHOULD BE TO ASK “WHY NOT
RELEASE” VICE “WHY RELEASE.” DECISIONS SHOULD BE MADE ASAP, PREFERABLY
IN MINUTES, NOT HOURS.”
-“THERE IS NO GENERAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR MEDIA PRODUCTS. SEE PARA 6.A.
FOR FURTHER DETAIL CONCERNING SECURITY AT THE SOURCE.”
-“MEDIA WILL ONLY BE GRANTED ACCESS TO DETAINEES OR EPWS WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949.” (Obviously certain
media in Iraq do not have this restriction.”
-“DEPARTING MEDIA WILL BE DEBRIEFED ON OPERATIONAL SECURITY
CONSIDERATIONS AS APPLICABLE TO ONGOING AND FUTURE OPERATIONS WHICH
THEY MAY NOW HAVE INFORMATION CONCERNING.”
-“MEDIA WILL ADHERE TO ESTABLISHED GROUND RULES. GROUND RULES WILL BE
AGREED TO IN ADVANCE AND SIGNED BY MEDIA PRIOR TO EMBEDDING. VIOLATION
OF THE GROUND RULES MAY RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF THE
EMBED AND REMOVAL FROM THE AOR. THESE GROUND RULES RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT
OF THE MEDIA TO COVER MILITARY OPERATIONS AND ARE IN NO WAY INTENDED
TO PREVENT RELEASE OF DEROGATORY, EMBARRASSING, NEGATIVE OR
UNCOMPLIMENTARY INFORMATION.” (So Basically, YES they must sign their
name and agree to ground rules which are provided in advance.)
-“INTERVIEWS WITH PILOTS AND AIRCREW MEMBERS ARE AUTHORIZED UPON
COMPLETION OF MISSIONS; HOWEVER, RELEASE OF INFORMATION MUST CONFORM
TO THESE MEDIA GROUND RULES.”
-“MEDIA EMBEDDED WITH U.S. FORCES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CARRY PERSONAL
FIREARMS.” (an interesting but logical restriction!)
-“VISIBLE LIGHT SOURCES, INCLUDING FLASH OR TELEVISION LIGHTS, FLASH
CAMERAS WILL NOT BE USED WHEN OPERATING WITH FORCES AT NIGHT UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE ON-SCENE COMMANDER.”
-Section 4.F THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION ARE RELEASABLE.
-Section 4.G THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION ARE NOT
RELEASABLE SINCE THEIR PUBLICATION OR BROADCAST COULD JEOPARDIZE
OPERATIONS AND ENDANGER LIVES. (Summary follows)
-under 4.G it mentions that the exact number of
troops/aircraft/equipment/ships are not releasable
-also says that military installation or specific geographic locations
are not releasable (unless previously released to public by the DOD).
-Information regarding future operations is not releasable.
-Information regarding “force protection” or photographs showing
levels of security at military installations are not releasable.
-“EXTRA PRECAUTIONS IN REPORTING WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE COMMENCEMENT
OF HOSTILITIES TO MAXIMIZE OPERATIONAL SURPRISE. LIVE BROADCASTS FROM
AIRFIELDS, ON THE GROUND OR AFLOAT, BY EMBEDDED MEDIA ARE PROHIBITED
UNTIL THE SAFE RETURN OF THE INITIAL STRIKE PACKAGE OR UNTIL
AUTHORIZED BY THE UNIT COMMANDER.”
-Information on friendly force troop movements & special operations
are not releasable under certain conditions (see 4.G.12-13)
-4.G.14 through 4.G.19 has additional rules restricting reporting
because dangers it could pose to the friendly troops, (one example
being effectiveness of enemy electronic warfare).
-4.H.1 through 4.H.9 covers restrictions over reporting of wounded,
ill or injured personnel.
SECTION 6-“SECURITY AT THE SOURCE WILL BE THE RULE. U.S. MILITARY
PERSONNEL SHALL PROTECT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION FROM UNAUTHORIZED OR
INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE. MEDIA PROVIDED ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
INFORMATION, INFORMATION WHICH IS NOT CLASSIFIED BUT WHICH MAY BE OF
OPERATIONAL VALUE TO AN ADVERSARY OR WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER
UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION MAY REVEAL CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, WILL BE
INFORMED IN ADVANCE BY THE UNIT COMMANDER OR HIS/HER DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OR DISCLOSURE OF SUCH
INFORMATION. WHEN IN DOUBT, MEDIA WILL CONSULT WITH THE UNIT COMMANDER
OR HIS/HER DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.”
-“THE NATURE OF THE EMBEDDING PROCESS MAY INVOLVE OBSERVATION OF
SENSITIVE INFORMATION, INCLUDING TROOP MOVEMENTS, BATTLE PREPARATIONS,
MATERIEL CAPABILITIES AND VULNERABILITIES AND OTHER INFORMATION AS
LISTED IN PARA. 4.G. WHEN A COMMANDER OR HIS/HER DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A MEDIA MEMBER WILL HAVE
ACCESS TO THIS TYPE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION, PRIOR TO ALLOWING SUCH
ACCESS, HE/SHE WILL TAKE PRUDENT PRECAUTIONS TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF
THAT INFORMATION.”
-“IF MEDIA ARE INADVERTENTLY EXPOSED TO SENSITIVE INFORMATION THEY
SHOULD BE BRIEFED AFTER EXPOSURE ON WHAT INFORMATION THEY SHOULD AVOID
COVERING. IN INSTANCES WHERE A UNIT COMMANDER OR THE DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVE DETERMINES THAT COVERAGE OF A STORY WILL INVOLVE
EXPOSURE TO SENSITIVE INFORMATION BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT MAY BE
PROTECTED BY PREBRIEFING OR DEBRIEFING, BUT COVERAGE OF WHICH IS IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE DOD, THE COMMANDER MAY OFFER ACCESS IF THE
REPORTER AGREES TO A SECURITY REVIEW OF THEIR COVERAGE.”
Finally, a very curious one: “7.C. USE OF LIPSTICK AND HELMET-MOUNTED
CAMERAS ON COMBAT SORTIES IS APPROVED AND ENCOURAGED TO THE GREATEST
EXTENT POSSIBLE.”

The original article can be found here: 
TITLE: Media Embed Ground Rules (Dated March 03, 2003)
http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1631270.html

I hope this was the type of research you were looking for. If you need
any clarifications regarding this answer, please let me know and I
will do my best to further assist you.

tisme-ga



Search Strategy:

embedded journalists iraq
://www.google.com/search?q=embedded+journalists+iraq

embedded journalists
://www.google.com/search?q=embedded+journalists

site:.mil embedded journalists iraq
://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.mil+embedded+journalists+iraq

"embedded media" conditions iraq
://www.google.com/search?q=%22embedded+media%22+conditions+iraq

What a stunningly good answer!  It was great to have details of the
actual government regulations themselves.

I would have thought the simple answer was:

Iraq can have no control over satelite broadcasts. (Embedded, and you
say what we say you can say and no provisos,(coalition, or you lose
the badge)

Where in Baghdad, with (good pictures) and conventional transmission
methods, they the Iraq's) are in full control, and monitored, be it
satelite or wire.

Just the same?

 What as always is missing, is a complete unbiased journalistic
report.

As always, things will come to light after the war is over, and
sometimes many years after.

When I was studying history as an undergraduate the professor always
said that the "true story" usually surfaced about 20-25 years after
the event.  Some of the best studies of the Korean and Vietnam Wars
were written after those timeframes.  So sit back and relax until
then.

Being a history student myself, I don't believe that the "true story"
ever emerges. We can attempt to understand slices of history but not
the complete story. Twenty-five years later, the documents used to
interpret history are still the same biased documents, but the person
doing the study also has intentional/unintentional biases and ways of
looking at the documents.

I don't think this discussion pertains to michael2's question however,
he was more interested in knowing about the controls placed on the
embedded reporters covering the Iraqi war.

...........in Australia( one of only three countries with troops
actually fighting in the desert by the way) we notice  easily what one
would term self controls. That is USA journos and British journos very
conspicuoulsy( most journos but certainly not all) report verbally
only easily digested info that is palatable to the USA/ British public
rather than that which which  may seem anti- "the cause" or pro- "the
other view". This also manifests iteslf very obviously at the media
briefings when questions are allowed. Take a look for yourself tonight
and you will see that the only questions coming from USA reporters are
those that dont probe too much, dont  embarrass or look like they are
designed to catch out the presenters be it Tommy himself or any of his
off-siders. On the other hand questions from the little
Spanish-sounding man for instance or the oriental reporters or other
European reporters  get to the heart of issues quickly and blatantly.
For instance, " You( the coalition) have found no weapons of mass
destruction so therefore  is it all lies that they exist" or words to
this effect. Crudely put perhaps but it at least raises clearly and
unambiguously the whole issue of what we( Britain, USA and my country)
are  mainly fighting for over there. We are yet to hear a coalition
reporter ask such probing but valid questions and  almost certainly we
never will