My friends and I are heavily embroiled in a debt over the embedded
reporters during the recent Iraq war. Is there any credibility to my
contention that embedding reporters is a form of censorship and
restriction of information rather than free access? I believe this
brilliant PR move seems like an attempt at transparency but in fact
limits a reporter?s ability to achieve an objective view of the entire
war.

Answers I am interested in?

1.	Articles or essays that agree and disagree with my opinion.
2.	Accounts from reporters who experienced developing relationships with soldiers. 
3.	An answer to the question, ?Is denying a reporter access to the
full story the same as not allowing him/her to write about it (a.k.a.
censorship?)?
4.	The rules reporters had to abide by to stay in Iraq. 
5.	What a reporter?s training was like before embarking to Iraq.

Thank you!

You may be interested in a report from the Cradiff University
Journalism school on the role of embedded reporters. It is not
available on line but if you go here
http://www.cf.ac.uk/jomec/en/school/39/180.html

you can request a hard copy. I have and it makes interesting reading.

I'm with you.  I believe every embedded reporter had an officer
assigned to him or her for the sake of censorship.

Currently in Baghdad, almost all American reporters are scared to
leave their hotels.