"While war is not something anyone welcomes or looks forward to watching in primetime, the media embed program the military spearheaded provided a unique, 'up close and personal' view of what it is really like to be on the front lines. The David Blooms, Ashleigh Banfields and Ted Koppels who risked their lives alongside the brave men and women of our Armed Forces did their best to provide an unbiased and accurate portrait of the fight. The coverage, which was mostly wall-to-wall in Iraq yet hampered by restrictions in countries hosting our bases providing air support, was exceptional and gave Americans a glimpse into the efforts put forth to liberate Iraq, the sacrifices of our forces and the technologies that helped the mission succeed."

- Jenna McMullin, JO'02, public affairs specialist, U.S. Air Force Space Command, Peterson AFB; Colorado Springs, CO

"I objected to the use of the word 'embedded,' a term created by the military and sucked up by too much of
the media. It implied that the reporting was in bed with
the military."

- Bob Liter, JO'49, retired journalist, Washington, IL

"Excellent, highly informative, risk-taking journalism."

- Gerald B. Yost, JO'76, senior partner, Yost & Baill LLP, Minneapolis, MN

"I'll limit my comment to embedding. It was beneficial to both military and the media, but it almost made prisoners of the reporters. They had no freedom of movement, no independence and no sense of the big picture."

- Patrick Beach, JO'90, feature writer, Austin American-Statesman, Austin, TX

"Press coverage was interesting, insightful and sometimes useful. But there was a 'gung ho' quality to some of it that was also disturbing. For instance, some news outlets characterized the coverage as 'Iraqi Liberation' or 'Iraqi Freedom' when 'Iraqi Invasion' might have been closer to the truth.

The embedded journalists were really interesting, though, even if they gave us a look at the trees rather than the forest."

- Tom Graves, GR'88, LW'00, Des Moines

More Talk of the Town responses...