When American soldiers were in Vietnam, news was relayed to the Pentagon from the field. The brass in Washington then spun the news as best it could and passed it to the then more than homogenous national media outlets, who then sanitized the events for public consumption. By the time Joe American sat down to dually digest a microwave dinner and Walter Cronkite’s tidy 22-minute summation of the day’s events, details had fallen as victims on the editing-room floor.

Fast forward 35 years. The fall of Saddam Hussein was shown live on competing 24-hour news channels, not tightened and edited. Reports weren’t relayed through the very people and agencies whom protestors distrusted but rather given in their entirety so that people might do the splicing in their own minds.

Thanks to the embedded-reporter program, the world saw firefights live. Americans did not hear reports of tanks rolling towards Baghdad; they watched such movements with their own eyes. And there could be no doubt as to the exact exuberance of the crowds as the statue of Saddam Hussein fell in the central city, let alone any skepticism as to whether such crowds actually existed.

Even during Gulf War I, no such competition or immediacy could be found. It was one thing to see CNN’s Bernard Shaw take cover under a hotel desk 12 years ago; it was altogether another thing to see America’s finest topple Baghdad.

The Pentagon clearly had faith that the war would be swift and victorious and that Iraqis would welcome Americans with open arms. It was no small gamble to allow journalists to become embedded, but the Pentagon’s arrogance was clearly justified and the gamble paid huge dividends.

Because President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and company were so vocal with their confidence in the war effort, their credibility has been heightened and that of their detractors nearly destroyed. Indeed, it was a brilliant political move to grant the media nearly full access.

The media should also be commended for its responsibility, however. Despite the inevitable reports of unbridled patriotism from embedded journalists, the news networks have also broadcast press conferences full of tough questions. It is ironic that although the United Nations was excluded from the war in Iraq, nearly every country was included in the war for favorable public opinion. Tommy Franks never failed to call on a reporter from a Chinese newspaper or anti-war media outlet. So even if MSNBC and Fox News were throwing softball questions (which they sometimes were), they also broadcast Franks’ hardball press conference swings.

The news networks’ responsible actions did not stop there, though. Until the day he disappeared, the Iraqi information minister was afforded airtime. Even the anti-war movement at home joined the mix as MSNBC cut from bombs in Basra to boos on the streets of New York City. The networks have also been careful to repeatedly note the absence of a discovery of weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps most importantly, though, a new precedent has been established. No longer will Caspar Weinberger-esque blackouts be permitted, nor anything of the sort. Government leaders must now be cautious to only pick fights which will prove righteous and well-planned or the criticism will undoubtedly be too much to bear. Indeed, if Walter Cronkite had been reporting from within an infantry division outside of Hanoi, there wouldn’t have been a “great silent majority” to spare Richard Nixon.

Mac VerStandig ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in rhetoric.