Interesting, a military blog I frequently read has confirmed my own experiences on the subject, but with a twist to your story above:

One of the more interesting types of stories exchanged by Iraq veterans is how their embedded reporters get screwed by their editors. The basic problem is that reporters tend to get close to the troops they are embedded with, and the troops form a good sense of what kind of story is being written. But then, when the story appears, it often has no connection with what actually happened, other than the names of the reporter and the soldiers or marines. The troops get curious about how this can be. Reporters have learned to dread inquiring emails from the troops they were recently embedded with. Sometimes the reporters are still embedded when some of their reporting appears in print or on the air. The troops note the discrepancies and ask questions. The answer to all these queries is simple. The reality of Iraq is too positive for the editors back home. Good news doesn't sell. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20060626.aspx

Interesting you should mention the DOD vetting stories and journalists so that they fall into line with the picture that the DOD wants relayed, because I have heard a similar story about editors vetting their own journalists so they get the types of stories that fall into line with the editors perspectives.

The basic problem is that reporters tend to get close to the troops they are embedded with, and the troops form a good sense of what kind of story is being written. But then, when the story appears, it often has no connection with what actually happened, other than the names of the reporter and the soldiers or marines. The troops get curious about how this can be. Reporters have learned to dread inquiring emails from the troops they were recently embedded with. Sometimes the reporters are still embedded when some of their reporting appears in print or on the air. The troops note the discrepancies and ask questions. The answer to all these queries is simple. The reality of Iraq is too positive for the editors back home. Good news doesn't sell. The reporting has to be darkened a bit and a negative spin added.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20060626.aspx

Dear People of the U.S.,
How could you citizens of America be so stupid as to elect a Conservative to lead your nation in this time of global crisis?"

Sincerely, Mexico, Canada, Portugal, Australia, Germany....

Better to not let you go with them than to be killed by them when you get there and write something they don't agree with. They know who they are.

on another relaterd subject...
Since when is it illegal for a trooper to say something negative about the military?

Whatever. Who thought that being embedded with a bunch of soldiers was ever going to give the reporter anything other than a tiny pinhole view of what's happening in Iraq? I'm sorry for the U.S. soldiers who are in Iraq, they are human beings with families, hopes and dreams like the rest of us, but then so are the Iraqis who are dying in far greater numbers than anyone else in that country. Being an embed doesn't give you much of a view on what happens at the other end of the weapons being fired beside you. It creates the mirage of some sort of journalism going on in that country which is probably worse than nothing.

In light of yesterday's events I wonder if Big Daddy retains his view of it all being too positive to report in Bagdad... It's an interesting concept - can you have freedom of speech if you only invite the people who agree with you to witness the event.

No one is ever going to change the thinking of the war hawks/chickenhawks like Big Daddy. He is most likely a Repub who totally supports Bush and all his lies about Iraq and thinks it just fine that Bin Laden is still running around loose. He is most likely also a neocon who believe that only the GOP should rule our country.

But Big Daddy shouldn't complain because America is just the way he wants it, under the sole control of the GOP and is no longer a democracy because the GOP has ended our system of 'Checks and Balances'.

I wonder if Big Daddy will sing the same tune when his Social Security is gone and he and his children have no health care.

The bottom line is that 'we the people' have an absolute right to know what our government is doing in our name, it's just that simple.

Big Daddy/Aephid here; chickenhawk? Is that what I am, a chickenhawk? I spent a 13 months in Afghanistan and 16 months in Iraq and I think I am a tad bit better informed than either you or Mr Plumer on the subject. Please think before you type.

TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (£526) each to donate to a charitable cause...