Editor’s note: This story is part of a series titled “Top 10 News Events of Our Lives,” published in December 2008. The stories were chosen and written by Daily staff writers. Our editors have shared some of their anecdotes on each event. We encourage you to leave your own memories in the Discussion section of each story.

The Iraq war has changed the way the media covers war.

“The thing about the Iraq war that is unique really, is that it was the first war where the news media became part, actually, of combat units through the embedded reporters,” said Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science. “In other wars, the military had its own military photographers and writers and journalists, and the news media, actually, was out there on their own.”

Schmidt said embedded reporters were not allowed to roam around on their own, they were taken in under protection of the military and traveled with individual military units.

“I think what happened was a lot of the reporters really came to feel like they were part of the combat operation and were inside, instead of being outside kind of looking at these two groups fighting each other,” Schmidt said. “So the coverage was weird in the case of the Iraq war, because it was not very critical, there wasn’t a lot of questioning of why we were doing this, the news media tried very hard not to be an adversary here with the U.S. policy, but to almost really sort of become supporters of the war.”

Kim Smith, professor of journalism and mass communication, said he thinks having the media embedded with troops during conflict is a good idea. He said, however, there are still ground rules as to what the media can or cannot report on; for example, where they are reporting.

“I think it gives more insight of what’s going on because the reporters have more access to the ground operations,” Smith said.

Schmidt said because of advances in technology, like smaller satellite dishes that reporters could carry with them, coupled with the non-stop coverage on cable channels, the public got a more “action-oriented” view of the war at its start rather than a critical perspective.

“I don’t think the public got the kind of cool and objective reporting that we’ve had in some other wars where the news media was there to ask ‘are things going right or wrong,’ and ‘why are we doing this.’” Schmidt said.

Smith said Americans were supportive of the war in Iraq because the media coverage was based around the issue of weapons of mass destruction. He said once it became apparent there weren’t weapons of mass destruction, there was a decline in support of the war.

Smith said he thinks the media was criticized for not questioning administrative officials as to why the United States was entering the war, but he disagrees with those statements.

“I think the media accurately reported on why we’re invading … why the president and the folks around him were saying that we were going to get involved in this war and why it was needed, and that principle reason was weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

Schmidt disagrees, and believes the media didn’t do its job at the beginning of the war.

“I think the news media waited much too long, much too long to ask about why Iraq wasn’t stabilized quicker,” he said. “They didn’t start asking questions quick enough and I think that’s traditionally the role of the news media.”

Schmidt said in World War II, the media also took a very pro-ally view of the war.

“It’s hard for the news media when you’re in the middle of a war to, without seeming like you’re traitors or something, start trashing the war effort,” he said. “This has dragged on now for seven years, longer than any other war the U.S. has ever fought and now there’s a lot of criticism and questioning, and now there’s a lot of reporting saying the U.S. basically f—-d up everything because we didn’t know what we were doing afterwards.”

Schmidt said the media’s job is not to tell the government’s story, which is what most government officials want the media to do.

“That’s the news media in Russia or North Korea,” he said.

He said the reason why the news media lost its objectivity is because the news media is now owned by large corporate conglomerates and reporters are afraid to offend their corporate owners. Schmidt also said the Bush administration kept the media loyal by offering front-line coverage.

“I think the Bush administration, Rumsfield especially, went way further in basically trying to neutralize the media, in terms of its reporting,” he said. “The lesson learned from this is that it is very dangerous to have the news media be too passive and be too much on one side of the story.”

Smith said even though the media can ask the right questions, it depends on what information is available and what those with the information believe to be true.

“I think what’s really apparent is that there were a whole lot of administrative officials that probably really did think that the intelligence indicated weapons of mass destruction, but somewhere along the lines, somebody was wrong. And that just, when that happens, I think your credibility erodes as president,” he said.

Staff comments:

“The government lied to us, thinking that we, the uninformed public, would let them get away with it. The uncovering of the information regarding the motives of our officials has forced me to be more wary of governments’ power.”

— Sarah Haas, FYI editor

“This has basically taken over the news, or at least been in it since it happened. War is always in the news, it affects so many people on so many different levels.”

— Moriah Smith, designer