http://0-web.ebscohost.com.enterprise.sacredheart.edu/ehost/detail?hid=122&sid=89f6c951-b40d-4fe8-8d98-336ae6facecb%40sessionmgr111&vid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=37154144

Before the war in Iraq in early 2003, there was a great deal of debate about the role played by journalists during the conflict. Journalists needed access and also, in a dangerous war zone, to be secure. The concept of the 'embedded' journalist was widely discussed. This meant that journalists would effectively join military units, follow them around, get close access to the action, and receive protection. But if the 'embed' conceded some editorial authority to military press officers, was this a price worth paying? This paper reviews findings from public opinion surveys conducted during the war itself about the media coverage. The big broadcast brands such as the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Sky News were dominant in terms of patronage and along with The Guardian and The Times were also the most trusted sources. The BBC and Sky also received the most votes for accurate, balanced, informative, and interesting coverage. While the public believed that care should be taken with imagery that could be upsetting to children, many also acknowledged that the media had a duty to show the truth of war rather than a sanitized version of it. On the subject of embedded reporters, there were mixed feelings. There was a majority view that embedded reporting did bring people at home closer to the action. In addition, many people thought that it might be difficult for journalists to remain impartial if they got too close to the military.