[rainsford]

I read that far more as a problem with journalism than a problem with the military. None of those points in any way limit the freedom of the press to report neutrally, or in any other way they want, on a war. Even if being an embedded reporter might not be a constitutionally protected right and might be subjected to military control, that's not the only way the media can report on a war. It's just the easiest way, and modern journalism seems to like the easiest approach to everything.

The concept of press freedom doesn't necessarily seem to include an implied obligation that the government must help them do their jobs.

[mikeash]

Can you imagine that complaint being used for anything else that journalists report on?

"Reporting the activities of drug cartels ends up favoring the cartels because they only accept journalists who tell their side of the story."

"We were going to do a big expose on medical malpractice in Regional Hospital, but the administration refused our request for a month-long officially sanctioned observer mission within the hospital so we couldn't."

"It's no wonder that news reports always praise the police, since your ride-along privileges get terminated right away if you don't play along."

Yeah, reporting from a war zone is dangerous and difficult and getting help from the military makes it a lot easier. But that's their job.