Part of the reason for this, it was thought, was because Washington sent out the message loud and clear-too much independence and negative reporting was similar to offering aid and comfort to the enemy (Diemand, 2002). This meant that American journalists felt they might be unpatriotic if they reported the realities of the war (Diemand, 2002). No one wants to go against their own country, in other words, you go with the follow even though it is against your own views. .
Even before the war broke out, Fisk predicated that the embedded reporters (both Americans and reporters from the BBC), would "lose their freedom to write what they want" once invasion broke out (Fisk, 2003). Fisk also pointed out that before the invasion; those American networks that were based in the Kurdish area north of Iraq had orders to file nothing until the war began; as there was fear that Iraqis would expel U.S. networks out of Baghdad to retaliate (Fisk, 2003). .
Jenson went one-step further in criticizing American journalists by noting that it was a "case study in the failure of success of U.S. journalism" (Jenson, 2003). On the one hand, thanks to technology, words and pictures could be delivered from an area on the other side of the globe, by incredible speed and under adverse conditions (Jenson, 2003). Where journalists ended up failing, however, was in their inability to offer a true account on what was going on, why it was going on, and what it meant (Jenson, 2003). Ultimately, what was interviewed and counted on were "pro-war" military sources. According to a 2003 study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, 76 percent of guests on the network talk shows before the start of the war were current or formal officials, with anti-war sources accounting for less that one percent of those interviewed (Jenson, 2003).
There were also accusations of false or misleading reporting from the U.S. journalists, again, because of military bias.