what does everyone think of having  civilian media in a combat zone?

Pure idiocity.

It saddens me that some of our men over their have to watch out for the reporters.  

As long as they are tightly controlled, I see no issue with it.

I thought the embedding philosiphy that they did at the onset of Iraq
was pretty effective.

I remember watching 3-7 Cav making it's run to Bagdad, in colum, running down
the road, engageing targets on both sides.

The reporter was talking and, then...

*THUCK-THUCK-THUCK-THUCK*

The 25 MMs were getting ON it.

By that time the reporter had been with the unit through some hairy stuff, and,
I thought he was going to start screaming.."GET SOME! YEAH! GET SOME!"

The anchors were visibly shaken, but he jsut drove on with his commentary.

I have heard numerous people I know give the reporters they were embedded with pretty
high marks, probably becasue those reporters knew those troops held thier fate in their hands.

It was after the embedding kinda ceased that the trouble started....Not to mention the
media moguls only want bad things reported about Iraq.

Without civilians in the zone, we wouldn't have Michael Yon.

On one hand I want them there to tell me what's going on.

On the other, I know they have an agenda that IS or is served by undermining support for victory, and that they will have an inevitable bias towards this because of just how the news business is.

Bloggers? Maybe. (Michel Yon, I'm looking squarely at you.)

TV or print media journalist school grads? Hell no.