Steven Levy says that embedded journalists and webloggers have a lot in common:

CNN’s response was seen in the Blogosphere as one more sign that the media dinosaurs are determined to stamp out this subversive new form of reporting. But judging from the television and print reports from journalists embedded in military units, there’s another way to look at things. Consider the reports from embedded journalists working for media institutions. They’re ad hoc, using quick-and-dirty high-tech tools to pinpoint the reality of a single moment. They are shaped by the personal experience of the creator rather than gathering news from after-the-fact interviewing and document collection. They are delivered in the first person, creating a connection with the viewer that sometimes bulldozes over the deeper realties of the events

In other words, they’re a hell of a lot like blogs. Not the heavily linked Weblogs like The Agonist or Instapundit but the personal accounts of Salam—or the thousands of bloggers who use the technology to keep a running diary of their activities for a small circle of friends—or anyone who cares to listen in.

Survey says: Close, but not quite. Which in this case, is arguably worse than being just flat-out wrong.

At the risk of sounding like a bitter new-media tool who just wants to be spiteful and insist that everybody else Just Doesn't Get It: well, in this case, Levy just doesn't get it.

Yes, embedded journalists are providing first-person accounts, and they share this characteristic with (some) bloggers. But the key characteristic of weblogs is not that they are breathless accounts of our own lives --- because, in fact, many of them aren't. (When was the last time you heard about my life in any significant way? Ah yes, that's right: never.)

The crucial aspect of weblogs is that they are independent. They represent one individual (or a self-selected collection of individuals) viewpoint. Their thoughts, their ideas, hopes, fears, experiences, whatever. Uncut, uncensored, and unfiltered.

Embedded reporters, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. In the first place, they are Professional Journalists, which doesn't mean they are evil (or even necessarily incompetent) --- but it does mean that they are edited, filtered, distilled, and otherwise limited by their own organizations. Yes, that on-the-battlefield report might be streamed live. But the choice to stream that reporter's account at that particular moment wasn't made by the reporter --- it was made by some editor sitting in Atlanta. "Embeds" are tactically uncut --- but strategically neutered.

And if serving their one master (Big Media) wasn't bad enough, the embedded reporters have all by definition struck an even more devilish bargain: every last one of them is reporting through the lenses that the U.S. military provides them. I don't know what impact this has on their reporting: and that's kind of the point. Neither do you.

So yes, embedded reporters may offer some of the immediacy; the breathlessness and the personal feel of weblogs. But make no mistake: you may have no idea who I am, but when I post my thoughts, you know for certain it's me: pure and direct, right from the source, with no middlemen getting in the way.

Embedded journalists give you the same feel. But don't mistake the style for substance. You can read the bio of that intrepid MSNBC reporter; learn everything there is to know about him. Decide he's a Good Guy, someone You Can Trust, and watch on the edge of your seat as he describes the scene he's witnessing.

But you'll never know for sure whether he's really telling you what he wishes he could tell you.

And that's never a problem you'll have here --- or at any other blog worth the bits its printed with. And that makes all the difference.