It all seems like the whole embed program is just the Pentagon's reworking of '60s and '70s style "new journalism"; 'fear and loathing on the war campaign trail'. What worked against one war might work to support another one.

Yes, but it is worthwhile to consider whether there are different modes of legitimate reporting. For example, Stanley's story has shades of the memoir, because personal memory is essential to it. However, he doesn't stay all the time on his son's story, but moves in and out of it; out to a larger picture that tries to represent more people more experiences. It's trying to create a communal memory of these years of war.

No need to dwell on whether George Stanley was biased. All journalists are biased, but that's unrelated to whether they give you worthwhile reporting. I can't figure out how anyone could think of George Stanley's perspective being embedded with his son as anything other than poignant.