人们只能猜想，嵌入式记者是否需要与军事人员进行讨论，才能报道有关战争暴行或极端战争局势的广播图像的问题。库克曼(32)指出，这样的讨论不应该成为战斗新闻的常见模式，隐瞒信息也不是新闻报道的特征。与此同时，人们不禁要问，媒体能在多大程度上突破其自由的极限，破坏国家监管，赢得公众舆论。在一场战争结束时，公众和其他社会群体会明显地看到，在战争过程中，皮鞋新闻呈现出的战争图像和故事，如果不是这样，公众是不会知道的。在9/11事件后的最初阶段，美国经历了情绪动荡，对恐怖主义的愤怒必须有所平息。随着基地组织(Al-Qaeda)对9/11袭击负责，以及奥萨马•本•拉登(Osama bin laden)在阿富汗的情报在美国浮出水面，美国在阿富汗境内发动军事袭击或行动的可能性很快就变成了可能。
A person can only wonder if embedded journalists need to have a discussion with the military personnel to report on issues of broadcasting images of war brutality or extreme warfare situations. Cookman (32) makes the point that such discussions should not be the common pattern in combat journalism and withholding information is not a trait to associate with shoe-leather journalism. At the same time, one wonders how far the media can push the limits of its freedom, undermining the state regulations and winning public opinion. At the end of a war, it becomes apparent to the public and other groups of society that during the course of war, shoe-leather journalism presents revealing images and stories of war that the public would not have known otherwise. In the initial times of post-9/11 aftermath, the US was going through emotional turmoil and the anger against terrorism had to go somewhere. With the Al-Qaeda taking responsibility of 9/11 attacks and the intelligence of Osama Bin-Laden being in Afghanistan surfacing in US, it quickly became a possibility that a military attack or operation by US on Afghanistan soil is very likely to take place in near future.
With this kind of rumors circulating in the media and political circles, the way media covered this story and the reasoning behind the attack apparently became a deciding factor behind the attack. For the US politicians, media was a way of knowing how common citizens would think about war with Afghanistan. Media coverage was heavily important not just for the politicians but for the people as well, who remembered the atrocities of war from Vietnam war or the ones who had never seen their country at war. Aljazeera’s online press on 2011 discussed the relationship between the public’s lack of knowledge on how their troops face during war and the censorship of war victims’ reportage. In the article, Rall (2011) asserts that the US public is used like pawns in a chess-game in matters that affect their very own existence.