Getting caught up in the wrong game
The Torch's Hippie-Hair Correspondent sent along this piece from CTV about a British milblog stepping over the line regarding a recent rocket attack at KAF.
Here's what Helmand Blog has to say about itself:
Pardon me while I indulge in a bit of online navel-gazing, but this story is of interest to me. Why? Well, obviously I'm a supporter of the idea of milblogs. Mainstream media has very little experience of the labyrinthine world of professional military affairs, and so the vast majority of MSM pieces are extraordinarily shallow. Milblogs may not do a pile of original reporting, but they're invaluable for offering the depth, context, and perspective that the paid media lack. Taken as a whole, milblogs do an admirable job filling in the gaping gaps in the mainstream media's reporting on all matters martial.
Having said that, I've found a few areas where milblogs and milbloggers consistently get themselves into trouble:
I'm sure there are more. I know I've been down at least two of those roads myself. From what I can see, Helmand Blog got caught up twice: they ran afoul of coalition rules, and they posted something just because it was "news." Their stated mission is to "support the coalition forces," but this post was of questionable value in that regard. Like I said, I've gotten caught up in that trap myself over the years. These days, I ask myself before I put up a post: how does this help the soldiers, sailors, and airmen, or how does it support the CF overall? I'll put up stuff that's critical if I feel it's in their best interests to address a particular issue up front rather than gloss over it. But if it doesn't fall into our stated mandate, I'll generally toss it before hitting 'post'.
Navel-gazing about milblogs notwithstanding, of course...
The Helmand Blog, run by several branches of the U.K. military both in England and Afghanistan, said insurgents attacked the base from two locations Saturday night, launching five rocket-propelled grenades.
It said 13 people from the American and Canadian contingents suffered injuries.
The blog quoted Senior Aircraftsman Eric Telford, 24, from 2nd Squadron of the Royal Air Force, as saying he rushed to the site of the attack and applied a tourniquet to a wounded female Canadian soldier.
The blog entry was later removed after ISAF said it was posted without proper approval and contained some incorrect information.
Here's what Helmand Blog has to say about itself:
The Helmand blog is run by PJHQ and the team from UK Forces Media Ops. The team is located in Northwood in the UK and in Helmand at Camp Bastion and the Task Force Headquarters and works to support the coalition forces together with the other government departments such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. Contact Helmand Blog - helmandblog@googlemail.com
Pardon me while I indulge in a bit of online navel-gazing, but this story is of interest to me. Why? Well, obviously I'm a supporter of the idea of milblogs. Mainstream media has very little experience of the labyrinthine world of professional military affairs, and so the vast majority of MSM pieces are extraordinarily shallow. Milblogs may not do a pile of original reporting, but they're invaluable for offering the depth, context, and perspective that the paid media lack. Taken as a whole, milblogs do an admirable job filling in the gaping gaps in the mainstream media's reporting on all matters martial.
Having said that, I've found a few areas where milblogs and milbloggers consistently get themselves into trouble:
- Bitching: about kit, about their chain of command, about their allies or the local population, etc. Soldiers complain about everything under the sun, and have since the first ape picked up a rock and whined that it felt too heavy in his hand. But those complaints have generally stayed "in the family" up until now. Not anymore. And there's no surer way to have your world come crashing in around your ears than to air your team's dirty laundry on the internet.
- OPSEC/PERSEC issues: soldiers are generally more cognizant of this stuff than anyone. But everyone's on a multi-national team now, and each country has its own set of rules. Your post might not break your rules, but if it breaks someone else's, there's going to be trouble.
- Mission creep: this is by far the most prevalent problem for milblogs. You start off with a tight purpose - to tell the story of being a mentor at a police outpost in Iraq, or to talk about life after getting wounded and sent home, or to talk about the CF - and you find yourself drifting. You get drawn into online pissing matches. You start talking about stuff outside your self-imposed mandate, and maybe outside your sphere of expertise - in other words, you get outside your lane. Worst of all, you get caught up playing journalist - you go for a scoop, or you put a post up just because you know about the incident, not because it has anything to do with the purpose of your blog.
I'm sure there are more. I know I've been down at least two of those roads myself. From what I can see, Helmand Blog got caught up twice: they ran afoul of coalition rules, and they posted something just because it was "news." Their stated mission is to "support the coalition forces," but this post was of questionable value in that regard. Like I said, I've gotten caught up in that trap myself over the years. These days, I ask myself before I put up a post: how does this help the soldiers, sailors, and airmen, or how does it support the CF overall? I'll put up stuff that's critical if I feel it's in their best interests to address a particular issue up front rather than gloss over it. But if it doesn't fall into our stated mandate, I'll generally toss it before hitting 'post'.
Navel-gazing about milblogs notwithstanding, of course...
posted by Babbling Brooks at 10:58 a.m.
3 Comments:
Hm. I was just reading about this very subject:
"For years, members of the military brass have been warning that soldiers’ blogs could pose a security threat by leaking sensitive wartime information. But a series of online audits, conducted by the Army, suggests that official
Defense Department websites post far more potentially-harmful than blogs do."
whack o' links to the relevant studies at
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/08/army-report-off/
Yeah, Ian, I've actually used that study in presentations on the topic, arguing that we need to give CF members MORE freedom to talk about what they do and how they do it, not less. There will be the inevitable gaffes, but the long-term result will be a more well-informed public, and a closer connection between the Canadian people and the soldiers who serve them.
The other thing, BB, may be as important or more so. There is a massive organizational and cultural diff between the U.S. and Canadian attitude towards PR and public info, from the web on down. Your best chance of finding out what our military is up to is sniff out a cross-border connection and ask for unclassified reports, briefing notes etc. held by the US authorities. You don't even have to FOI - just pick up the phone and ask the border state. NDHQ will still be denying something exists as the seacan full of documents from the US is dropped in the parking lot.
Same thing with coast guard. In my filthy business, sometimes ships need assistance and you're praying they're on the US side. Canadians often aren't willing to concede that Lake Ontario even exists without authorization; some rank-and-file coastie who picks up the phone in Sackett's Harbor on the same Sunday afternoon will talk for an hour about the rescue or whatever.
Big, big attitudinal difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home