Some thoughts on MilBlogging
Posted By Marc on September 9, 2009
A recent article in the New York Times by James Dao presents a pretty good synopsis of the “problem” of MilBlogging (with a hat tip to SWJ for the posting). For me, one of the key points is this
To many analysts and officers, the debate reflects a broader clash of cultures: between the anarchic, unfiltered, bottom-up nature of the Web and the hierarchical, tightly controlled, top-down tradition of the military.
Where I get intrigued, however, is in the rationalizations of both of these “cultures”. On the one hand, concerns over security and an almost kneejerk reaction to holding in information of any type. On the other hand, an extremist, egocentric “must post ALL” (said in a bad Homer Simpson accent) view held by a few MilBloggers. Probably one of the most intelligent reactions comes in a comment from Greyhawk over at the SWJ
I long ago boiled my thoughts on this issue down to two bumper stickers.
One for would-be deployed bloggers: Write like Osama and your mama are readers.
And one for their supervisors: When milblogs are outlawed, only outlaws will have milblogs.
These two “bumper stickers” really do capture the essence of common sense when it comes to MilBlogging, so why is common sense so rare?
Some of the answer to this comes out of the way institutions work. As with most hierarchical institutions, the military operates by compartmentalizing information and controlling its flow. This has its pluses and minuses. One of the key “minuses”, at least in today’s information environment, is that information will get out, something that an extremist, bureaucratic mindset cannot deal with. Too bad, it will happen and all you can do about it is to try and make certain that the form and content of the information that is leaking isn’t damaging in the long term.
Many of the top brass in the US military already know this and are taking steps to try and integrate a common sense approach to its use. After all, assuming that it won’t happen is just bad planning. Indeed, totally restricting it is even worse since it just goes underground. About the best scenario is that it will get fairly accurate information out there, while the worst is that censorship gets massively applied and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.
JWC on 
Daniel Gallant on 
MM on 
Mr. Xyz on 
Marc on
Hi Marc,
On a similar subject, the drawbacks of relying on common sense for milblogging “protocol” have been highlighted at Abu Muqawama:
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/09/freed-reporter-and-blogging-ethics.html
Basically, a milblogger posted on the abduction of a reporter while media organizations kept mum.
Is there a way to turn Greyhawk’s bumper stickers into . . . law? I’d assume the devil would be in the details – the many, many, many details.
Hi Todd,
Well, it could be covered in Canada under the “Yelling fire” rule, but this is a US case, so I’m not sure. Looking at the counter-logic that the milblogger gave:
1. It’s either news or it isn’t. It’s not the job of a blogger to protect the media or soldiers or anyone else, and this was news.
2. You cannot prove that a blog post is going to further endanger the life of the captive.
3. The press hardly respects soldiers in the same way. Just look at the AP and the way they broadcast the image of that dying Marine.
#1 would fail my criteria because of what i see as a symbiotic relationship between accessing priviledged information, in this case the kidnapping, and the responsibility that goes with having that information. NB, many don’t accept that stance, but I consider it to be a basic position of my ethics and that of most Anthropologists.
#2 is, IMO, irrelevant. Whether or not such an action definitely further endangers a life is a cop out – it has a significant, albeit unquantifiable, chance of increasing the danger during the actual period of the kidnapping. Under Canadian law at least, that would mean that the action of posting it would materially alter the chances of the person being rescued as a foreseeable consequence of the post and, hence, make the blogger an (unwitting) accessory.
#3 is just sour grapes and is an even greater cop out. It is basically saying that the blogger in question has no ethics but, instead, will do what s/he feels like; it’s a “they MADE me do it!” defence.
You’re right, the devil is in the details, and it’s one of the reasons why I like the looser approach established by common law as opposed to that established by bureaucratic regulation.
Yeah, the 2nd and 3rd point seemed to be particularly egregious to me.
I came to the same conclusion with the 1st point: “It’s either news or it isn’t. It’s not the job of a blogger to protect the media or soldiers or anyone else, and this was news.” Although my response is based on my own ethics, I’ve never considered it an underlying ethic of an anthropologist (i.e. the moral responsibility of having information and how this information was obtained).
As the saying goes: common sense is not so common.