http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/us/09milblogs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpw
The article raised a very interesting issue which I personally haven't heard much dialogue on. The explosion of social networking, and the influence it has had upon media and the public it has carried with it, (as well as the potential for even greater influence should it keep progressing at the rate it has been) is unparalleled throughout the history of reporting and networking. Since MySpace rose to prominence only five short years ago, social networking has exponentially grown to become a pivotal part of the public forum.
The ability to be heard through blogging has been hotly discussed amongst the political, corporate, and private world. Blogging has given what would have been otherwise unknown, every day private citizens a means of getting their thoughts out to gigantic audiences. The effects this has had on the media are, as I said, very openly discussed and prolific. What has not had much discussion, though, is the effects and implications of soldiers blogging. More specifically: the effects of currently enlisted soldiers currently in the middle of active tours of duty blogging.
The implications of soldiers blogging, comparatively to private citizens, are profound. While we already hear the opinions of the war from private citizens from day to day and in real time, we do not hear them from the men and women executing the orders all other third parties are only speculatively writing on. Soldiers blogging offers a real time, instant first hand account on what's going on in the wars from someone who is directly engaging in combat operations, or otherwise stationed overseas and indirectly contributing.
The implications of soldiers blogging are numerous. The military believes this should be limited and regulated for security reasons. The obvious conflict with this is whether it violates the rights of the soldiers or not. Does the First Amendment apply to soldiers currently engaged in combat operations?
On one hand, yes, there is the potential for soldiers to either purposely or accidentally release classified information that could harm wartime operations. This is, however, making the assumption that soldiers are not able to hold information they should not be disclosing. Should the military have that little faith in it's personnel?
On the other hand, soldiers blogging offers an invaluable and totally unprecedented real time, first hand perspective into the results and consequences of our political war time agenda. What better way to be informed about the war than from the men and women in it, while it's happening?
It seems to me, that more than anything, this is a matter of the higher ups in the military not wanting soldiers to taint their image. Soldiers blogging on their experiences in war could potentially place a very grim outlook on the military up on a pedestal for the whole world to see. Is this really a matter of maintaining security, or is the military trying to initiate preventive measures against any potential for loss of face amongst the public?
I personally believe it's the latter, and I find that highly unethical. The military is an institution funded by the public. They belong, largely, to the public, and should be totally transparent in their actions. Further, I believe they should hold full accountability for their actions. I don't see their attempts at regulating the voices of soldiers as a matter of security, but rather a blatant attempt at censorship. I find this whole situation to be a very selfish, immoral approach to their portrayal in the media on behalf of the military.
While regulating the blogging of soldiers doesn't hide the actions of the military entirely, it certainly moves their actions from being transparent to slightly blurred and translucent. Is this an ethical approach on their behalf to their own portrayal to the world, or a blunt avoidance of morality in the name of potentially saving face?
6 comments:
To some extent I believe that the military is trying to save face by preventing soldiers from blogging. However, having numerous close friends in the military and worrying about their safety daily, I can understand the military and government being concerned about that as well.
A soldier's safety should be the foremost concern. For instance, those doing recon work should not be blogging about their experiences. I personally believe, that that not only poses potential danger to the soldier himself but to his colleagues in uniform. Overall, soldiers should not and as far as I know many are not allowed to disclose their exact location or duties regardless of the ethical issues surrounding blogging.
If a soldier wants to blog that his duties are not what he thought they would be. Fine. But if he starts going into graphic detail about things that would be better addressed at a later date then that's a different story.
The internet is not simply relegated to the U.S. It has a global effect. People that would love to harm the U.S. and its solders can read or find translators, etc. They can easily find a soldier's blog and use it against him or others. Therefore, what a soldier discloses, or rather how he discloses it should be disseminated in a certain way to avoid later conflict.
Soldier's should be allowed to blog, but just like any American citizen, in times of war, the First Amendment becomes restricted in regards to certain information.
Sometimes accidents happen and a soldier may disclose something he shouldn't and cause a great disturbance later. The only thing, I believe, that blogging with too much detail can accomplish is more pictures being published of dead or dying soldiers.
I am by no means a conservative person, but at the end of the day, if the men and women have to fight abroad, I want them to do it as safely as possible. Even if that means monitoring what they write for a little while, to a certain extent.
i too read this article, and think that the ability for the military to think they can control and limit a soldiers right, to blog,is unethical.It can be very helpful for soldiers dealing with the stresses of war to be able to document their experiences ,in the burgeoning world of social networking.We all know that even in our relativly mundane day to day activities, we enjoy sharing with people even small anecdotes or incidents that shape our days.So imagine the day in the life of a soldier, facing life and death encounters day to day? Being able to communicate their experiences and feelings ,and chronicling their journeys, can help in their ability to deal with the pressures of war.
The military is attempting to censor the soldiers,I think because they are concerned that blogging, may adversly portray the military.They are concerned that the soldiers blogs may cause cocitaions of feelings of the perils of war.It seems though,they would like people to think ,it is solely because of the security issues.However,I think our soldiers know enough to make sure that anything that would pose a security threat would not be posted on their blogs.They,I am sure are very cognizant of the fact that by breeching security they could be endangering themselves or their comrades.They are highly trained men and as in any field, medicine, securities, government etc. professionals know their boundries.Our soldiers are professionals.
It seems more evident that the military is more concerned with any negative connotation of their stratagies or actions ,that may adversly effect public opinion.I think our soldiers understand the complexity of war and know that safety and security are unparalleled.
Similar to Nicole and millions of others I have friends in the army. Whilst I cannot envisage anybody in Afghanistan releasing secret information there needs to be some assurance that such a detrimental act does not occur. Though rather than monitoring soldier’s blogs, which I believe is indeed a violation of the First Amendment, what could be done is issue a daily reminder to those who have internet access to be cautious in what they write. This reminder does not insult the intelligence of a soldier but instead acts as a voice of reason and allows for freedom of speech to be maintained.
I admire Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV’s advocacy for soldier’s blogging and using other social networking sites. These social sites were pivotal in helping President Obama raise funds for his campaign, which previously would have not been possible. These sites are now the front running platforms which public officials use to get their messages out and communicate with the general public. Men and Women at war are “public servants” and they too should be granted an unrestricted access to blogs and other social networking sites and afforded the right to publish whatever they so wish, permitted it does not jeopardize army operations.
Naturally there are soldiers in Afghanistan who oppose the war and resent their presence in the country. Soldiers of this mindset who are blogging will undoubtedly post derogatory thoughts regarding the war. This is NOT a security threat, it might indeed lower the morale of the people at home but these people are not fighting a war. This decrease in morale should be endured, if anything out of respect at it is nothing compared to what the soldiers in Afghanistan are enduring on a day to day basis with the prospect of losing their friends, their lives, never seeing the people they love again etc...I think the “big Whigs” are trying to save face and this is totally unethical.
The soldier publishing the blog Mud Puppy stated “I think that people need to hear from us.” I certainly do and I am certain I’m not alone. I previously posted that I feel pictures allow me to respect the situation of war and those involved with greater clarity, this still remains true but fortifying my clarity in regards to war would be a real time flow of information from those at the forefront, the soldiers who are blogging and the importance of such insight is essential in allowing these online diaries to continue.
I agree with more or less everything said; give or take a few points scattered about.
I believe it's a given that soldiers would be intelligent enough to not release vital war time information that could potentially hinder plans or harm those involved.
If the military is still legitimately worried about security leaks by blogging soldiers, at the very most, they should simply monitor blogs for any such leaks. In my opinion, there should be no pre screening or any type of other intervention. If a soldier wants to talk about a ruthless officer, or children he saw blown to pieces, or the state of his psyche a after such experiences - that's his choice, and he should be free to do so as long as he isn't creating any potential harm for his comrades while in the line of duty.
However, the problem with enacting such a policy is the obvious abuse of power that would more than likely take place. I could see the military claiming they were only going to monitor for security leaks, but I believe it's assumable such policies would quickly evolve into blatantly censoring anything they didn't deem appropriate.
It will be interesting to see where all of this goes. If the military's speech can be oppressed in such a way, it makes you wonder what's in store for us.
I do believe that the restrictions on blogging are much more damage control than actual security risks, and the benefits of a soldier maintaining better contact with family and friends are considerable. However, a soldier submits many constitutional rights that a civilian has when joining the military. It is surprisingly hard to find more details about this online; I have been looking for a resource detailing this (can anyone find anything?). They are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have a separate court system. So many of these restrictions, although good to keep an eye on the infringement of civilian civil liberties, have been in place with soldiers for a long time. But the internet brings up new accessibility issues that were not even possible before. So safety first (monitoring for breaches is important, but that is done already. The psychological safety of the soldier could be improved with better contact.
Post a Comment