Wired's Danger Room has an interesting post on whether soldiers in the field should be allowed to blog. The Taliban was quick to exploit a U.S. air strike last week that killed dozens of innocents in Afghanistan. Whenever such events occur, it gives the Taliban ammo in the war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.Michael Wynne, a former Air Force secretary, thinks the counter in this sort of propaganda war is to let soldiers write about what's going on in their own, unfiltered words. "We need to make sure we capture the news cycle by providing our troops with something like a combat blogger," he told Wired. Wynne does have a point - on-the-ground troops are perhaps the most trusted voices in the American military, so having them tell the story may be the most honest thing to do.
On the other hand, whether you're the military or a business, there's something almost un-American about not having absolute and total control over your media message. Wynne's suggestion is neat, but I can think we can easily resign it to the "yeah, when pigs fly" bin.
Posts
1 comments:
I am reminded of a professional journalist who actually gave away troop movements on the air. I suspect that soldiers in combat would be somewhat more discretionary in the info that they disperse, but you get my point.
Further, I would have to say having that info available for ALL to see goes a little further than I feel completely comfortable with whilst the writer is actually in the battle theatre.
If all forms of geography are removed from the reports (which is what they really are) then I think the emotional discourse is important and relevant. The need to vent when someone is actually in that situation I am sure is quite cathartic.
It also puts a ground eye view on the conflict from the POV of someone who can identify on a human level. We as laypersons have difficulty feeling for a general making decisions 800 miles away when there is a 'grunt' carrying 50 pounds of food and ordinance in the thick of things.
Post a Comment