As I see it, beyond the social networking and communications functions, the Milblogs have set themselves up as an anti-news media squad. The conference included many discussions of the deficiencies of mainstream press coverage of Iraq. In fact, some people actually believe that, with the availability of worldwide news on the Web and the emergence of military blogs, the Pentagon press corps and even the mainstream news media is obsolete.
Heh - yeah, I ran one of those panels, and let an MSM'er have his say, and Noah certainly didn't go over well with some. But he had some good points, too.
No, Bill, at least here at the Castle, we're about providing context the MSM doesn't, explaining things they get wrong, and telling the stories they don't want/have the space or time to tell. I'm not anti-media, really. It's a symbiotic relationship. I'd have far less to write about if the MSM didn't exist - I know the limitations of my news-gathering abilities. But I also know my value-added, which is why some of your guys talk to me... to get that context, some back-story, some explanation beyond what the PAO provides.
Which is *another* reason, aside from OPSEC, that the Brass has a love-hate relationship with the milblogs - and unlike people like you, wrapped in the star-spangled banner of the 1st Amendment, many milbloggers ply their craft under restrictions you would find intolerable.
Bill goes on (and dons his White Hat):
I've often thought if we could cover the military like sports, with transparency and intimate knowledge and a play-by-play that was both affectionate and unsparingly critical, we'd have a healthier debate. Interest and knowledge on the part of the typical American in foreign affairs and national security would actually increase.But alas, it is the military, and whether it is the death of Pat Tillman or a war plan, the impulse of the institution is strategic defense. Secrecy, of course, is always justified on OPSEC grounds.
In war as opposed to baseball, an attitude that has become more and more pronounced during the Iraq war is that the team -- the U.S. military and the American soldier in particular -- can't be criticized. There is no room to call someone to task -- not even a general -- for his managing, fielding or batting errors, no matter how egregious. Not only are the details held quite closely as to who is responsible, but to actually hold the team itself accountable is to be disloyal to the big team, the country.
That is why a vigilant and independent news media is needed more than ever.
Heh. Bill does *not* read the Castle. I'm guessing at best he reads Matt, over at Blackfive, and then only now and again, cursorily.
Mr. Arkin - there aren't too many milblog spaces out there who call for *more* Flag Officer and Senior Leader scalps and heads on pikes than Castle Argghhh!. The difference, sir, between you and I, is that I actually have some experience on the inside behind my call for summary executions.
This space does not often criticize individual junior troops. Nor does it criticize the soldiery in general. We do, however, criticize policies and actions. And when individual soldiers do Bad Things, this space says let the system work it's way through the process. Castle Argghhh! did *not* leap to the defense of the Pendleton 8, for example. We excoriated people over Abu Ghraib, while at the same time demanding a sense of proportion in the outraged reaction to it.
We were not kind to Colonel Karpinski, yet we were not really satisfied that LTG Sanchez got to keep his job, either.
You read us shallowly, and I suspect narrowly. Just as you accuse us of doing.
And many of us, though *not* this space, report the war from a far more intimate place than you do. Indeed, if only war reporting *were* this easy...
Other milbloggers returning fire at Arkin:
]]>