| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

Blogs and Censorship

Page history last edited by Oliver 12 years, 1 month ago

 

 

 

 

  

 

Blogs & Censorship

 

The Conflict Between

 

Traditional Military Censorship

 

and Modern Media Culture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

Table of Contents:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.

Introduction 

 

 

II.

Stages of American Censorship and the Evolvement From Conflict to Conflict

 

 

III. 

Milblogs: Content, Risks and Potential

 

 

IV.

Examples of Bloggers Who Came in Conflict with Military Censorship

 

 

V.

Conclusion

 

 

VI.

Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Introduction

 

 

     In our contemporary society it is no big deal for anybody to publish or broadcast information within seconds and to do this even globally. With the various capabilities of the internet, like e-mail, instant messaging, the web 2.0 features etc. and cell phones, carried by nearly everybody, there hardly seem to be any restrictions on exchanging any information, at any time, to any possible addressee. The processing of information often is done by the individual spontaneous and without any big considerations.

 

In contrast to these cultural habits, an institution like the US Army has a quite different approach on handling its information. Its military leadership deals with a large amount of sensitive information and data on which in extreme cases obviously lives may depend on.

Here information is to be processed carefully for a specific audience, communicated exclusively to a selected range of people and when publicly released, adjusted to current military aims and long or short term strategies to influence public opinion in the favour of these.

 

This online term paper will focus on this conflict between the US Army which is used to control every bit of information and between individuals recruited out of the American society to become soldiers, used to modern media culture.

A typical instance for this problem is the so called "milblog" which has come into fashion recently. After showing how the US-Army’s information control and censorship changed and evolved from conflict to conflict and fully matured in the Persian Gulf War, this paper will describe milblogs respectively and then move on to examine three milblogs which supposed to have to violated Information procession policies of the US military leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

II. Stages of American Censorship and the Evolvement from Conflict to Conflict

  

 

~1968

 

Vietnam War (1959-1975)

By the time of the Vietnam War, news media had matured since World War II and television, capable to “bring the horrors of war into every living room in America”, was fully developed. American military leaders were not quite aware of the fact that the images of heavy fighting, presented on TV did not work in their favour and rather conveyed the opposite message: That the war was far from being won and far from over. [1] (p. 847)

  

Aims of the Military Leadership:

  • “[To] present the Vietnam War in a positive light” [1] (p.847)

  • Convince the public that Vietnam War would be brought to a positive end [1] (p.847)

  • “[Show that U.S. forces] were fighting on behalf of the South Vietnamese military” [1] (p.847)

 

US soldier setting fire to hut during the My Lai Massacre. By the time this war crime was reported, the

ineffectiveness of the government's control over the press was evident.

Problems for the Military Leadership:

  • The “fierce” TV pictures gave the impression that the war was far from being over. [1] (p.847-848)

  • “Enormous suffering the fighting was bringing to the Vietnamese people” was reported continuously. [1] (p. 848)

  • Widespread opposition to the conflict, within the American society, was generated through the media.

 

 

Characteristics of Military Censorship:

  • “[R]elatively uncensored” [1] (p.848)

  • At the latest with the news of the "My Lai Massacre", where military officials tried to hold information back or the failed attempt of stopping the publication of the Pentagon papers the ineffectiveness of the government’s control over the press” was evident. [1] (p.848)

 

  

 

The experiences of the "Vietnam War" showed the military leadership that “positive coverage for any military involvement” was vital and “sophisticated ways of manipulating and reporting on war” had to be developed. [1] (p. 847)

In the next conflict these ways had been found and successfully applied:

 

 

1983

 Invasion of Grenada

 

 

The military leadership had learned from the Vietnam War, concerning their relationship to the press. It now knew of the power of images and coverage to control public opinion.

To justify a military intervention President Ronald Reagan claimed on TV, that Cuba was building military facilities in Grenada and used an image of an airfield to support his claim. But this picture showed “a commercial airfield built also with Canadian funding”.[1] (p. 848)

The military leadership was very strict on rather releasing no information, than to release the wrong information.

 

Commercial airfield "Point Salines" 

built with Canadian funding. Reagan
claimed it was supposed to be used

for military purposes.

 

 

Aims of the Military Leadership:

  • Maintain support and popularity for their undertaking
  • Justify military intervention and invasion

 

  

 

Characteristics of Military Censorship:

  • “During the invasion, a news blackout was imposed, ostensibly for strategic reasons”[1] (p.848)
  • “[C]ombination of misinformation and blanket censorship”[1] (p.848)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The newly gained experiences of this undertaking showed the US Army how public opinion could be controlled effectively, by being very strict on keeping information back, giving wrong information out and excluding the press.

After the invasion media criticised this approach (accusations of censorship) and disapproved heavily. As a reaction to this, the military leadership created the "National Media Pools".

 

 

1989

 

 Invasion of Panama

 

In this conflict the pool system was applied for the first time.[1] (p.848) This meant the military leadership could “rotate” news organisations in and out of their pools, as they wished. This meant they could choose organizations which most probably would support their goals and over which they had some influence to direct their coverage. 

 

Aims of the Military Leadership:

  • “[A]void having unpleasant war news published” [1] (p.848)

  • Control coverage

  • but the same time “[a] void accusations of censorship” [1] (p.848)


US tank in Panama. Reporters were brought into Panama four hours after fighting had begun.

Characteristics of Military Censorship:

  • Military leadership decides which news organizations are part of their pool
  • Military leadership sets rules for reporting
  • During the actual conflict the military made sure that the reporters could send news out only about ten hours after the Invasion had begun.
  • “News personal were guided by the military” [1] (p. 848) 

 

 


 

 

As a result of these measures by the US military, Panamanian civilian casualties “have been vastly underreported” [1] (p. 848). By the next conflict the US Military increased their manipulation of media while giving a fake impression of transparency:

 

 

1991

 

Persian Gulf War

 

 

In the Persian Gulf War U.S. Military leaders successfully applied the techniques approved in previous conflicts and took them one step further to create the most successful control of public opinion so far. The prevailing results of post war analysis “count Desert Storm as a devastating and immoral victory for military censorship and a crushing defeat for the press and the First Amendment.” “[A]lbeit with some grumbling, the big media went along to get along with the war makers.”[2] (p. 8)

 

 

The Persian Gulf War was promoted

as a highly efficient "high-tech war" in

which bombs were dropped with

surgical precision.

 

 

Aims of the Military Leadership:


  • “[E]nsure popular support in the United States" [1] (p. 848)
  • “Mislead the Iraqis”  [1] (p. 848)

 

 Problems for  Military Leadership:


  • Post war analysis generated a lot of negative press in which the methods of mass media manipulation where uncovered and it was shown how the public opinion had been controlled.

 

Characteristics of Military Censorship:

  • “Combination of misinformation and tight media control proved highly effective” [1] (p. 848)

  • Manipulation of the media

  • “Reporters […] depended heavily on American military Public Information Officers for their access to news.” [1] (p. 848)

  • Presentation as “a clean, high tech war” [1] (p. 848)

  • Tricking even enemy with fake news:

    "General Norman Schwarzkopf, after the successful campaign against Iraq admitted that he had deliberately misled the media of his own country where the major assault would take place, causing the Iraqis to concentrate their troops in the wrong places." [1] (p. 848)  

 

 

With a general awareness for the manipulative strategies applied in 1991 which were described in various post war analyses, the military changed the handling of the press in the next conflict:

 

 

2003

 

 War in Iraq

 

When aiming for control of public opinion and positive coverage, the military knew that not the same approach as in the "Persian Gulf War" could be applied successfully.

Robin Anderson describes the American strategy: Restrictions of the press had generated a lot of negative reports in the last years, therefore while being very open about the aim to generate controlled and positive coverage, the military also promised that there would be no inclusive censorship. Media should not be held back, but directed and used for an extensive marketing campaign promoting the war. A main idea was to embed journalists in selected army units, making them fully dependent. [3] In this way the army could avoid acusses of restriction and at the same time try to win the journalists for their cause.

 

 

Embedded journalism: To close to troops and action for independent journalism?

Aims of the Military Leadership:

  • Maintain support for the war

  • Justify war

  • Key up patriotism



Problems for Military Leadership:

 

  • Awareness for manipulation in the "Persian Gulf War"

 

Characteristics of Military Censorship:

  • Embedded journalists: Journalists embedded into selected military units, making them fully dependent of transport, supplies, medical help, protection and access to the battlefield. This dependence and witnessing the war through a soldiers perspective could compromise distance, objectivity and journalistic independence and replace these with loyalty towards the troops and patriotism.[3]

  • Casualties among the civilian population were largely ignored by the American press [3]

  • Death was presented as coincidence not as consequence of the war [3]

  • Claim: US weapons are precise, deaths among civilians just accidents

  • War backed by an extensive marketing campaign (example the "Rescue of Private Lynch")

  • War was presented "as adrenalin kick without responsibility" [3]

 

    

 

The previous presentation of military strategies shows that after underestimating and handling media wrong in the Vietnam war, the army developed and refined their application of censorship from conflict to conflict.

 

While censorship was apparent and criticised during the “Invasion of Grenada”, the army managed to heighten positive press coverage in the “Invasion of Panama” and avoid accusations of censorship (even though censorship was evident).

 

This strategy (subtle control and the illusion of transparency) was perfected in the "Persian Gulf War" and generated a successful control of public opinion.

 

When the Iraq war in 2003 broke loose, public awareness for the military's manipulative strategies and subtle applying of censorship had been increased, and a new approach had to be found by the military.

 

The idea was to market and promote the new war like a product. This approach was quite successful in the USA. The international Press or Americans who wanted to have a less biased  coverage tried to identify other sources of information. One of these sources, apart from Arabic television or press, were the emerging blogs or warblogs maintained by people directly amid the events.

  

 

Blog or weblog:

 


"A weblog is defined, theses days, by its format: a frequently updated webpage with dated entries, new ones placed on top" [4]

 

 

 

Warblog:

 


"[A] weblog concerned with terrorism, war, and conflict, often with a promilitary stance" [6]

 

 

As we see from the definition a blog is a journal or diary which is maintained on a website. It has to fulfil the criteria of being frequently updated and being dated. There are various extensions of a blog usually combined with the word "blog", to show on which area of interest this blog is focussing (like "mil"-,"terror"- or "warblog").

 

At the beginning of the war in Iraq not only individuals in the area of conflict maintained blogs, also the number of soldiers who started to maintain their private blogs increased rapidly.

 

Now the military which was used to control every release of information, especially from its on soldiers had thousands of potential "journalists" amidst their own ranks and not only the few embedded ones. This threat was undermining their concept of information control. From  within the army itself soldiers were spreading information, uncontrolled and uncensored all over the globe within seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

III. Milblogs: Content, Problems & Chances

 

 

By the time of the "War in Iraq", not only the public awareness of how the army had sold the "Persian Gulf War" to the people and manipulated common notions were a challenge for military censorship. Technology had been rapidly developed further, which increased the possibilities of communication since the last conflict, for everybody .

 

With the capabilities of the Internet or cell phones, any kind of information (in form of text, audio or video) could be sent around the globe within seconds. This could also be done quite independent from the army providing any infra-structure for communication.

 

For an institution which had learned from conflict to conflict about the importance of controlling public opinion and information exchange, this was a huge risk and problem. A typical instance of this conflict, which emerged during the first months of the "War in Iraq" are the so called "milblogs" or "warblogs". 

 

 

 

Milblog:

 

Milblogging.com

"Mil blog is short for military blog — a blog written and maintained by someone in the military (usually the US military)."

 

 

 

On the one side of the conflict there is the military with the concept of controlling every bit of information it can. On the other side there are bloggers who "Capstone [3] describes as typically young technology-embracing soldiers, who are openly critical of mainstream media coverage of the military and the global war on terrorism. These bloggers consist, as he writes, for example of service members, veterans, or even their families. The content of these blogs was uncensored content that anyone in the world could read, this included friends and also foes.

 

The military, traditionally used to having established control over the distribution of information, suddenly had to deal with this already established phenomena, the "young soldiers who ha[d] grown up on free digital information" [4], who were part of the modern media culture and busily blogging information around the globe.

 

 

 

Table: Characteristics of Typical Milblogs

 

Typical Topics a Milblog Deals With: 

Army Life

  • Daily routine of a soldier
  • What is implied in being a soldier
  • Anecdotes and funny episodes, occurrences of day to day army life
  • Description of army equipment, procedures, organisation

 

Personal information

  • Explanation why individuals went to war
  • Motivation why they fight and do what they do
  • How soldiers cope with war and its implications (casualties, death, destruction)
  • Personal story where they come from (childhood, parents, time before army or conflict) and where they are heading (future plans)
  • Personal views of and attitudes towards the world
  • Insider jokes

 

Criticism or Comments on

  • Conflict, war
  • US-Government
  • Military Leadership
  • US-Society 

 

Functions:

  • Keeping family and friends up to date about own well being and life in the conflict area
  • Informing public and providing an alternative coverage
  • Self-reflection for the author if blog is used as a public diary
  • Deal with, work up hard calamities of life through writing
  • Express feelings
  • Entertainment (making jokes, writing satirical, providing other views of the world)
  • Keeping spirits up of everyone involved in and around the conflict
  • Killing time, distraction for soldiers, possibility to think of something else while editing blog
  • Even personally addressing the anonymous foe

 

Forms of Writing:

  • Public diary of author
  • Journal
  • Commentary
  • Documentation
     

Tone:

 

 

 

  • Predominant patriotic
  • Rather subjective
  • Often sarcastic or ironic  

 

Pop Culture:

  • A flashy attribute of blogs seems to be the extensive use of pop culture references. One reason for this is that most soldiers are young and grew up being part of the same culture, consuming various media products, as their readers. Pop culture references function here like a common topic as in a conversation, the distance between author and reader is shortened.
  • A lot of insider jokes based on pop culture references can be found in the blogs.
  • Mostly pop culture references are simply used for entertainment.

 

Structure:

  • Posts in the blogs are entered chronological
  • The newest post is located on top of the page


Layout:

 

  • Often simple
  • Prevailing default layout of the respective blogging engine 

Anonymity:

  • Depends on author - while some bloggers write under a nickname or alias others use real identity
  • The possibility of blogging anonymous is given depending on preferences of author
  • Milblogs have to be registered by the respective commander of the soldier


Language:

 

 

 

  • Extensive usage of military slang and military abbreviations (many authors even include small dictionaries because of this)
  • Colloquial
  • Swear words
  • Pop cultural references 

Effects on Reader:

  • Range from being convinced that US-Government is doing the right thing and is fighting for a just and noble cause to increasing the aversions against war
  • Encouraging support for the troops
  • Authenticity: Having the impression of a true perspective on the conflict, often closer to actual events than what is broadcasted on the news.
  • Compassion and solidarity for people in the area of conflict

 

Communication:

 

  • Mainly broadcast from the author
  • Asynchronous communication in both directions possible. Readers can give feedback through "comment"-function.

 

Audience:

  • Family members of soldier
  • Anyone who wants to read blog
  • Even the enemy

 

Multimedia: 

  • Everything which can be integrated on the Internet can be integrated here
  • Usually blogs are illustrated with images, videos in "Youtube"-style
  • Sometimes music-files like favourite song of soldier for example are integrated

 

Paragons:

  • Michael Herr's book called "Dispatches" (insights into experiences of "Vietnam War")  seems to inspire the entries of many bloggers.

  • Hollywood products (for example "Band of Brothers", "Jarhead", "Apocalypse Now", ...) are often obvious guidelines for the bloggers.

    Apart from the function as pop culture references, authors try to copy certain moods or even embed similar storylines of the film into their bloggs.

 

 

This table gives an idea of the broad range of topics a blog could deal with: obviously nearly every topic or area of human interest. For the military leadership this is obviously a great risk and danger.  In the Operations Security (OPSEC)-regulations you can read for example:

 

"In recent years, the Internet has become an ever-greater source of open source information for adversaries of the U.S., websites in particular, especially personal websites of individual Soldiers (to include web logs or “blogs”), are apotentially significant vulnerability. Other sources for open source information include public presentations, newsreleases from units or installations, organizational newsletters (both for official organizations and unofficial organizations, such as alumni or spouse support groups), and direct observation." [9]

 

  

 

 OPSEC:

 


"(Operations Security) -  The process of denying potential adversaries any information about capabilities and/or intentions by identifying, controlling and protecting generally unclassified evidence of the planning and execution of sensitive activities."

 

 

 

 

 

Between the trivial blog messages a soldier wants to give away about himself and his world, valuable data and information could slip, intentionally or just by accident:

 

  • While blogging, a soldier could give away sensitive information to the enemy (for example of army procedures, details about equipment, army internals [7] , effectiveness of enemy strikes or bombs)

 

  • Information which is not edited and adjusted could be slipped to the press to the press or public (for example "the possibility that atrocities committed by US troops may be exposed" [8])

 

  • The public could become more aware how ugly this war really is, civil anti-war movement could be strengthened. The army is "concerned about the growth of anti-war sentiment within the military" [8] anyway.

 

  • A photograph is sometimes strong enough to influence public opinion: "As public outrage at the leaked photographs of prisoner abuse from Abu Ghraib demonstrated, the US administration and military leaders have every reason to want control over what information comes out of occupied Iraq." [8]

 

  • Negative attitudes of some soldiers could be displayed via blog.

 

 

Apart from the enormous risks the military is also aware of the potential of blogs and how they can be applied for their means:

 

  •  A blog can just be used for misinformation as any other medium. This means for example, a certain blogger just could be a designed entity to promote military interests.

     

  •  Propaganda instrument: While readers read a blog, they estimate as being authentical and credible, they could be influenced in favour of army interests. Many blogs for example present the army life as an adventure which changes the individual and makes him for example a real man.

     

  •  Bridge blogging: Soldiers belonging obviously to media culture in civil life, can fill the gap between military and civilians. These are for example soldiers writing to their friends or people in their generation. People may easily identify with them and may want o become a soldier, too. (Blogs as recruiting machine)

 

 

Besides these lists of risks and potential of blogs, blogs usually represent an individual author. The readers have to judge how authentical and credible the author is. The next section will deal with individuals who where judged to appear as authentical enough to be considered as risk for the military.

 

 

 

  

 

IV. Examples of Bloggers Who Came in Conflict with Military Censorship

 

 

 

This part very briefly describes the respective author and his blog and why military censorship interfered with his work. This section will illuminate the backgrounds and try to show why there was a conflict and why the blogs were censored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author:

  • Is currently serving as lieutenant in the US Army

  • Platoon leader

  • Uses alias "Lt G." when blogging

  • Stationed in Iraq

  • Blog itself is an entertaining, intelligent, thoughtful reflection of this soldier's life, military and conflicts in general. Apart from this the blogger also reveals a lot of information about his past, were he comes from and where he is heading (his estimated future).

 

Incident:

In the author's blog entry, called "The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide Is Press Coverage" he describes his refusal of a promotion and his decision and motivation not to be in the army for much longer. After this incident, he was ordered to stop posting on Kaboom immediately.

  

Official statement:

According to Lt.G. the army gives the reason for stopping his blogging that he ignored the normal vetting channels. He just published his entry without the permission of his commander.

  

Explanation, Background:

The author was away from the army, on leave, in Europe when he published the entry. Probably because he was on holiday, he did not care about procedures and did not hand in the entry to his commander, as he should have done.

 

If you read the blog it does not seem that it is about ignoring orders or the army being strict on their vetting procedures.

Obviously if a soldier turns to a public forum describing army internals in which a promotion is rejected, because it does not fit into individual conception of life, the army looks bad. A promotion usually is meant as reward for doing a good job. Presenting such an reward as if it is not worth anything anymore is a problem. 

 

The army has a big issue going on concerning the so called "stop loss"-policy anyway. This means it will not allow soldiers to leave the army, even if they have done their duty and served their the period specified. The problem is that the army is running low on soldiers and has to fill gaps. Of course an individual like Lt.G. "celebrating" his individuality and a refusal to the army's plans for him on a blog is nothing the military would like to see.

 

 

 

 

 

M Y WA R 

 

K I L L I N G  T I M E  I N  I R A Q

 

 

 

 

Author:

  • Former Army specialist Colby Buzzell (has left the army meanwhile)
  • Alias CBFTW. (Colby Buzzell F -- This War)
  • Content: His life as an infantry soldier in Mosul
  • Blog entries are very much inspired by author Hunter S. Thompson
  • Handled a gun in a Stryker brigade

 

 

 

 

Stryker:

 



A typical "Stryker" army vehicle.

 

  

 

Incidents:

Not long after his commanders discovered the blog "My War" soldier Buzzell was excluded from patrols and  had to stay in the base. Then more recently, the pages again went blank, as he described the "prepublication vetting regime imposed by his command". [7]

 

The most disturbing entry for the military probably  was "Men in Black". Here a Mosul firefight is compared from 3 angles: 

What CNN published about the incident is set against to what, according to Buzzel, happened really and this again is compared with the official press release of the army.

 

Official Statement:

"Spc. Buzzell says he was called to account for two details: the observation that his unit ran low on water during the hours-long standoff and a description of the steps he took to get more ammunition as the firefight waxed on. Both were excised from his online archives."[7]

 

Explanation:

Describing an incident from 3 angles is showing, how the army works and what kind of censorship is going on. It displays which information is published at all, in which way and how the army wants this information published. Obviously the army does not want one of their own soldiers leaking uncomfortable information, in this case about an un-heroic firefight.

 

Another point is, that Buzzel revealed information about army procedures (water capacities and replacing of ammunition). It seems that this information slipped by accident, because he actually wanted to describe something else. The enemy could read this and maybe adjust his tactics according to this.

 

These are small things but the military looked critical at Buzzel's blog anyway. This means small errors were sufficient to get him in trouble.

 

Censorship worked here by forcing the soldier to take details out of his entries or by encouraging him (by confining him to the base or giving him unattractive jobs) to write differently or even taking his delight to write at all.

 

 

 

 

 

ZORIAH

PHOTOJOURNALIST

 

 

 

Author:

  • This blog is maintained by Zoriah Miller, a war photographer.
  • Uses his real name.
  • Was embedded as war photographer into army unit in Iraq

 

Incident:

He did not remove certain pictures from his blog and therefore he was disembedded.

 

The incident was the following one:

On june 26th 2008 there was a devastating suicide bombing in Anbar province. The bombing killed 20 people, including three Marines.

 

The photographer arrived as one of the first people at the scene, shortly after the explosion. He documented the chaos and took pictures of the dead, the wounded and the destruction. He was ordered to stop photographing, delete the memory of the cameras and hand them out. - Instead he published them in his blog.

One day later a high ranking marine ordered that he should take them offline straight away. As he refused, he was kicked out of the army and disembedded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dead marines, body parts and soldiers prearing to collect them in bags.

Is this to real, ugly and unheroic to be published?

 

 

 

Official Statement:

“He had violated embed rules by publishing photos that revealed “tactics, techniques and procedures witnessed during

operations,” and provided “information on the effectiveness of enemy techniques.” [10]

  

Explanation: 

Basically the military wants to avoid mistakes already done in the "Vietnam War". Pictures like Zoriah Miller's could “fuel anti war sentiments”[1] (p. 487) or show the vulnerability of the US Army.

Without any words these pictures show how ugly and unheroic war is.

 

It is a difference if you see the photos documenting an incident or if you read the version the military released for you.

 

Obviously the military wants you to think that they are progressing and the war is coming to an positive end and that the soldiers are fighting heroically for an noble cause.

These photos show just the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. Conclusion

 

 

 

Altogether the military leadership seems to have adjusted to the new technological challenges own soldiers brought into the army out of American "technology embracing" [3] society, successfully. They seem to have adjusted to the current capabilities of publishing media as they have done successfully since the "Vietnam War".

 

 

Despite of being fully aware of the risks and dangers of blogs, the military seems to handle the situation quite liberally: The responsibility for blogging army conform information is basically put on the shoulder of the individual blogging soldier or their commander. Mostly the soldiers seem to know how they are supposed to blog, because cases in which the army does have to interfere, seem (compared to the amount of milblogs online) not too frequent.

 

 

Soldiers seem to be kept under control quite subtle by for example "confining them to base" [7] or by simply writing to them to alter content [11]. Generally the situation regarding blogs seems under control for the US-military, apart from a few cases were they interfere, they are fully aware of negative or positive (propaganda, recruiting, ...) capabilities of blogs.

 

After all the United States are structured as a representative democracy and therefore even the Army has to find "democratic" ways of dealing with their soldiers, society and rights guaranteed in the "First Amendment".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI. Sources:

 

[1] Amey, Lawrence et. al. Ready Refernce Censorship. Ed. Dawson, Dawn P. 

     Vol. 3. Pasadena: Salem Press, Inc., 1997.    

 

[2] MacArthur, John R. Second Front.

     New York: Hill and Wang, 1992.

 

[3] Andersen, Robin. "That's Militainment!" Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

     31 August 2008. FAIR. June 2003. <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1141>

 

[4] Blood, Rebecca. "weblogs: a history and perspective." what's in rebecca's pocket?.

     31 August 2008. Rebecca Blood. 7 September 2000 <http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html>

 

[5] Anderson Bruce et. al. "Don’t tread on my blog: A study of military web logs" DOD Joint Course in Communication 06A

     University of Oklahoma. 31 August 2008. <pdf> <http://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/06A/capstone.pdf>

 

[6] "warblog definition". MSN Encarta.

     31 August 2008. <http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701711488/warblog.html>

 

[7] Cooper, Christopher. "Army Blogger's Tales Attract Censors' Eyes." Weblog Entry.MY WAR.

27 August 2004. 31 August 2008. <http://cbftw.blogspot.com/2004/08/army-bloggers-tales-attract-censors.html>

 

[8] Spencer, Noami. "US military blocks soldiers’ access to blogs, popular social sites". World Socialist Website.

     31 August 2008. International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). 21 May 2007. <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007 /blog-m21.shtml>

 

[9] US Army. "Army Regulation 530–1 - Operations and Signal Security." Wired News.

     31 August 2008. <pdf>. <http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.pdf>

 

[10] Spencer, Noami. "Military censorship of the war in Iraq". World Socialist Website.

       31 August 2008. International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). 31 July 2008. <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/cens-j31.shtml>

 

[11] Kage Ben. "Pentagon censors soldiers' blogs". www.naturalnews.com.

       31 August 2008. Truth Publishing International, Ltd. 1 November 2006. <http://www.naturalnews.com/020955.html>

 

[12] Ainetter, Sylvia. Blogs - Literarische Aspekte eines neuen Mediums. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.