As you will recall, two weeks ago, milblogs went silent to protest the treatment of military blogger C.J. Grisham. What followed was a note on the U.S. Army blog. Here's my response to "A Message To Milbloggers" written by Lindy Kyzer, Public Affairs Specialist, Online and Social Media Division of the U.S. Army.Dear All,
I’ve been in the writing biz for over 25 years. I’ve read, edited, written the gamut of things ranging from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous. I’ve gone from typewriters and carbon paper to the internet. Let me tell you, it’s been one heck of ride. In this time I’ve watched the craft grow to include the instantaneous but also pleasurable and risky acts of social networking.
Blogs are an odd beast altogether. They share elements of personal diary, reporter, opinion, with faint whiff of P.T. Barnum. They can be read by a large audience, and blogs document what’s going on at the time in the mind of the writer. Social networking –whether it’s a 140 character tweet, a status change on Facebook, or a 300 word blog post, is intensely personal.
It’s for this reason that I find myself disagreeing with Ms. Kyzer on almost every single point. While I understand the well-intentioned suggestions were to help make self-preservation possible, each goes against the grain of the writer’s craft and also that one thing we hold sacrosanct: freedom of expression.
If one wants to cause dissent, start putting down all sorts of rules! Tell people to use a nom de plume, avoid politics, tell us that little bro is watching, not to dis the boss and people take it as a personal affront. As an aside, through history, great struggles have been brought to life in the form of novels, stories, operas, epic poems, movies, music and plays. They have inspired people in a myriad of ways –both positive and not. Well-written blogs that articulately convey the writer’s struggle can also serve to enlighten and move. That’s why I think it’s important to remember this before setting down a bunch of rules.
This doesn’t mean that the writer throws caution to the wind. But, I happen to think the person who doesn’t blog anonymously holds themselves to a high standard of how they frame what they’re writing. What I write is done so with great deliberation, and I understand that I’m responsible for everything on it. So if I say something that irks someone, maybe for one second (or two or three or four), they ought to put stock into the fact that I’ve considered not publishing it. But the fact that I have means I’ve framed it, edited it. I’ve hit the “publish” button because I want those I’m criticizing to pay attention!
In regards to the rest of Ms. Kyzer's suggestions, go back to remembering that blogs are a direct reflection of what’s going on in the mindset of the person writing the blog. All sorts of emotions are going to come out. It’s inescapable.
In regards to the silence,* we were successful. How do we know? Because the US Army noticed.
Like I’ve said, this has been one heck of a long ride but I wouldn’t have missed a single bit of it …even the bumpy parts.
Best,
Kanani Fong
*we held on behalf of C.J. Grisham
Posts
6 comments:
Well said, Kanani. I thought, while I read her comment, what a bunch of Bull Shit.
Hey Coffeypot, When I first read her comments, I didn't know what to say. So I thought about it, and it seemed that there had to be a way of putting blogs into the context of expression and even art.
I've gone over CJ's situation plenty of times. There are several issues we were protesting against, the Army being only one of them. It seemed to hit everything from discrimination, manipulation, and harassment. Needless to say, too many boundaries were crossed.
I have found that even if you dont post a blog, but just comment on some military sites, or military spouse sites, you can be admonished if your not always "upbeat". On some certain military spouse sites, if you talk about "issues" you can be brandished as negative.
But my thought is if I come on and talk about an issue I am having either on my blog, or on another site, then if someone steps forward and says "Hey I am having that same problem" the problem can be addressed possibly. We all know from experience things do NOT get passed up the chain of commands in order to CYA the chain of command. Unfortunately this is what my husband often says he hates about the military, because in doing so it make the military re-active to problems instead of pro-active to issues. He often refers to it as the Armys Knee-Jerk reaction. And my husband is a "old timer" by Army standers as he has been in service since '88.
I think the Army needs to embrace what military bloggers have to say as often they are the ones with enough courage to stand up to say what is being said behind closed doors within the ranks as it is.
The beauty of the internet is that it can bring solutions to problems that have been overlooked. Oftentimes a fresh perspective is needed --especially one shaped by experience.
I do think that there are blogs that want to have a very wide audience. And in order to do so, decide to take the path of keeping off controversial topics such as politics, or talking about issues within (or even outside) of the military. While this might seem to make them more commercially viable and appeal to a wider set of advertisers, I think they also risk (at least to me) not being very engaging. I've also heard that they are perceived as very cliquish as well.
But every administrator has reasons for doing what they do. I can't even guess what they are.
Don't be too hard on Lyndy, she has gotten many of us milbloggers in the Whitehouse and has had a large influence in the big Army noticing the good in milblogs. The problem lies within those in the middle ranks of the Army. And in CJ's case his military command should have supported him and not let some idiot draw in CJ's military career when it was irrelevant, that's where they failed him.
And Lyndy's advice is sound, unlike civilians, the military JUST does not have the same civil liberties (freedom of expression) as your everyday blogger and for good reason. There MUST be rules or OPSEC, morale, desention in ranks, etc., can become a real problem.
Greyhawk long ago boiled his 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.
Greyhawk also has had a pseudonym for years, he has always refrained from personal political opinions. While active duty, he has mastered writing about politics without giving personal opinions just facts and links to media reports which let's the reader to decide for themselves. One week he's a leftist liberal, the next a rightwing hack, when no personal opinions were given, which has been very engaging. ;)
Regardless of his nom de plume, he has been considered well repected and a trusted source. Something that takes time to earn, whether blogging under a pseudonym or not.
First of all, my disagreeing with Ms. Kyzer in no way confers any disrespect. But certainly, by putting her own thoughts on the official US Army blog, she knew she was going to get a lot of comments. And mine were tame in comparison.
Read very carefully.
I said that this does not mean the writer throws caution to the wind.
I agree with what you've said about writing, and my thoughts follow it.
I do think that there are ways to state your opinion thoughtfully and without malice, and this happens to be a matter of finesse in one's writing skills. Obviously, Greyhawk has done so.
But this isn't going to be the case for everyone. And I do think that one thing to remember that blogs --as one part diary, are going to have viewpoints, most especially styles.
I would say that a lot of people look at nom de plumes as a necessity. I say it isn't. In fact, there are some for whom a nom de plume is a very bad thing. On the blogosphere in general (and please, I'm not limiting these specific thoughts to milblogs only), it's been shown that a lot of people write very abrasively because they have the psuedonymn to crouch behind. So there are factors either way.
I left CJ's case out of it because quite frankly, she didn't hit those points. So neither did I. I've done that in other posts.
Post a Comment
Thank you for leaving a comment! Comments left on posts older than 1 week, are sent to me for moderation. Again, thank you.