We the Media

By Contributor Alec:

A long time ago or so it would seem, I was ‘introduced’ to an internet hero; a man of such calibre his words parted water and legions of men, women and Service Personnel walked in wonder at the very power of his images. 

Here was a man who spoke the truth, shared the same training and sand as the grunts, remfs, and every other girl and guy who wore a uniform in the service of their country, I am of course talking of Michael Yon.

 Now I’ve not met the guy, don’t really feel compelled to,  and I’m sure as anything, he wouldn’t want to meet me as I’m probably not his type, so I won’t continue the debate he started way back when the Tarnak Bridge episode was headline news (Where?) All I will say is this:  it confirmed to me the view to which I’ve always subscribed, no journalist, even though Yon would be quick to deny he is, should be anywhere near a war zone. 

 Why? 

 The words of journalists should never be enough to influence a group of inexperienced people, by that I mean people with no understanding of how the media can manipulate a situation to their advantage. 

The problem now is, with social media, we have ALL become a source, if not the media itself. This is something doing the rounds in the UK at the moment which, some of you may know about due to the sad loss of a number of US Marines in the firefight. 

 Take a look: Pictures appear to show RAF man posing with dead Taliban fighter

 The soldier pictured is allegedly, Sgt******** of the RAF Regiment, who had been awarded the Military Cross after he helped to fight off a group of insurgents who attacked Camp Bastion in September 2012. 

Sgt******** from ******** who was praised for breathing "fire into the spirit of his men", continued in the battle despite receiving a knee injury when a rocket-propelled grenade hit one of his vehicles. 

The RAF Regiment gunners’ aim was to reclaim control of the airfield, supported by a number of different direct fire weapons and co-ordinating the assault with members of ****** Battalion US Marine Corps, they moved methodically across the airfield engaging in various fire fights to deal with pockets of resistance over a period of four hours. 

 When a UK service person is deployed they are briefed before they leave the UK and in-theatre that it’s forbidden to take trophy photos. 

 One commentator on the subject had this to say “The people who should be on trial here is the tw*t who sold the photos to the news media, and the media themselves for publishing. This is NOT in the public's interest”. 

Most in general were of the same mind, but the point was missed completely, or maybe ignored? 

 At the end of the day, soldiers shouldn’t give anyone an excuse to question how they do their job, the media do not care about how many injuries they receive it doesn’t make money and the Politicians won't care because, with that one picture, they've lost the moral high ground to justify to the public why they sent soldiers in the first place. 

And that's after the enemy has wandered around remote villages showing the picture of a British soldier who murdered an innocent farmer killed, trying to protect his wife from the troops. 

Whoever took the photograph had unwittingly signed a conviction in a Courts Martial, not because they’d gone and ignored SRO’s, R of E or even the Geneva Convention, but because they had become a combat correspondent. 

The images first appeared on the website Live Leak thus proving that nobody can be trusted to keep such images to themselves, not even guys within the unit concerned. Why would anyone want to keep such images anyway? That’s an open floor question with no right or wrong answer.

 I’ll leave you with my take on it:  some nightmares aren’t confined to night, last a life time and some don’t need photographs to relive certain experiences. SRO’s, R of E and the Geneva Convention are the only fall-back position some may have for protection from an enemy lurking at home. 

So let’s all be careful what we say,  and produce an image of,  because whether we like it or not we’re all journalists now, even Michael Yon.

From Tarnak Bridge to Bruhaha

From War on Terror News:

02/07/2011

From Tarnak Bridge to Bruhaha

So we've seen that the attack on the Bridge over the River Tarnak was semi-successful, not significantly surprising, and mildly irritating. So, who broke the story and how did it become an all out international brawl, with allied citizens taking sides, and American Veterans divided? How did it become the battle cry of a Journalist for the heads of Generals?

From the beginning, the story was distorted and blown out of proportion and claims later would not match the claims of the first days. The initial report was made by the ABC news, Australia. It was inaccurate, with Taliban quotes typical of their wild propaganda claims. It would be days before the closest "war correspondent" would report his findings, but minutes before he looked for a scapegoat. To the right is the first account I find of Michael Yon's reporting on the bridge attack. But it's not much of a report from him, so much as a bit of sniping at the ABC report.

At this point, he took almost 11 hours to get a few answers and throw in a few assumptions to find out about a bridge minutes away. Did he rush down to HQ and start demanding answers? Did he rush to the site of the attack? Did he sit in his hooch and send out emails? Did he sit down at the PX and collect comments of passersby? It's hard to say. In just 11 hours, he decided that a General should be fired for decisions made by an Afghan Security member. Sure the bridge was damaged, beyond the ability of military vehicles to cross it, but there was an alternate that Yon would later admit was about a 1/4 mile out of the way.

Again, he links to the MSM, Associated Press this time to report on the events "a bicycle ride away." He still, with all of his "high level sources," and contacts up to, and including, the Secretary of Defense hasn't been able to muster the resources to get down to the bridge and report for himself, what has occurred in his own backyard.

Notice that while the AP reports 6 KIA on that day, Yon only focuses on one. He'll later tell us as much as he can about that Soldier, while he will also ignore all other Troop Deaths. This Soldier will be his rally cry. This bridge will be blown out of proportion, but by this point, Yon already knows who his target will be, and he'll introduce him bit by bit, beginning only with calling for the head of "A General Officer" and about 12 hours later, "the Task Force Kandahar General." At the 24 hour mark of this story, he should know what unit is responsible for the Bridge (Afghan Security Forces) and who the Task Force-Kandahar Commander is. The parts of the story that aren't "a bike ride away" are literally under his nose. The Generals, and much of the forces they command, sleep on the same base as Yon. It certainly isn't difficult for him to walk over and find the answers. Or perhaps, the Troops he was asking were a bit more leary of the journalist and a bit more conscious of OPSEC, than Yon would prove to be.

He complains instead about Troops who have access to morale building/maintaining activities, while they are not on duty, implying that Troops were having fun in place of their duties. Yon has been around the military long enough, including in combat zones, to know those Troops at the concert, those that had earlier watched a hockey game, and those that had been entertained by the few that dared travel to Kandahar to do so, were not tasked with guarding that bridge. He knows their jobs are to do other things, like paperwork, like refueling, like QRF, and that they weren't scheduled for duty that morning. ...

This is Part 2 of WOTN fact-based series on Tarnak Bridge. There is much more HERE. Part 1 is here.

Please take it Easy on Michael Yon

On January 24th (at 9.47am) Michael Yon told his 'fans' on FaceBook page that he is a "war correspondent." Within the same long thread on FB that Yon identifies himself as that, he also plays psychologist, and sets himself up as someone far more knowledgeable than the current military who interact on a daily basis with a specific US Iraqi veteran.

[...] wrote with a poison pen,...and should be evaluated. It would be irresponsible to deploy him -- especially if he is in a position to make life/death decisions. Clearly he should not have a weapon....[...] has no business deploying or holding a weapon. I forwarded this article to a very high level. His chances of being deployed now are extremely remote.... I don't argue with insanity, but certainly will expose it if it threatens the mission or other soldiers. To cover up insanity that threatens the missions or others is a moral crime.

The above quotes (and the title of this column) were all proclamations that Yon made about a soldier he has never met. Insert the soldier's name, and you have Yon's opinions about a soldier who is serving America honorably; a soldier Yon is proudly, and loudly, determined to destroy. This despite the fact that this soldier's chain of command are very well aware of all that the soldier has faced - and dealt with. But shhhhh! Don't tell 'expert' Michael Yon that.

A few of Mr Yon's readers recently mistakenly thought Yon was discussing PTSD out of concern for those dealing with this pernicious byproduct of deploying in a war zone. Yon clarifies:

There is some misunderstanding about my intentions behind the post. Some people say I was trying to highly [sic] PTSD and then used that against a bad Soldier.. I was not highlighting PTSD. In fact, I was attempting to point out the obvious: [...] appears to be insane.

Many of Mr Yon's readers were appalled. One of those is the editor at the site War on Terror News:

01/26/2011

YonWatch: Just a Bully

There's a fine line between the necessity to expose a malcontent and it being better to ignore him. I want to ignore Yon. I have for years and hence I did not know many of the negative actions he had taken. Yon does not want to be ignored and he will commit to all sorts of negative behavior to get attention. He may or may not have already forgotten his call to find me, but his new focus is on CJ Grisham. The behavior demonstrated here is unacceptable.

When Yon had proven his intent in the Blackfive thread
I told him this:

"Yon, I've oft stated the 1st Amendment protects the right of idiots to prove how stupid they are. I see you are using it to the fullest extent of your capacity."

At Blackfive, Yon learned a new word that described his actions: "deflection." His attacks and allegations (formed in the journalistic style of "questions") were repetitious and avoided any question that was legitimate and asked of him. Yon has now taken up way too much of my time and attention, but I will offer up his use of the 1st Amendment to allow him to expose himself for what he is. I don't repeat his repetitious threats, attacks, or demands. To see that, see the source links. Later, on Facebook, he uses his new word to deflect any questions about him.

This would almost sound like Yon was suddenly understanding of CJ, in a patronizing manner. To understand the background on this, one needs to understand that CJ Grisham has been open about having PTSD and how he is struggling to overcome the negative effects. But Yon would later clarify that his intention was not at all to ask readers to honor the trials that come with combat, but to attack Grisham and end his career.

What is clear in this thread by Yon attacking a Warrior with PTSD, is that Yon does not understand what PTSD is, nor how it is dealt with. But in the storyline, several readers step forward with messages of support for CJ's battle to overcome the effects, and at least one other steps up to say that not only does he have PTSD, but is also currently deployed and fully functioning...

War on Terror has much more, and it IS a damning indictment of Yon, using Yon's own words, as he attempts to smear - destroy - a true American hero. It IS a must read, as WOTN clearly and concisely shows Yon for what he really is:

[...]he is morally bankrupt and manipulative, and that doesn't come from PTSD.

[...]

This guy [...] is unintelligent, manipulative, hateful and spiteful. To not see that is to be handicapped.

Those words were written by Yon, in the same thread, about the US soldier. Go now, HERE and read the rest of WOTN's column about Yon the bully, and then decide, for yourself, to whom the words in that last quote REALLY apply.

No, my academic background is not in psychology, although within my area of expertise, I did crack a few psych textbooks. This gives me as much right as Michael Yon to conclude: HE should be evaluated before he is allowed anywhere near any of our troops. Michael Yon has - again - exposed himself and "he needs help." (again a Yon quote.)

To Michael Yon: "Money talks, Bulls*** walks."

To hear Michael Yon tell it, he is the only credible source on the GWOT. To read him, you would think he is the only one who has the ear of General Petraeus et al. HE has 'sources.' MY's fans are constantly reminded that he has 'been there, done that, (donate now),' and that any and all of the 'milkooks' - as he calls them - should be ignored. These 'milkooks' are predominantly actual veterans and career soldiers, but according to MY, they have zero credibility.

Today, one of those 'milkooks' has a message for MY, and it is your must read of today.

MAJOR Chuck Z:

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

irresponsible "sources"

"Per Mike Yon on Facebook: If we are going to make a success out of this war, must start squeezing out and choking off the irresponsible "sources." People who care will start writing letters to editors/producers who link to websites such as Blackfive and Mudville Gazette. Must start telling mainstream sources that when they link to milkooks, we stop paying attention. Please leave comments at mainstream message boards encouraging people to ignore milkooks.

[He goes on with more quotes from one of MY recent screeds, which I won't bore you with, and then responds]

I will respond to that here, as it is my web page and even though the Code Monkey is driving the bus, I can still moon people from the windows.

My "from the hip" response: Eat shit, mike yon. Eat. My. Shit.

My well reasoned and thought out response: Mikey, Milbloggers made you as popular as you are. If it weren't for sites like Blackfive and Mudville Gazette, you would be the saddest panda in Iraq right now, living hand to mouth on the mercies of people who had not (yet) had enough of your silly shit and tantrums to stop putting up with you. You may have been taking good pictures, but nobody would have noticed, were it not for us "milkooks."

You go back to taking pictures in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Thailand, or wherever suits you. Since photography is your medium of choice, and you refuse to consider anyone who hasn't "been there" as a valid information source, I'll post my street cred right here:

This is my (most of) hand. Although swollen, it's smaller than it was the day before. I left the rest of it in a canal near Baqubah, Iraq. This is only one of the horrors of war....

[...]

There is more, MUCH more, and Chuck ends with this:

...Your effect on anything is negligible. (Because even when you do violate OPSEC, nothing happens.) If you were actually saying anything worthwhile, the enemy would be reading your site, like they do mine.

Oh by the way, do you know who is 100% involved in soldiers angels and Valour-IT? Not just involved, but actively supports and raises money for it? That's right mikey, Blackfive and Mudville. You beg others to smear them--what do YOU actually DO for soldiers? What do YOU provide for them?

Now who is the irresponsible source, mikey?

mikey?

/crickets

--Chuck

I could add my 2 cents' worth here, but as usual, our military says it all so much more intelligently than I ever could. Any ongoing observer of our current war on terror knows who has the street cred, knows who is the responsible source. Our warriors are walking the walk, while some are content to have foot massages in Thailand. Our current military is spending their blood, while *some* are spending their donors' dollars, as they talk talk talk about how our military *should* be conducting this war. ( I wonder if these willing donors know that a lot of their $$ go to paying MY's lawyers, as he fight his own battles? Just sayin'...) Not to worry, though, as General Petraeus is now getting 'expert' advice from Thailand 'sources' and will win the war for us all - milkooks included? - as long as they pay attention to HIS 'expert' opinions.

As Chuck says: 'crickets'.. Go NOW, and read the rest of Chuck's column here.

War reporting then and now

I am working on a couple (or more) original columns, but in the meantime came across two items that speak to my interest in how wars are reported. During the current Global War on Terror, (yes, I still call it that, ) there have been a number of first person accounts from military personnel in the sandbox. If you really want to know what is going on, pick up one of the great books available. Of course, we also have the blogs written by boots on the ground. These warrior/writers give us immediate first hand accounts that you will not find in the msm. Because of modern technology, our troops can share what they see, and do, almost as it happens. Wasn't always so. Back in the previous world wars, it would often take weeks for a single handwritten letter from the trenches to reach waiting families on the homefront. Those letters were usually full of blacked out sections, too. Today, we also have independent journalists like Michael Yon sending up-to-the-minute reports which provide insights not found elsewhere. You DO read Michael Yon, don't you?

Over D-Day celebrations recently, the BBC ran an interesting article on a technological breakthrough. Read on:

D-Day: A breakthrough for war reporting

By Vincent Dowd BBC World Service

The 'midget' recording device was revolutionary for the time

Saturday marks the 65th anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of occupied Europe on June 6 1944.

Unlike earlier in the war, it was the first time that BBC radio was able to broadcast news back to the UK from the beaches and battlefields of Europe.

Hidden away in a BBC storeroom in central London is a remarkable bit of broadcasting history. It looks rather like a 1950s Dansette record player, redesigned by the British army.

In fact it's a so-called 'midget' recording device made by the BBC for use by correspondents in the field during and after the D-Day invasions.

The BBC's Charles Commander, who guards this priceless bit of broadcasting heritage, pulls it out from under a pile of boxes. "What the BBC considered 'portable' in 1944 is remarkable. But compared to what came before, it did give the reporter freedom to move.

The idea was they could take it through the sand-dunes and round the back roads in Normandy. And it worked: we still have the recordings to prove it."..

Go learn more here.

Today, veterans of the GWOT are also writing books about their experiences. Because of the articulate warrior/writers we have in our midst, there has been a whole new genree of war books released. House to House by David Bellavia is one; The Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell is another. Both well worth reading.

Came across a review of another book yesterday. It appears on a blog I found quite recently. Between the Sandhills and the Sea is another homefront blog, written by a Soldiers' Angel who has a personal connection to the GWOT. The book review?:

"War Reporting for Cowards"

When the destruction was finally over, everyone in the Humvee was shouting. This, I thought, is what the will to live sounds like.'YEAH! YEAH! Oh, YEAH!' we all howled in union like the animals we were. 'Targets destroyed,'said the monotone on the radio.

Book of the week is War Reporting for Cowards by Chris Ayers. I don't usually enjoy Iraq war books by reporters. Most of them take themselves a little too seriously. Ayers, self-deprecating throughout, does not have this problem.

Ayers describes himself as an accidental war reporter. Writing for The Times of London, he makes his name as a business/financial reporter more familiar with stock prices than NBC gear. His first taste of war came when he had the misfortune of living in New York and covering Wall Street at the time of the September 11th attacks. He also was in the right place-if you will- to cover the anthrax attacks when they befell his office building. Hoping to move towards a life of more glamour and less terror, he makes a move to LA to cover the celebrity beat for The Times.

It is from the Hollywood scene this young reporter is picked to cover the war in Iraq. You follow Chris, a man who had never even been camping, to the mud and dust of the Iraqi desert....

There is much more, and you can find that here. Check it out, and yes, bookmark that blog, or connect to the "following" thingamajig...(tech term.)

There is NO excuse for anyone to be uninformed these days; well, unless you choose to stay uninformed, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Do Americans Care about British Soldiers?

When I first saw that header above, I was like "DUH!" My tag on SA is: Every soldier is one of our own, and I have heard many stories firsthand of American and British troops working beside each other. Today, all over the internet is a great story of just how far the Americans are more than willing to go to save the life of one of their British brother in arms. The header is from Michael Yon's piece - brilliant as always - but I am going to share Bouhammer's piece on this:

USA and Soldiers Angels step up for British Soldier

Posted By Bouhammer on August 19, 2009

I am proud to say that I consider Mary Ann Phillips and Shelle Michaels friends. I really don’t know Michael Yon that well but am friends with many that do and I am a big fan of his writings and his book.

The story in the link below is a must-read. Especially if you would like a little bit of good news coming out of Afghanistan. This is a good-news story. It shows to what ends of the earth our US forces will go to save a life, and not even an American life. You can see by the speed they used to mobilize, and what they through at this problem to get the British soldiers to Germany alive that there was never a “hey who is paying for this” moment.

I can read this and plainly see as if I was there, that people had a mission and they stuck to it.

This is also a great testament to Soldier’s Angels and the awesome work they do. Bouhammer.com supports them directly with sales from the Bouhammer Gear Store and supports their Project Valour-IT initiative with the Twitterbird shirt. Now you will see why they are one of only four charities that I put my support behind....

To get a sense of the lengths the Americans went to, and all the logistics involved, head over to Bouhammer's here. Be SURE and follow the links to Michael Yon, and yes, bookmark HIS site, too...

THIS Brit thanks you, America! And a special thanks to a special Angel, Mary Ann!