Thread: Updated rules on communicating with the public and media.

I'm writing to ask whether anyone would like to comment on a debate concerning the media coverage of the MoD's updated guidelines on communication at www.mediastandardstrust.org?

The trust - a new, independent organisation that campaigns to foster high standards in news through debate and research - has just launched a debate on its website. We're inviting comments from soldiers, journalists and other relevant parties about questions like whether it was right to demand authorisation and whether unauthorised blogging actually engangers peoples’ lives, as the MOD has said.

For those who need to get permission, you are welcome to do so. For others that aren't employed by the armed forces, you are welcome to comment either officially or anonymously on the web site, www.mediastandardstrust.org.

Look forward to your thoughts!

The Media Standards Trust

Indulge me if you will, but this struck me whilst reading Anthony Beevors book on Stalingrad and the end of that disastrous campaign:

Originally Posted by Anthony Beevor - Stalingrad

"Goebbels mobilized wireless station and press to unite the country in martial grief. His instructions to newspapers on how they were to portray the tragedy poured forth. They must remember that every word about this dramatic struggle would go down in history. The press must always employ the word Bolshevik, not Russian.

'The whole of German propaganda must create a myth out of the heroism of Stalingrad which is to become one of the most treasured possessions in German History.'

The Wehrmacht communique was broadcast as a special announcement on the wireless twenty-four hours after Strecker's surrender.

'From Fuhrer headquarters, 3rd Feb 1943. The supreme command of the Wehrmacht announces the battle of Stalingrad has come to an end. True to its oath of allegiance, the Sixth Army under the exemplary leaderhsip of Field Marshal Paulus has been annihilated by the overwhelming superiority of enemy numbers...The sacrifice of the Sixth Army was not in vain. As the bulwark of our historic European mission, it has held out against the onslaught of six Soviet armies... They died so that Germany might live.'

The regime's lies proved counter-productive, especially the idea that every member of the Sixth Army had died. No reference was made in any announcements to the 91,000 prisoners already proclaimed by the Soviet Government, an item of news that had been rapidly broadcast all round the world. Inevitably, many more people than usual tuned into foreign stations.

A period of 3 days national mourning was ordered, with places of entertainment closed and all wireless stations playing solemn music yet the newspapers were forbidden black margins and no flags were to be flown at half mast.

The Security Service of the SS did not underestimate the effect on civilian morale. They also knew that letters from the Kessel describing the horror and squalor, fundamentally contradicted the regime's heroic treatment of the disaster. 'The farewell letters of Stalingrad combatants' ran one report, 'spread greater spiritual distress not only to relatives but also to a wider circle of the population, the more so because the content of the letters were passed round rapidly.

The description of the suffering during the last weeks of fighting haunts relatives day and night.' Goebells had in fact, foreseen this problem much earlier, and decided to intercept postcards from those taken prisoner. In his diary on 17 December he wrote: 'In future, cards to relatives should no longer be delivered, because they offer an access door to Germany for Bolshevik propaganda.

Soviet efforts proved too energetic to stop. The NKVD's prison camps provided postcards, but because the German authorities would not allow them in, their contents were printed in small type, many to a sheet, and dropped over German Lines as propaganda leaflets.

When these were dropped, German soldiers at the front picked them up, although they risked severe punishment, and sent anonymous letters to the addresses on the list to say that their man was alive.

They signed themselves 'a compatriot' or just 'xxx'. Sometimes to the horror of the Nazi authorities, families even recieved a copy of the Soviet leaflet and contacted others in the same situation./quote]

Now, the detail of battle aside, I see some frightening parallels here. The Truth will always get out.

Our soldiers understand the rules and guidance of both OpSec and PerSec. DGMC and 'they' in the MoD have, IMHO, crossed over a very important line.

DGMC's silence on the matter since their initial outburst speaks volumes.

Mr Macdowall - this matter is not going away.


Edited to add:

Did someone mention that the E-Bluey system was coming under DGMC?

Originally Posted by mediastandardstrust

I'm writing to ask whether anyone would like to comment on a debate concerning the media coverage of the MoD's updated guidelines on communication at www.mediastandardstrust.org?

The trust - a new, independent organisation that campaigns to foster high standards in news through debate and research - has just launched a debate on its website. We're inviting comments from soldiers, journalists and other relevant parties about questions like whether it was right to demand authorisation and whether unauthorised blogging actually engangers peoples’ lives, as the MOD has said.

For those who need to get permission, you are welcome to do so. For others that aren't employed by the armed forces, you are welcome to comment either officially or anonymously on the web site, www.mediastandardstrust.org.

Look forward to your thoughts!

The Media Standards Trust

Scandalous....who wrote this tripe? Seriously, some dude penned this garbage and we need to know why and who vetted it....

Absolute bollocks.....

Originally Posted by mediastandardstrust

I'm writing to ask whether anyone would like to comment on a debate concerning the media coverage of the MoD's updated guidelines on communication at www.mediastandardstrust.org?

The trust - a new, independent organisation that campaigns to foster high standards in news through debate and research - has just launched a debate on its website. We're inviting comments from soldiers, journalists and other relevant parties about questions like whether it was right to demand authorisation and whether unauthorised blogging actually engangers peoples’ lives, as the MOD has said.

For those who need to get permission, you are welcome to do so. For others that aren't employed by the armed forces, you are welcome to comment either officially or anonymously on the web site, www.mediastandardstrust.org.

Look forward to your thoughts!

The Media Standards Trust

Not sure I understand the proposition. You'd like commenters here to reiterate their views on your website, then? If so, what benefit is there in so doing? Surely you could simply link to this site anyway?

[Mods this is well outside my remit as a contributor. Maybe you'd like to comment?]

The Media Standards Trust site may be getting quite a bit of traffic ATM. Seems very slow.

For the benefit of those having trouble:

http://www.mediastandardstrust.org/h....aspx?sid=6438

Should our armed forces be allowed to speak freely?
Media Standards Trust, 14/08/2007

Last week’s updated guidelines restricting public communication by the armed forces elicited a furious reaction online. The MoD responded by saying the news stories were ‘false’ and it was only bringing its rules in line with other organisations. Are these guidelines reasonable and realistic? What will we lose if we can no longer access unofficial blogs, photos and videos from the armed forces?

Context

Following criticism of the government’s handling of the Iranian hostage crisis in March, and the findings of Tony Hall’s report, the MoD last week updated its guidelines on communication by the armed forces. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are no longer allowed to publish blogs, photos, videos, comments on websites, or participate in multi-player online games without prior permission from the Ministry.

Audrey Gillan (Guardian), James Macintyre (Independent), and Laura Clout (Telegraph) reported critically on the ‘gagging order’, and all of them referred to condemnation of it on the armed forces unofficial site www.arrse.co.uk.

The MoD responded by saying it was ‘false to say that the updated regulations prevent people from blogging, it simply says that people must seek permission first if the blog is about defence matters, something that is obviously necessary for operational security’. Simon MacDowall, the MoD’s director general of media communications, pointed to official UK military blogs such as SAC Paul Goodfellow's Afghan diary on Youtube, the CO of HMS Somerset on Blogspot, and the RN pilot on Bebo, and said the Ministry had simply come into line ‘with the standard procedures of every major organisation’.

But many people questioned the MoD’s approach. In a lively Newsnight online debate, Patrick Lyster-Todd wrote that ‘Chat and blog-sites provide a vital escape valve for many such personnel and an irreplaceable link to sanity and normality’. Karl Schneider argued that ‘it allows them to raise their concerns in a way that can't simply be brushed under the carpet by the top brass’. This was point reiterated by others who feel armed forces blogs and pictures fill a serious void in mainstream news coverate. The ‘Basra Palace situation has been grossly underreported’, wrote Julian Nettlefold.

Questions

Are armed forces blogs important avenues of information?

From which the British public can learn about problems with equipment, morale, accommodation and read military stories which would otherwise go unreported? Would we, for example, know about the situation in Basra without www.arrse.co.uk?

Do they fill a serious gap in mainstream reporting?

"It's as if Afghanistan is a massive secret”, Pte Ian McIlroy told The Mirror, “Nobody talks about it". In Basra, soldiers ‘know that if they die, their death will go barely noticed by the media at home beyond perhaps a paragraph or two in a newspaper or a few sentences at the back end of the Six O’Clock News’, Anthony Loyd wrote in The Times last week. Are the media produced by the armed forces our only real means of finding out what’s happening?

Or do they ‘endanger people’s lives’ as the MoD suggests?

Afghanistan is proving to be the deadliest war since World War II, according to the Daily Mail. If so, could the publication of military information put troops lives in danger? Do unofficial blogs etc. undermine discipline and morale?

Are official blogs satisfactory?

The MoD suggested that RAF vlogs posted on YouTube, and blogs written by Commander Rob Wilson on HMS Somerset are equally good sources of information. Are they?

Is it a realistic order?

Iain Dale, the prolific Conservative blogger, doesn’t think so. Dale believes the order is bound to fail because, “The genie is out of the bottle. If someone has something to say via the internet the chances are that they will always find a way. And it will now make a bigger headline than it did before”

Do the updated guidelines contravene the forces' Human Rights Act?

... as suggested by Geoffrey Robertson, QC, in the Guardian.

Tell us what you think, and suggest links to official or unofficial sources.

We'll update the site with a link to this thread.

However, if you are able to post on www.mediastandards.trust.org, it would be appreciated, as your comments will be available to a range of interested parties outside of those registered with arrse.co.uk.

Originally Posted by mediastandardstrust

However.....your comments will be available to a range of interested parties outside of those registered with arrse.co.uk.

Let's hope so, indeed. The more people in positions of influence who read and understand this and other threads, the better.

However.....your comments will be available to a range of interested parties outside of those registered with arrse.co.uk.

Like who?

Sorry to bite, but Chubb: if you want to help, please stop scrurgling up bandwidth by enedlessly repeating the same message, linking to an embarassing, poorly-written No 10 petition ('freedom of speach?').

The poor response your petition's received, coupled with you endlessly urging readers (inc. journos) to visit it, sends out the wrong message: that this issue is a joke, and one that commands little support amongst the soldiery.

Well done for wanting to raise awareness; major points deducted for doing it in precisely the wrong way.

Would service personel want "freedom of speech" exactly? I'd have thought it's more about having a neat unofficial way of getting valid concerns across without changing the official face of things. Only causing a problem with some of the powers that be because there seems to be a lot of valid concerns all at once.

A lively blog on this subject, by an ARRSE member, from the Guardian website:

'A battle the MOD will lose'

A small sample:

See, for example, the formation of BAFF, issues of forces' housing and healthcare, the U-turn in the case of Pun VC, Greys Lane, Iraqi interpeters et al; ARRSE is a force to be reckoned with, and the MoD knows it.

This is nothing to do with Opsec or Persec: this seems to be all about Labour spin applied to the armed forces, whereby my version of events is deemed wrong or dangerous to be aired, and the Orwellian MOD media ops give us the news as they woud like it to be seen.

Well, screw you. I and thousands like me have risked our lives on a regular basis, suffered massive overstretch in many quarters, been ignored by the CoC and been made out to be liars in stating the obvious. It's like The Emperor's New Clothes, but with British personnel getting killed on a daily basis...

BBC News 15 Aug, full story at: LINK

Ministers 'failing UK soldiers'

The government is failing to honour its commitments to troops who put their lives on the line for their country, the Royal British Legion has said.

The forces charity said the Military Covenant - which guarantees soldiers fair treatment in return for forgoing other rights - is not being upheld.

In an unprecedented move, it is to launch a campaign to shame ministers into improving treatment of personnel...

... In January, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the Covenant to be "renewed" in the light of the intense and controversial conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"This is a new situation for our Armed Forces, there are new commitments necessary to make it work and make it fair," he said.

Stretched

But an organisation set up last year to represent the interests of British troops, the British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF), following concern about equipment shortages, said the Covenant had to mean something in practice.

BAFF chairman Douglas Young told the Guardian: "If the Covenant is to be anything other than hot air, it needs to be at the forefront of policymakers' minds whenever defence policy is being formulated and not just trotted out when there's a good news story."

Senior military figures have warned that British forces are stretched to the limit on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and there have been complaints about inadequate equipment.

There is also a backlog in coroners' inquests for service personnel killed serving their country.

Hackle, if what I read in the Grauniad earlier about BAFF making this into a MAJOR political issue come conference season is true, then well done you chaps, and keep the pressure on.

Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin

Hackle, if what I read in the Grauniad earlier about BAFF making this into a MAJOR political issue come conference season is true, then well done you chaps, and keep the pressure on.

Thanks! To be fair it is the RBL who will be campaigning come conference season and very well done them. BAFF has been on about the Military Covenant anyway and we will be pressing it harder, as well as supporting the RBL campaign. We published an article about the Broken Covenant in the spring - it was aimed mainly at the parliamentary audience - I'll post a link to it when I get the chance tomorrow.