Media Standards Trust

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?

6 Comments

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.

There are references here and elsewhere to ARRSE, the unofficial site for servicemen, and others, which deals with a wide range of issues involving the armed forces. It's well worth the while of anyone who is seriously interested in this debate taking a look at that site.

The recent move by MoD to control the content of such sites as ARRSE is predicated on the notion that our people can not be trusted to ensure Operational Security or Personal Security when posting their comments. ARRSE is a self-regulating entity, it has excellent Moderators who are extremely diligent in maintaining security, sometimes to the annoyance of contributors.

MoD has so far failed identify a single instance where contributions on that site have compromised security in the slightest degree. However, what many comments have done is embarrass those in MoD who have made crass and inept decisions over a very wide range of matters. These range from poor selection of equipment and/or failure of supply right the way through to treatment of wounded personnel and dealings with families.

There is a perception that Whithall is a self-serving body, largely out of touch with the realities of the front line or, indeed, the realities of life. MoD has become a politicised body which serves only its political masters, and it does this by controlling the armed forces. That is completely at odds with the widely held belief that MoD should spend its time and our money on supporting the troops.

There's a direct comparison of the lack of equipment; poor rates of pay; overstretch; substandard accomodation; inept treatment of the wounded, the families, relatives of the deceased and so on, with the exalted position and luxurious conditions of those within the marbled halls of the MoD. Whether that is fair or not is almost irrelevant. Whitehall has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the armed forces.

Some very senior officers are admired. General Dannatt is the best example, rightly so. He has chosen to speak out on some matters. That will not have done his career much good, sadly, but it is laudable. By contrast the Government is seen as vindictive, dissimulating and/or mendacious, and incompetent. The armed forces simply do not trust the Government. However, and unlike most of their political masters, the armed forces have a strong sense of duty to the Crown and to the British people. But recent events have led to many serving personnel to review that position and their commitment to their choice of career.

That MoD is now portraying these changes as merely bringing the regulations up to date is interesting, given that MoD itself has been the biggest source of leaks and given that those failures of security were major - such as leaving computers on public transport, unofficial briefings etc, etc. The military and the wider public are not in any way deceived.

Simply, what is the case and where is the evidence for these changes?

Firstly, the Government have no chance of enforcing such a ridiculous decree. They've had precious little success in the past and the new guidance is effectively a re-write and 'tidying up' operation and nothing more sinister than that.

What is absolutely disgusting is the way we are treated by the pitifully inept and deceitful villains who infest Whitehall, headed up by a man no-one even voted for and who now displays a breathtaking lack of regard or sorrow for the sacrifices made every day in his name.

HMG = Stalinists to a man.

The bumbling political incompetent's who's actions led directly to the circumstances in which HMF have been so badly let down, cannot cover up their gross derelection of duty by 'gagging' those who are suffering the most.

I think this should sound a warning for the whole country. Blair wasn't a one off,his whole crowd are anti-Democratic, anti-English and most certainly anti the Armed Forces.

Des Browne now holding both the Defence and Scotland portfollio's is proof enough of the contempt Gordon and his comrades feel for HMF. A pox on all of them.

We've also initiated debate on the unofficial British army community web site, www.arrse.co.uk. This is a link to the discussion:

I would like to know what the MOD are frightened of. Why can't our troops say what they want to say without being 'smacked on the hand' by the MOD. If our lads were treated correctly and given the equipment they deserve there would be no need for the troops to 'talk' to the media. bring them all home now, they should not be there.