The Blogs of War details how the new personal forum of soldiers' blogs are currently changing how war is reported and opening new sources of infomation for those seeking to understand what makes a professional soldier's life so different from a civilian's.
The article discusses four examples of types of soldier blogs currently being written, though it is clear that the blogs of soldiers vary greatly in topic, theme, mood, and political opinion as the individual soldiers do in background. Blogs are posted by everyone from reservists to active duty, lower enlisted and officers, from all four branches of the Armed Forces.
The four major clumps of blogs exemplified in the article were (my catergory names) emotive, active, punidative/political, and imflammatory. Emotive blogs focus of personal experience and emotive response to the war. Active blogs offer details from either front line experience and/or day to day work, considering a soldier's job may involve incidents that many civilains would never wish to learn to experience day to day. Political blogs often encourage readers to specific action and solicit donations for military causes. Inflammatory blogs allow soldiers to vent steam and express dissatisfaction with military life, often in a way that disgusts or brings unwanted attention from the chain of command. Obviously one blog can fit into all the categories but it is suggested that each blogs does have a specific focus, an area that the soldier is most interested in sharing, wither with family and friends or the larger world.
These blogs serve as memiors, as slices of an otherwise unfamiliar life, as thought provoking, insightful, and sometimes insulting opinions of war and the military culture surrounding it. For me the most interesting part of the article was the questions it raised about what these blogs are doing to the way the larger world see war and how our government will seek to control this expression. Because I absolutely agree with the consensus of soldiers: the DOD will continue to allow milbloggers such freedom of expression. They will restrict, spin, and seek to control what is view in these blogs and who it is viewed by. And if they are effective in their control, then in a few years, free speech among milbloggers may be little more that an interesting historical footnote.
As for new perspectives on war and military life given by milbloggers, they are worth understanding but they will only have a lasting impact on our culture if they are accessible by those outside of the military and are read by that audience. If civilains unconnected to the war by family of friends in the service don't reach out to understand what these people are going through then there will continue to be a rift between soldiers and civilians as great and complicated as the rift that stands between those that call themselves 'Americans' and those they would label 'terrorists'.
Oh and one tiny technical note. Did anyone notice links to these solider's blogs? Because I didn't and if there weren't any there should have been.
4 comments:
I personally was very annoyed with this article. I noticed a lot of punctuation errors. Not to mention the various curse words thrpwn in there. I'm not saying that I don't say these words on a regular basis, but do I want to read them in a serious article that is trying to show me the good in war blogs? No. It wouldn't have bothered me if it happened once or twice, but it was every where. "jolly testosterone fuckups," Bum-fuck USA," "Hartley wrote with a fuck-you swagger" and his unprofessional language "daily bang-bang of Iraq," "It's just sick how badass a tank looks when it is killing" and his obvious biases "touchy-feely psychology PHD program," "pundit-of-all-things-queer." I know some of these are from the soldiers, but where they necessary to include?
Any way, I was completely turned off by the 3rd page.
I thought the idea of instant information from the front-lines and possibly even dangerous. But the idea is what I found intriguing. The military, if they knew what the internet was, would have sealed the soldiers from this type of communication. Sound, image, and detailed account can be disseminated through the internet to every American's home. Think if those in Vietnam had these types of devices, what would they be sending?
The point I am trying to make is that the military, as I understand it, is a very guarded group of intellegenci and information. What happens, as one soldier put it, "when important and secret information is blogged?" I would find it interesting, but I don't think the military would (i.e. Abu Grahbe).
As a final thought I think it is great and allows the soldiers a window to their homeland and viewers a window into war.
You make an interesting typo, Vanessa, in your original post. I believe you meant to say "the DOD will [not] continue to allow milbloggers such freedom of expression."
I think I disagree. The military certainly knows what the Internet is, and the work it's done. Yet they don't shut down access. Why not? I'm probably romanticizing this, since I am was a DOD kid who grew up on military bases, but I'd like to believe that at least part of their reasons has to be their belief in the power of old-fashioned democracy. I'd like to believe (and do believe) that most members of the military were appalled by Abu Ghraib, and that though they might not have liked how the abuse and torture were brought to light, they were eager to eliminate the abuse. The military gets at least as much positive as negative representation from blogs.
As to the language, what is it about this language, Jessica, that makes you take the article less seriously? What is the tone, in your view, that this article should adopt?
The use of language here is, I believe, an example of the public sphere in action. What is it that conditions our beliefs about what constitutes appropriate language? How is that belief changed? I for one remember when "suck" was an obscenity.
I agree that blogging from the front lines can be dangerous, since it is such a controversial topic. I don't think the government should be able to shut things down, nor do I think that they should be highly regulated. I think that people who sign up for the military have a vague idea of what it is going to be like when they are at war, but of course, simulation rarely depicts reality accurately.
In a world where media is controlled by a few companies, an individual's voice becomes even more important to be heard. With one of those soldier's blogs, he had 5,000 unique addresses visiting his site. That tells me that more than a few people believe in his cause and his ideals he is expressing in the blog.
This article made my mind spin to think about how much digital media has changed personal communication. My neighbor had a girlfriend before he served in WWII, and they saved their letters back and forth to each other. Those letters are very dear to him and his wife. How dear are emails from someone we haven't seen in a bit? Do we just chuck them after a while?
I also agreed with Jessica about the language. I realize that people have their right to say what they want, and how they want it, but the author seemed to want people to read his article based on the shock factor. The article was well constructed, especially for the web layout, but when people curse as often as this author did, I feel like he/she is limiting him/herself. I would not feel comfortable citing this article as a source for a paper I wrote for an academic setting. That is my line in the sand.
John
Post a Comment