« Make Room For Bloggers At The White House | Main | The Blogging Transformation Of 2005 »

Military Bloggers And Information Warfare

Late last week, a Washington Monthly article about blogs caused a stir among bloggers. Now a Washington Post article on military bloggers has the blogosphere buzzing again.

The article focuses on two bloggers who were embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq -- Bill Roggio of The Fourth Rail and ThreatsWatch, and Michael Yon -- and it implies that such independent writers are becoming pawns of the military in "an increasingly aggressive battle for control over information about the conflict." The story also notes that Roggio received media credentials by affiliating himself with the American Enterprise Institute.

Michelle Malkin defended Roggio and "milbloggers" in general. The Post's "take on bloggers as tools easily exploited by one major political party or the other is typical -- and typically misinformed," she wrote. "Again, I ask: Is it too much to expect reporters who write about blogs to actually read them?"

James Joyner of Outside the Beltway reacted a bit differently. He said the use of blogs for spin, whether from the military or other official sources, is to be expected. "Given the rise of the blogosphere as an information medium, it was only a matter of time before those seeking to get their messages out would turn there," he said. "Indeed, I've been getting e-mailed press releases from congressional offices, party officials, interest groups and others for months now."

UPDATE: Roggio has responded to the Post article by both highlighting "factual errors" and criticizing the portrayal of his work as being "a tool of the military."

He also chastised the newspaper for equating U.S. military "information operations" with propaganda from the al Qaeda terrorist network. "The U.S. military is conducting an influence campaign to draw attention to the news, which is missed by the media on a daily basis," Roggio wrote. "Their belief (and one that I share) is the portrayal of events in Iraq do not reflect the actual situation on the ground. While the articles may be viewed as 'favorable' to the coalition, the question is, are they accurate and factual? The Washington Post does not address this issue, nor does it provide evidence that the military is running a disinformation campaign."

Instapundit has a roundup of other reactions to the article. And Mark Tapscott says of the Post, "Simple Corrections Won't Do It."

Posted by | 11:56 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/404

Comments

Post a Comment