Citizen Journalist and Reporters need protection

Federal law needed to protect public's right to know
Florida Times Union
Mon, Feb 3, 2014

The bill also would expand the definition of journalist to account for today’s citizen journalists if a judge approves it.

When The Washington Post exposed the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital for America’s injured military people, Robert Gates was shocked. The Defense secretary at the time found out about the inexcusable conditions in the newspaper.

He fired those responsible, set aside those who offered excuses and made it a personal priority to put the injured military men and women first.

We don’t know where the newspaper’s investigative reporters obtained their information.

Most likely it came from anonymous sources — tips. Careers could be on the line if their names were known.

It’s important that the source of those tips be protected in fact and in public perception; otherwise an important safeguard for America’s democracy will be lost.

That is why a qualified reporter’s privilege needs to pass U.S. Senate.

The key word is “qualified.” Nobody is asking for total privilege for the news media. But it is reasonable that the federal government offer the same sort of reasonable and respectful privilege to the news media that exists in Florida and most of the states.
read more here

This Ain’t Hell blogger alerts Stars and Stripes duped by Army sergeant’s war claims

Stars and Stripes duped by Army sergeant’s war claims
By MARTIN KUZ
Stars and Stripes
Published: January 31, 2012

KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany — An Army reservist in Afghanistan with the 425th Civil Affairs Battalion who told Stars and Stripes that he deployed during the Vietnam War has come under military investigation for apparently lying about his prior combat service.

Staff Sgt. Larry Marquez, a civil affairs specialist, stated that he deployed to Cambodia in 1973 after enlisting at age 17 with his parents’ consent.

A story about Marquez ran under the headline “Vietnam vet joins ‘today’s war’ ” in Jan. 13 editions of Stars and Stripes and was also published on the newspaper’s website.

Stars and Stripes failed to perform basic fact-checking to verify any of Marquez’ claims about his service record. The newspaper was alerted to inconsistencies in Marquez’s account by a blogger, Jonn Lilyea, who runs the military blog “This Ain’t Hell.”

Lilyea raised questions about whether Marquez, whose current age Stars and Stripes reported as 55, would have been too young to serve during the Vietnam War. Lilyea also questioned the timing of Marquez’ alleged year-long deployment in Cambodia, given that most U.S. troops were withdrawn from Cambodia by the end of 1970 and from Vietnam in 1973.
read more here

Milblogs Go Silent Across the Internet

Milblogs Go Silent Across the Internet
Submitted by kpaul.mallasch
CYBERSPACE - On Wednesday, December 16 2009, many military blogs (milblogs) have decided to go silent for the day, while others are choosing to go silent for a longer period of time. This is happening because milblogs are facing an increasingly hostile environment from within the military.

According to Mr. Wolf of Blackfive.net, "While senior leadership has embraced blogging and social media, many field grade officers and senior NCOs do not embrace the concept. From general apathy in not wanting to deal with the issue to outright hositility to it, many commands are not only failing to support such activities, but are aggressively acting against active duty milbloggers, milspouses, and others. The number of such incidents appears to be growing, with milbloggers receiving reprimands, verbal and written, not only for their activities but those of spouses and supporters."
read more here
http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/21612

Why do some "military bloggers" support Bush still instead of the troops?

Some, not all, military bloggers kept screaming about supporting Bush because the troops were fighting in Iraq (but they kept forgetting about Afghanistan) and that it was our duty to support the "Commander-in-Chief" but well, with a new Commander-in-Chief trying to get it right in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of the troops that were not taken care of with plans to finish the missions, these same people decide they would rather lie about President Obama than actually do something to really help the troops.
Remarkable~

Ron Brynaert Military bloggers mock Obama with misleading video
Published: Wednesday March 4, 2009

A few military blogs who lean to the right are mocking President Obama with a video that compares how Marines reacted to his recent visit with one by former President George W. Bush.

The video includes the observation by a CNN reporter that Obama received only "a tepid response" during his speech to Marines last Friday.

"Ouch," Drew M. at Ace of Spades observes. "Why, it's almost like they would follow Bush to Hell and back. Oh wait, they did. It's going to be a very long 4 years."

However, while one of the top military blogs is claiming that both visits occurred at the same military base, Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, the clip of Bush actually was taken from his surprise Labor Day, 2007 visit to Iraq.

click link for more

Will Military Bloggers Support President Obama As Much As Bush?

Was supporting Bush no matter what he did about supporting the President as Commander-in-Chief or was it about Bush being a Republican?

I remember all the rants coming from supposedly "Patriotic Americans" when the Commander-in-Chief was Bill Clinton and it was bash after bash claiming he couldn't do anything right. It wasn't just the bloggers doing it but it was the Republican party in general.

When it came to Bush becoming president, the bashing was done on the other side, but no one on that side seemed to have the right to claim they were on the side of the troops against the president the way the anti-Clinton folks were able to get away with.

So now the tide has turned yet again. Since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone speaking out on the facts or asking for accountability was viewed as being the enemy, refusing to support the president as Commander-in-Chief, called anti-American and anti-military. Will the Military Bloggers regard President Obama in the same way they viewed President Bush or President Clinton?

Sorry but I just don't trust most of them and here are the reasons.

Naturally I'm on the outside of the military bloggers. I'm not welcomed among them. I tried for a couple of years because of the videos I do and though that they would be happy to pass them on for the sake of the troops and our veterans. That didn't work. Either I received an email telling me that I would not be included in their groups or received no email response at all. You'd think that since the videos I do on PTSD are non-political and provide support for the troops and veterans, they would be pushing these videos so that more would be able to find them, but then you'd also have to expect that when it came to the troops and veterans, politics was taken out.

While some called me a hero when they discovered some of my videos, sooner or later they dropped promoting the videos then either totally disregarded me or slammed me. Thankfully it was more ignoring me than slamming me. That's the first reason.

The next is my blog. Again, either it was ignored or slammed because while I fully support the troops and veterans, the Military Bloggers didn't like what I had to say about Bush. That's the second reason.

The other reason is that while they claim that it had nothing to do with being a Republican or Democrat, the defense of Bush, no matter what he did or didn't do, didn't end. All they had to do was look at the facts. Right up until this year, Iraq was a mess and it was not until the end of the Bush presidency things began to turn around in Iraq. None of them wondered why this had not happened before? Iraq was invaded in March of 2003 and this is 2008! Over five years into an occupation with 4,191 dead in Iraq and 626 dead in Afghanistan, why weren't they asking for changes in what was being done before? When others did demand changes to secure Iraq and bring the troops home, change the focus back to Afghanistan, they were called anti-war. It didn't seem to bother any of them the changes did not come until this year considering last year was not only the highest death rate in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.

When the reports came out about the way the wounded were being treated, or should I say ignored, none of them came out forcefully demanding the administration take action.

The list goes on. The response of the Military Bloggers will show if this was all about supporting the President as Commander-in-Chief or just supporting him as a Republican. So far most of the post I've read are against Obama. Let's see if the trend continues and then we'll know if this is about party or patriotism.

As for President Elect Obama, my side will hold him accountable the same way we did President Bush and Clinton. We will support him when he's right and "bash" him when he is wrong. We will, for the most part anyway. As for the troops and veterans, get ready to see what real support means because when it comes to them, they have a someone who is really on their side stepping in as Commander-in-Chief. He's proven that by what he's done since he entered the Senate. As for John McCain, well, his voting record has been against veterans but that didn't seem to bother most of the Military bloggers either. There are some who have been fair and balanced, but there are only a few I can think of.







Senior Chaplain Kathie Costos

Namguardianangel@aol.com

www.Namguardianangel.org

www.Woundedtimes.blogspot.com

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation." - George Washington

Army drafting new blogging guidelines

Army drafting new blogging guidelines
By Seth Robson, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, September 27, 2008



GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — The Army is working on a set of guidelines for soldiers’ conduct in online forums such as blogs and message boards, but it might be a while before the message reaches the troops.

The guidelines — a compilation of the scattered rules and regulations governing online activity by soldiers — will be included in a rewrite of Army public affairs regulations to be published in the next six months to two years, Department of the Army public affairs specialist Lindy Kyzer said in an e-mail. Soldiers will be told about the guidelines during pre-deployment public affairs training, she said.

But that doesn’t mean soldiers can blog with impunity until the new guidelines are published.

Operational security rules, which prohibit the publication by soldiers of classified or sensitive information, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, already limit what soldiers can do online, Kyzer said.

"What the new public affairs guidance … will provide is further clarification of what is acceptable in online postings or digital communication," she said.
go here for more
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=57702