Unprevilidged Billergents

Unprevilidged Billergents (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:08:47 PM)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-dod-manual-journalists_55dd6b14e4b0a40aa3acc576?cps=gravity_2425_-1752368580054525173&kvcommref=mostpopular Seems DOD came out with a new manual that could restrict journalists, even punish them, when it comes to the military. I have mixed feelings both pro and con. How about you? I think operational security can over ride the peoples right to know. But I don't have a problem reporting after the fact as long as future operational security isn't involved. One example would be that a journalist might be inclined (stupid to do so) to publish the home and address of a Special Forces Operator who did something. This would endanger both the soldier and his family potentially. But if he wanted to report on the action without the names, etc. then I am all for it.

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:24:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I think operational security can over ride the peoples right to know. But I don't have a problem reporting after the fact as long as future operational security isn't involved. Cam-ne comes to mind. quote: One example would be that a journalist might be inclined (stupid to do so) to publish the home and address of a Special Forces Operator who did something. This would endanger both the soldier and his family potentially. But if he wanted to report on the action without the names, etc. then I am all for it. I don't kow about now but when I was in the service every time you did diddly your local hometown newspaper got a blurb from the pio stating that sgt so and so just deployed/returned from deployment/been promoted/just graduated/just received /just transfered...etc. Someone serious about this sort of thing would have easy access to lots of data. Unless we create a police state there are just so many beds we can look under to find commies/terrorists/islamists or the fear de jour.

KenDckey -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:35:35 PM)
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/01/fbi-warns-troops-to-scrub-social-media-to-prevent-isis-attacks.html Times be a changed. When I was in, the PIO wanted all the good publicity possible. During Nam, most wanted journalists shot for all the anti-war journalism. It is a fine line. But if a journalist is reporting on the grid coordinates of troops, weapons, ammo, etc. I would have a huge issue. I personally am not even comfy with them reporting deployments and deactivations/activations. but that is my problem. the military doesn't seem to have a major issue there.

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:39:01 PM)
The coordinants of cam-ne were no sectet.

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:40:09 PM)
double post

KenDckey -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:41:39 PM)
But what about that convoy moving down highway one that had to stop for some reason?

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:44:11 PM)
quote: During Nam, most wanted journalists shot for all the anti-war journalism. That seems a little anti first ammendment doesn't it? Was there something in the constitution that requires the press to pimp every adventure on which the president decides to spend our national treasure of blood and money?

KenDckey -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:46:31 PM)
I thin the emphasis there was wanted. There wasn't a do there. Desire is ok, doing not without the proper trial, conviction, etc. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/01/fbi-warns-troops-to-scrub-social-media-to-prevent-isis-attacks.html Here is something a bit more current from the fbi and dhs that is relavent.

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey But what about that convoy moving down highway one that had to stop for some reason? It would certainly stand to reason that a reporter would do something that would put themselves directly in the line of fire...like broadcasting his position.[8\|]

KenDckey -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:47:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey But what about that convoy moving down highway one that had to stop for some reason? It would certainly stand to reason that a reporter would do something that would put themselves directly in the line of fire...like broadcasting his position.[8\|] I know that idiot.

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 3:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I would have thought normal censorship would have prevailed.

joether -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/8/2015 4:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-dod-manual-journalists_55dd6b14e4b0a40aa3acc576?cps=gravity_2425_-1752368580054525173&kvcommref=mostpopular Seems DOD came out with a new manual that could restrict journalists, even punish them, when it comes to the military. I have mixed feelings both pro and con. How about you? I think operational security can over ride the peoples right to know. But I don't have a problem reporting after the fact as long as future operational security isn't involved. One example would be that a journalist might be inclined (stupid to do so) to publish the home and address of a Special Forces Operator who did something. This would endanger both the soldier and his family potentially. But if he wanted to report on the action without the names, etc. then I am all for it. There could be problems down the road. On one had, I understand the military's desire to keep information hidden from the press. On the other, this gives authority for a person representing the United States of America (i.e. the government) to detain and hold a fellow US Citizen without proper cause (i.e. accused of a direct violation of the law). I think the military might want to define this area a bit better.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/9/2015 6:22:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-dod-manual-journalists_55dd6b14e4b0a40aa3acc576?cps=gravity_2425_-1752368580054525173&kvcommref=mostpopular Seems DOD came out with a new manual that could restrict journalists, even punish them, when it comes to the military. I have mixed feelings both pro and con. How about you? I think operational security can over ride the peoples right to know. But I don't have a problem reporting after the fact as long as future operational security isn't involved. One example would be that a journalist might be inclined (stupid to do so) to publish the home and address of a Special Forces Operator who did something. This would endanger both the soldier and his family potentially. But if he wanted to report on the action without the names, etc. then I am all for it. I do think national and operational security is very important, and shouldn't be compromised by journalists. While I appreciate the reporting of action from close, I'm more interested in our troops being successful, and as safe as possible while engaged. The problem with "operational security" (or "national security") being the criterion is that we have to trust the person/people making the decision as to whether or not security would be compromised. The way the Federal Government (this Administration and previous ones) twist things and attempt to rationalize should raise red flags for every US Citizen.

hot4bondage -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/9/2015 7:45:28 AM)
Wikipedia has an interesting page on embedded journalism, along with several related links. Seems like a very short leash. Probably crucial when dealing with someone like Geraldo Rivera. Maybe not so much with a reporter who is familiar with and respectful of operational security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalism

Musicmystery -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/9/2015 7:49:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/01/fbi-warns-troops-to-scrub-social-media-to-prevent-isis-attacks.html Times be a changed. When I was in, the PIO wanted all the good publicity possible. During Nam, most wanted journalists shot for all the anti-war journalism. It is a fine line. But if a journalist is reporting on the grid coordinates of troops, weapons, ammo, etc. I would have a huge issue. I personally am not even comfy with them reporting deployments and deactivations/activations. but that is my problem. the military doesn't seem to have a major issue there. In Vietnam, seeing all those coffins come home woke people up to the reality of the conflict. In Iraq, media blackouts kept people from seeing the real cost. War is not a game. People need to get that. If that takes open media, grand. A larger problem from the media coverage perspective is that actual journalism today is dead. It's more a rumor-repeating-plagiarism system largely devoid of fact-checking or follow-up and further investigation. You know...the actual work of journalism.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/9/2015 8:34:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Wikipedia has an interesting page on embedded journalism, along with several related links. Seems like a very short leash. Probably crucial when dealing with someone like Geraldo Rivera. Maybe not so much with a reporter who is familiar with and respectful of operational security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalism I'm sure there is a short leash. I think there should be. Geraldo... lol. He wasn't even a good shock show host. I suppose the only thing he's actually good for is ratings, as he seems to keep having a job, regardless of his ability. I'm not even saying that the embedded reporters we've already experienced have been all that bad. I'm not even sure if any of them have caused much of a problem. I'm more concerned over what is determined to be "national/operational" security and, therefore, off limits. I'm concerned over the abuse of power or the ease at which someone could abuse that power.

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/10/2015 9:23:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey But what about that convoy moving down highway one that had to stop for some reason? It would certainly stand to reason that a reporter would do something that would put themselves directly in the line of fire...like broadcasting his position.[8\|] I know that idiot. It was your hypothetical.

Aylee -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/10/2015 4:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-dod-manual-journalists_55dd6b14e4b0a40aa3acc576?cps=gravity_2425_-1752368580054525173&kvcommref=mostpopular Seems DOD came out with a new manual that could restrict journalists, even punish them, when it comes to the military. I have mixed feelings both pro and con. How about you? I think operational security can over ride the peoples right to know. But I don't have a problem reporting after the fact as long as future operational security isn't involved. One example would be that a journalist might be inclined (stupid to do so) to publish the home and address of a Special Forces Operator who did something. This would endanger both the soldier and his family potentially. But if he wanted to report on the action without the names, etc. then I am all for it. Ken, you are a lot nicer than I am. Personally, I would have a lot of so-called journalists and NGO members shot for treason. Specifically supplying "aid and comfort to the enemy." Let's face it, they are NOT on the side of the US troops. I do not care what they claim.

KenDckey -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/10/2015 5:07:50 PM)
Aylee I am not overly in favor of execution, however, it might be a good deterant if used a time or two. LOL

thompsonx -> RE: Unprevilidged Billergents (9/10/2015 6:27:46 PM)
quote: Let's face it, they are NOT on the side of the US troops. I do not care what they claim. They are on the side of the amerikan people. If they were on the same side as the troops they would be in uniform.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125