More Flak from Military Public Affairs
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
29 July 2011
Over the past seven years, there has been a long string of issues flowing from military public affairs officers. Most of the PAs have been professional, but on balance the experience has been extremely negative. This is the opposite of what I've experienced with combat units, wherein the experiences have been overwhelmingly positive.
The latest meddling from Public Affairs began yesterday after I published photos supplied to me by the Army. The images show a young Afghan boy who stepped on a bomb. Apparently the Taliban made the boy step on the bomb which blew off part of his right leg. Our people at Task Force Spartan took him in for treatment. Distant busybodies in Public Affairs, who can’t seem to stand it when the military gets positive press, wanted the story taken down. (After FOX, Instapundit, and others ran the story.) They cited paragraph 21 of the embed ground rules. Perhaps they did not imagine that I would review paragraph 21. The paragraph is unrelated. The ground rules are published below.
Importantly, if it were against rules to publish photos of wounded locals, the Army would not have released this photo, which I made in 2005. Military Public Affairs released this photo (illegally, in breach of my copyright protections) before I did. Here is the photo of a young Iraqi girl, who died shortly before Public Affairs illegally released the photo: Little Girl.
And so if releasing this is against the rules, public affairs surely broke those rules when it suited them. However, paragraph 21 makes no such mention. There is nothing wrong or illegal against my releasing such images. Nothing is stated or implied that precludes release.
Distant Public Affairs officers are wasting the time of the busy combat leaders here. Public Affairs is wasting my time. Stop.
The outcome of this meddling will be published on my Facebook.
Please click to view the entire document.
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
| Recurring Paypal Support | One Time Paypal Support | For recurring or one-time donations through Authorize.net | ||
 |
||||
|
(Recurring subscriptions |
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Comments
"21b (4) Permission to interview or photograph a patient will be granted only with the consent of the attending physician or facility commander and with the patient's expressed, informed consent, witnessed by the escort. 'Informed consent' means the patient understands his or her picture and/or comments are being collected for news media purposes and they may appear in news media reports."
Can you produce credible evidence that the child and/or his parents received informed consent and gave their permission for you to publish his FACE?
Comparing this the "Little Girl" does not hold water. All that is visible is a bit of her hair and her feet.
Your motivations for publishing the photos of the boy are transparent. They are utterly self-serving and have nothing to do with making sure we know "The Truth".
I'm at work, so I've only briefly read your thread and the ISAF guidelines.
If there one main thing I learned while training and supporting NATO tools utilized in ISAF (as well as elsewhere NATO operates) is that they are very very very legalistic. You can tactically be 100% right but if you violate a FRAGO or treaty related requirement, everything is set up to be usable in a court. So for example, you're the CJ3 Dir of Ops at IJC and you make a "command decision", they want to be able to recreate WHEN WHAT and HOW you made the decision.
Keeping that in mind and also ISAF is 42+ nations with varying roles of engagement will be staffing their PAO and other positions. So today a US or Brit OF-3 (Maj or Lt Cmdr) might be cool with your photos and interpretation but next month the slot is filled by an Austrailan or Canadian who takes issue.
Hopefully that helps someone somewhere who deals with ISAF and gets confused.
WHO does it serve to publish such atrocities? A good writer can paint any picture they choose - with WORDS, no disrespectful photographs required. A good writer, who has respect for the work he does, and for the families of the dead children.
You wrote: "Para 21 states you won't release pictures of injured without a release from the host nation. In this case, it's a Afghan national, so it would be GIRoA."
No where does it state this. You magnificiently managed to misquote something that is right there above for all to see.
The rules could be clearer. When they mention "personnel" are Afghan civilians excluded? If not, then 21.(b)(4) would seem to apply. But ¶(4) says "facility commander" along with patient. Is that just military patient? In earlier media rule version ¶ 21 was ¶ 22.
V 1.1 Media Ground Rules
21. ... the following procedures and policies apply to coverage of wounded, injured, and ill personnel.
...
(b) Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties provided the following conditions are met:
(4) Permission to interview or photograph a patient will be granted only with the consent of the attending physician or facility commander and with the patient's expressed, informed consent, witnessed by the escort. "Informed consent" means the patient understands his or her picture and/or comments are being collected for news media purposes and they may appear in news media reports.
Sounds like you're either defending Rear Echelon PAO's or have other motivations.
And I would say that these guidelines do not apply.
Is it your contention that local children are not due the same level of dignity and respect as are U.S. personnel? That the "spirit" of the guidelines do not apply to them? If now, why?
REMF PAO's don't need me to defend them nor do I feel any motivation to do so.
If you want to keep drinking Yon's Koolaid, hitting his PayPal button and ignoring the man behind the curtain, have at it. It's understandable, given he makes P.T. Barnum look like a rank amateur. There's one born every minute, Matt.
News is news and in a world where the MSM does a poor job of reporting on events that are shaping our world every honest voice that has something useful to say is valuable.
The comment by Kriste criticising the use of the photo of the murdered boy is misinterpretati on of sloppily drafted rules.
The rules are "For the safety and security of ISAF Forces and embedded media, media will adhere to the below established ground rules." The publication of a photo of a murdered boy when the military had specifically released the story cannot affect the safety or security of ISAF forces.
21a is solely about ISAF personnel.
21b1 and 21b5 are specifically about ISAF personnel.
21b2 is written to imply ISAF medical facilities.
21b3 refers to "personnel" and implies ISAF personnel. If the word "people" had been used, this implication would not be so plain.
21b4 in this case depends on the "attending physician" and the next of kin. The unfortunate child's parents are the only people in a position to represent the child's consent.
Hekmatyr, the Haqqanis, and the others are using the same tactics as the Mexican drug lords.
As America turns its head, the horrors have escalated. It's not propaganda. It's a wake up call to what we will once again leave behind in my humble opinion.
Though differing opinions are welcome, propaganda and outright falsehoods (or gratuitous vulgarity) are about the only things that will get a commenter banned from this free website. A couple of commenters on this string have followed the path of Jim Hansen. Jim Hansen is fortunate that banning is all that occured; libel, slander, and defamation are serious matters.
2. Yes the children deserve respect and that's what Michael gave back to them since the Taliban took all their respect from them by killing and hurting them.
3. Stop bellyaching. If you want to preach, take your soapbox to Congress. Congress destroyed our ability to fight the war in Vietnam and they are trying to do it again in the war against the Taliban and Al Quida. The Taliban and Al Quida Lobbyist in Washington continue to fatten the bellies of Congress while our troops are trying to win the war.
Quoting Lorraine:
Kriste, the discussion thread is based on the Ground Rules. Your moralistic attempt to inject a totally different basis of discussion is disgusting. Michael has given back, to the children, the respect that the Taliban took from them. He's allowed us to collectively grieve and pray for them. That's a lot more than the Taliban gave them by killing them. Michael enhanced the Rules by telling the truth. A truth that would appear you don't want told, therefore, we can only conclude that your simpathies and support are with the Taliban.
The linked photo, of a crying baby in the ruins of Shanghai after a 1937 Japanese bombing, was IIRC an important motivator for support for rearmament and then war by the American public. Pictures can have a much, much more powerful effect than words. Thus it would seem appropriate to publish such images where more than mere entertainment is at issue.
Of course, they can also be staged, such as recently with polar bears, baby seals, and in 1937 IIRC, the Shanghai baby. (The photographer borrowed the baby and set him in the street- the tears were most likely for separation from mama.)
(I should add: please don't take the above factoid as a comment about Michael Yon. Although I do not always agree with him I see him as a person of high integrity who would not stage anything. My point was the impact of the 1937 photo, staged or not.)
americanphotoar chive.photoshelter.com/image/I0000xS7F4v951B8
I really believe that is a taliban lobby in DC
This is likely what they acted on here. Yet when everything seems to have been done correctly and its already approved and published, what are you doing?
Please do conclude that my sympathies are with the Taliban. They are not at all with the man I love more than anything on this earth --or his Team- who will be deploying to Afghanistan in a few short weeks. A man whose Team has done far more than Michael Yon ever can or will for the women and children of Afghanistan.
Yes, I'm sure that anyone who expresses an opinion that does not toe Yon's line must be a Taliban sympathizer and worthy of your scorn.
My question is quite valid. Why was this child and his family not granted the same dignity and respect that is granted to American's and NATO forces? Are they somehow "less than"?
"Allowed us to collectively grieve." Could you be any more arrogant? That is a decision to be made by the child's family, not you, not Yon, not anybody.
We have been getting such watered down spoonfed media for so long. We forget that it is the hard truth that makes things change. I have read Michael's posts since the beginning and I really haven't seen the 'self-serving' motivations you refer. Does he have to sell product to pay for what he does and make a living? Sure he does. But he was paying for everything out of his own pocket when he first went and he does risk his life to tell the story so I hope he makes a ton of money doing it, IMHO he deserves every penny. I pray for your husband and team for a safe return, thank you Kriste and your husband for your service.
My thanks to you (and Peter above) for your kind words.
I would elaborate --factually- as to why I find Yon's actions self-serving. Unfortunately, it would be a waste of my time. I've already done so and Yon chose to censor my comments, along with those of several other subject matter experts who raised valid, fact-based concerns.
ie He deleted them, claiming they were "propaganda and outright falsehoods" and, yet again, started carrying on about Jim Hansen and the Canadians.
Diversionary tactics and censoring dissent are his ideas of Speaking the Truth. If you haven't figured that out by now, I'm afraid there is nothing I will be allowed to say in this forum that would enlighten you.
FWIW, I have seen a lot of quibbling between good people over stupid stuff. I Have also learned to expect unexpected retaliation from unexpected sources for Canadian Eh's!
So while at first glance the photo may not be that big of a deal, a good PAO can have his outreach enhanced or degraded by a photograph. Perhaps this was the case. Then Mr Yon is owed a calm and precise explanation and not some Authoritarian Screed and suggestive hints about..., shh! something else...!
Michael provides a valuable service, cheap.
We have a lost a lot of good Canadians over there. Our politicians love to create new euphamisms to spare the public the truth.
Politicians and some of our"leaders" are the biggest threat to our democracy.Their lies damage all our credibility.
Apparently their oaths before God are only convenient when the pay cheque arrives.
This blog is important to democracy. Between the law society that grants terrorists legal protections and rights and the high levels of drug corruption in Canada I am very concerned for our future.
God Bless you Mike and all our American brothers and sisters.
During WWII, censorship was extremely tight for filings from the front along with troops' personal correspondence.There wasn't a choice, so what several correspondents, such as John Hersey, did during the war was to take time off and write what they couldn't release from the war theatre so it wasn't forgotten by them and others.It helped to maintain some semblance of sanity at times.It was only, later, they published the work. So hang on to whatever you can get.Ignorance proliferates- inside and outside of battle.
I'm sorry, they are hassling you so unnecessarily.
I may not personally agree with her message but I do believe she should not be silenced is she chooses to voice it. You can't always be right but you can always be respected if you let your readership challenge and decide for themselves.
Thank you for all your work.
RSS feed for comments to this post