The vague term ‘New Media’ popularly refers to the recent phenomena of amateur, semi-professional, and professional online journalists (often called bloggers). While I am a researcher and not a journalist in any form, my site War & Health uses blogging software, and it were my writings on War & Health that got me invited by the Department of Defense (DoD) to deploy with the USS Kearsarge.
As a researcher, one of my reasons for embarking was to get some understanding on how the Navy is engaging the New Media. After a week onboard I think I am able to make a few pedestrian observations.
First, the Navy is eager to engage the New Media. For the USS Kearsarge deployment, it was the Navy and not the New Media that first proposed inviting online journalists onboard. While onboard, the online journalists have had almost complete access to the ship and its crew. I have run across only two locations on the ship inaccessible to the online journalists. Everywhere else, from the bridge to engineering are open to journalists without restrictions on photography or reporting (besides OPSEC). As an anecdotal example, David Axe, online reporter for Wired.com, met the Commanding Officer of the Marine CH-53E squadron onboard and within a couple days David and myself were given a complete tour of the helicopter’s avionics on the flight deck during nighttime flight operations.
Second, there has been zero censorship of the New Media onboard. The online journalists on the Kearsarge are the responsibility of the Public Affairs Office (PAO). Nobody in the PAO or rest of the Navy clears the photographs or articles published by the online journalists. Throughout the deployment, the PAO has been commendably accommodating. The role of the PAO so far could best be described as “fixers”, arranging interviews and giving directions and tours when requested by New Media journalists.
Third, the Navy is still learning how to engage the New Media. This deployment represents the first time the New Media has been invited to report during a Navy operation and there were some major issues that came up, primarily internet access. The online journalists do not have the DoD login required to use the ship’s computers and cannot connect their own computers to the ship’s network. Thus, for the first couple days, the only way for the New Media to file stories was to ask servicemen to borrow their unclassified terminals for a few minutes. This point was the major frustration for the New Media since, by definition, they require sustained internet access. Personally, in the first two days the only thing I was able to accomplish online was an email to my wife (luckily research is less time sensitive than journalism).
However, the Navy has been quick to identify the problems of the New Media onboard and placed significant resources (and a great IT staff working almost around the clock) into resolving them. Regarding internet access, by the fifth day an “NGO Café” was opened in two rooms off the gym, complete with laptop computers and unrestricted internet access (something even the officers and crew do not enjoy). Since opening, everyone from the Commodore on down has stopped by the NGO Café to make sure the New Media is happy with the Café.
Did the Navy drop the ball at times? Absolutely. I have a laundry list of errors and problems in my notes. But, problems are bound to crop up when trying something new and the Navy’s New Media experiment is not (and should not be considered) exceptional. But throughout the seven days I have been onboard, the Navy has shown an impressive eagerness and willingness to engage the New Media, time and again bending rules to cater to the needs of the online journalists onboard.
Matt Armstrong (AKA MountainRunner) has been publishing a blogging tour de force during the last few weeks and has established himself as the most prominent voice on public diplomacy in the blogosphere. If you are not reading his blog yet, here are four posts that will convince you otherwise:
AFRICOM: DOA or in Need of Better Marketing? No and Yes.
Like Mark Twain’s “death” in 1897 (he died in 1910), reports of AFRICOM’s demise may be exaggerated. Concerns that AFRICOM hasn’t been thought out or is unnecessary aren’t supported by the actions and statements of those charged with building this entity. However, based on the poor marketing of AFRICOM, these concerns are not surprising.
I attended USC’s AFRICOM conference earlier this month and between panel discussions and offline conversations, I came away with a new appreciation (and hope) for the newest, and very different, command. …
Measuring “Public Diplomacy”?
What “nine annual and long-term outcomes” would you use to measure America’s public diplomacy apparatus? State has apparently found them.
The American concept of “public diplomacy” is a strange one. As Americans, we seek a return on our investments. It’s in our blood. If there is no clear payback, then there’s no clear value and there’s no reason to continue. Public diplomacy is no different as we, unique to perhaps the rest of the world, view it as discrete cylinder of excellence that must be measured to prove its worth. Numerous reports as well as historic and recent prominent officials have noted, public diplomacy is presented as something that lacks a domestic constituency and thus support for its programs must be somehow explained. …
Not Afraid to Talk: our adversaries aren’t, why are we?
To begin with, we must accept that the romantic days of the United States Information Agency are gone. So many confuse the USIA and the other information services, such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, of recent decades with the USIA that was engaged in the active psychological struggle that largely ended with détente and the finalizing of the European partition. It was only after this aggressive period ended was “public diplomacy” coined, twelve years after USIA was created.
Unlike half a century ago, the U.S. military has a clear voice and is arguably our dominant public diplomat. Therefore, simply resurrecting “USIA” without reorganizing our national information capabilities across civilian and military lines would turn it into just another voice struggling to be heard over America’s military commanders, spokespersons, and warfighters. …
Synchronizing Information: The Importance of New Media in Conflict
The effectiveness of information campaigns today will more often dictate a victory than how well bullets and bombs are put on a target. Putting information on target is more important when dealing with an asymmetric adversary that cannot – and does not need to – match the military or economic power of the United States and her allies.
Insurgents and terrorists increasingly leverage New Media to shape perceptions around the globe to be attractive to some and intimidating to others. New Media collapses traditional concepts of time and space as information moves around the world in an instant. Unlike traditional media, search engines and the web in general, enable information, factual or not, to be quickly and easily accessed long after it was created.
The result is a shift in the purpose of physical engagement to increasingly incorporate the information effect of words and deeds. Thus, the purpose of improvised explosive devices, for example, is not to kill or maim Americans but to replay images of David sticking it to Goliath. …
As readers, publishers, and proponents of “new media”, we need to push blogging as a platform for intelligent, quality content and discussion relevant to professionals in our field. Not simply a place to post about our pets. I am glad to see the conflict/IR blogosphere making steady progress in that direction.