Military Personnel/Public Servants selling their stories
Coldred
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
As discussed in the chat thread.
MoD ban on troops selling stories
Essentially this comes from the recent Iranian thing, where a number of the hostages/prisoners/whatever have sold their stories to the press for a tidy sum (some have said they would donate the money to charity, which sort of absolves them.)
Personally I think this is pretty distasteful, where profit is made from this situation. Whilst I understand that they are free to sell whatever story they want, the MoD is clearly (IMO) also free to fire/discharge them for it and I believe that it reflects quite poorly on both the personnel and the MoD itself. So guys, what do you think?
MoD ban on troops selling stories
The Ministry of Defence has banned personnel from selling their stories to the media until a review of the rules governing the issue is completed.
Defence Secretary Des Browne said the review was aimed at making rules consistent across the armed forces.
It follows a row after two Navy crew members held in Iran sold stories.
Leading Seaman Faye Turney sold her story to ITV1's Trevor Macdonald and the Sun newspaper - reportedly for a six-figure sum.
Essentially this comes from the recent Iranian thing, where a number of the hostages/prisoners/whatever have sold their stories to the press for a tidy sum (some have said they would donate the money to charity, which sort of absolves them.)
Personally I think this is pretty distasteful, where profit is made from this situation. Whilst I understand that they are free to sell whatever story they want, the MoD is clearly (IMO) also free to fire/discharge them for it and I believe that it reflects quite poorly on both the personnel and the MoD itself. So guys, what do you think?
Coldred on
0
Posts
There is nothing about this case that gives the personnel more of a right to sell their story than any other member of our armed forces. We need a blanket policy that applies to all of our service personnel equally, not a case by case policy.They all put their lives at risk and the specifics of the risk should be immaterial when it comes to deciding whether or not they can sell their story.
Personally I think there should be a ban on selling your story for the duration of the conflict at the very least. After the conflict ends, I'm undecided at the moment. There are good arguments for and against.
Should they be able to profit from it though? I have no problem with (classification permitting) them telling their stories, I just think it's a bit suspect to be getting money for it. Hell, some of them have even approached that arsehole Max Clifford for advise on what to do.
How is selling their military stories any different than selling other kinds of life stories?
They already showed dishonor in their actions in Iran, forced or not, do they really need to sell a memoir yet?
If I worked for let's say IBM, and sold a story to the press about life at IBM, wouldn't they be within their rights to tell me, "No, you can't do that, if you do you're fired sunny Jim"? Once they've left the forces they can write books, sell their stories, whatever, but at the moment, as military personnel, the MoD can ban them from doing this. And it's my belief that they should, as this sort of thing seems crass and cynical.
Part of me wants to say that this would be good because it allows the public to see what war means to the individual servicemen, but I doubt that is the reason any of them would do it.
I think it should be possible to craft a system whereby there is a ban on stories during a conflict and a moratorium afterwards. That would allow career officers to give their story without having to leave the forces first, whilst making sure that the forces don't have to undergo a media circus in the middle of a conflict.
That's the minimum it takes to de-classify things.
That's the minimum they should wait to talk.
However, in cases where the person is still actively serving (or the conflict he was involved in still ongoing), they should have to submit what they're going to say to the government first, for two reasons. The first is the aforementioned sensitive information thing. The second is that otherwise, the incentive to embellish is too great, and they could also portray other people in the military they simply didn't like as horrible jackasses, which would decrease cohesiveness in the unit and lower morale.
But if they just want to tell their story the way it happened (without giving away military secrets)? I think they've earned the right.
That is completely irrelevant, since they aren't including classified information in their books.
I don't think it would be within their rights. As long as you don't reveal any business-sensitive information and as long as you don't slander the reputation of the company, you can very well write a book about your life at IBM.
How do you know this?
Do you think Joe random navy guy is consciously aware of which minute details of his story may be classified? I doubt it.
This is why US servicemen and civilians who have clearances of TS or above are required to submit materials to Special Security Offices: To make sure they do not inadvertently divulge classified information.
Robert Baer, a former CIA agent, has had multiple pages censored out of his books because of their sensitivity.
actually, Ice... bawwaaahaaaaaas what a pig fucker... man, the news piece is talking specifically about them selling their stories and not giving them away for free. Every single quote in it, talks about money or are quotes from the kidnappies talking about how they were tortured and were afraid no one would ever learn about it.
The link does not actually include words like classified or security or secret or anything remotely along those line.
Selling their stories for money is in poor taste considering that they are alive and there are plenty of folks who are not.
I think the MoD might have just had a word or two with them beforehand about what they couldn't say.
We've sidetracked a bit. This thread seems to be about the ethics of allowing the sailors to tell their story, regardless of content.
That said, if you work in that environment long enough, you become desensitized to what is and isn't classified, and what effect that information may have if released. Speaking from experience, you just stop thinking about it when you're in an environment that is not prohibitive, and you catch yourself screwing up quite frequently.
This is one reason why they would need someone over their shoulder.
But again, doesn't seem to be the aim of this thread.
I wasn't saying that anything that happened was classified or whatnot. It probably is/was/will be, but thats neither here nor there.
My point was simply that in general, the military waits 25 years to release sensitive information.
And yes, most people who have had something they did classified DO know the EXACT date they can speak of said events.
Case in point, on my campus, a retired pilot who used to head up my AF ROTC unit was a pilot of a C-130 (I may be incorrect on the aircraft, but it was a large cargo plane) during the cold war. His mission was to recover our satellites that would fall into international waters.
He told me about it about a week before the story hit. So yes, I'm pretty certain that Joe Military knows exactly when they can talk.
EDIT:
Also, CIA is not US military. They have their own policies and such.
Also, anything I'm saying comes for the Air Force perspective of things, so it might differ branch to branch, and certainly country to country.
How would you say this can/should be applied to things like imbed reporters and films such as The Road to Guantanamo or some other movies (which were more focused on soldiers serving, but whose names escape me) that try and bring the truth on the ground back home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6542599.stm
I love that they're releasing a CD, a book and a film all at once. I hope there'll be a picture book too.
we have libel, defamation and fraud laws to protect against personal attacks and lying. we have criminal sanctions to protect against disclosing classified information.
i don't see why public servants (military or otherwise) should be put under a different set of rules. the rules should apply to information, not to occupation.