Muzzling the Military?

The Ministry of Defence has been accused of censorship and attempting to muzzle serving personnel’s ability to contact the press by publication of its media policy. The DIN (which can be found here) was seen in some parts of social media as an attack on fundamental ability of personnel to raise concerns and the press to hold the MOD to account. Is this fair criticism, is this a new policy and why would the MOD be so restrictive to how its people communicate about their work?

From the outset, its important to be clear, despite the perception that some have, this is not a new policy document. In fact, complaints about this policy surface relatively regularly, with a Guardian article from 2007 being the earliest example of complaints about it. The DIN itself was first published online in 2008, so its been around for about 13 years – so hardly a new story. What seems to have occurred is the latest version of it has been issued online, hence the response.

4.5 Media Contact Policy - ENGAGE- Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

Why would the MOD want to constrain the ability of personnel to talk to the press or Parliamentarians? There would be several ways that this could happen – for example, there is a desire to prevent people talking on subjects of operational significance.

In practical terms, with the plethora of ongoing operations around the world, there is always a risk that information could be compromised – often inadvertently. All it takes is one mistimed press release, or a tweet out of context and suddenly information could be given away that could jepoardise an operation.

This is easier than you may think – for example a few years ago there were twitter accounts from the crew of a deployed RN warship who were posting about the fact that it should have been ‘channel night’ (the last night away), that instead they were sailing early and that it was 2-3 months before they returned home. This gets even more concerning when you realise that the ship in question was in an operational theatre and had been retasked to carry out a high profile public mission without a stated end date.

Were this being followed by media or hostile foreign intelligence services, they would have known where the ship was, that she was off to sea and to expect her presence for some time to come. Giving away critical information of operational importance through a single tweet chain is easily done and can have lethal consequences.

Similarly blogging when done without thinking can have potentially challenging consequences. Humphrey once came across a blog describing in eye popping detail the mobilisation process and operational details of some RN Reservists deployed to carry out ship protection duties in the Middle East – clearly done as a tour record and memories of a deployment, it gave away equipment, tactics and operational routines, while also being deeply critical of personalities. In other words an intelligence and media goldmine.

More widely there is a risk of talking to the media without necessarily having full awareness of a situation. This can often result in stories that are inaccurate or put the individual in a place where they give answers that can disrupt the carefully crafted communications campaign around a particular issue.

For example, during the Novichok crisis, the point where highly effective UK messaging was lost was during a weekend when an interview was carried out with a DSTL member of staff who answered questions outside their area of expertise. The ensuing story, which was spun that the UK had not been able to identify the source of the Novichok, was quickly turned around to suggest that the UK had been involved in some way – disrupting an until that point very effectively run campaign.

From a military perspective, the risk is that people may want to sound alarms about issues they care deeply about, but not necessarily having the full picture. For example during HERRICK there was a lot of coverage of issues involved in getting kit out to the front line, and spare parts.

One of the damning stories involved someone contacting the media to talk about how their US supplied vehicles had no spare parts provided, and they needed to ring up the manufacturer to get more. This quickly became a splash, with concern that the MOD didn’t care, and was dispatching troops to the front line without sufficient equipment and support.

It made a great headline, but the truth was more complex. The vehicles did have spare parts, but because they’d been bought in a hurry to meet the UOR needs, the spare parts needed hadn’t been codified yet to be in the distribution system to order correctly, because the priority was deemed to be getting the vehicles at any cost to Afghanistan to support the troops. Consequently huge work was underway to fix the issue, but in the haste to be seen to solve the problem, the usual intermediate step of getting a vehicle to work out what was needed and ensure it was correctly recorded and on the system hadn’t happened.

It’s a much more dull story – namely admin delays urgent purchase because process wasn’t followed, but had the person who contacted the press been aware of this, its less likely they’d have followed through.  Suddenly a desire to suggest people don’t contact the media without good reason and working via their press office seems sensible if they are going to engage with very professional people, seasoned in getting a good story, without being in full possession of all the pertinent facts.

It is perhaps finally worth remembering that one reason for controlling access to the media is to ensure that people are properly briefed and go out able to confidently answer questions in full possession of the facts and not make small errors. The fact that General Carter, the Chief of Defence Staff referred in his press conference today to ‘HMS ARGUS’ rather than ‘RFA ARGUS’ is a good example of making a minor mistake that will be noticed and commented on by a lot of people who will be put out by it, or feel less confidence that CDS is in full control if he doesn’t know the difference between an RFA and an HMS – a small but important difference that matters to a lot of people.

The question is though, whether the policy is proportionate or appropriate to the task? Reading through it there are some fairly draconian rules about seeking permission to do just about anything, including using the internet to post. The level of control that the MOD seeks to exert over its entire workforce at all times is incredibly significant, and potentially quite unsettling.

On the one hand the rules about contact with the press seem entirely sensible. Its essentially saying - If you are not trained in working with the media, are not clued in on an issue or the lines to take, background and full context, then please don’t go and talk to the press about your work.

It is likely that most companies or organisations of any size have a similar policy regarding contact with the press. For example, NHS England has a policy on page 12 of this document requiring staff to not engage in ad hoc manner with media.

This policy reflects the tensions inherent in the relationship between an organisation engaged in, at times, contentious work, and the media who want to get a story. The organisation wants to ensure that its perspective is put across, the media want a story that tells more – if they can get a good quote, or an observation that is usable to turn into a story they will.

Media is an incredibly cutthroat world where you are only as good as your next story. The pressure to succeed is huge, the reality that if you fail to deliver good stories or copy means you are impacting on the papers bottom line is keenly felt, and there is a long line of people willing to come and replace you if you fail. At times like this, getting good breaking stories, even if it isn’t the whole story, or if it comes at it from another angle is understandable – why wouldn’t you want to run with something that gets you printed?

So, setting boundaries for the military on what to do and not do in a professional capacity makes a lot of sense, and is understandable. Is it feasible though in a social media age, and how does it square with wider behaviours?

Part of the problem is that the policy is not exactly the most speedy or agile of reads – if it was an RAF project, it would definitely be on the list of ‘things that Astra has to fix’. It is clunky, long and reads like a policy document that answers lots of perceived problems, without asking how the intended audience are likely to interpret it. 

It gives the sense of being one of those documents that is going to be stuck on the ‘wall of death’ in most units, right next to the Health & Safety mission statement notices and other assorted documents that don’t change from one monarch to the next. Rumour has it that foreign intelligence agencies encourage their sources to leave Top Secret documents for pick up in this wall, precisely because no one reads it and would never spot the document nestling there…

All flippancy aside, the policy is long on words, short on quick takeaways that you can sell to your people as a junior platoon sgt. It also feels that it is heavy on cracking down on contact with the internet, as if it remains some kind of mysterious beast circa 1998 .The Army Digital Social media guide is arguably a much better read in terms of audience accessibility. 

The problem is that in an age when people live online, asking them to avoid contact with journalists, or avoid publishing blogs without permission, or other such activities represents an effort to control that is doomed to fail.

For starters, unlike even when the policy first came out, the ability for people to come into contact with journalists online is ridiculously easy. Social media is full of threads where people comment and express views – expecting your workforce to report every contact is doomed to fail – should you report a ‘like’, a twitter engagement or a DM? Is engaging in polite and appropriate discussion on defence issues okay on a Sunday afternoon when talking about an article of the day, or should you stay silent?

The problem is that expecting people to not engage is doomed to failure, but there is a wider question of trust here. Its one thing to expect people to not ‘act like a dick’ and break well established rules of engagement – don’t get shouty, don’t abuse people and don’t leak official papers on twitter – at least do it with some style on a canal towpath. Clamping down on those who break an acceptable use policy is one thing – there is nothing worse than having someone acting in a hugely offensive manner online when they represent an organisation.

But, where things get more uncomfortable is when the ability to exploit the internet to shape and debate is lost for fear of what might happen. Rather than vetoing contact and directing people to DDC, why not give people some latitude to represent themselves, and talk about their mission / unit / role?

Would a more effective way of engaging be to give troops a social media briefing on the limits of what can be discussed with media people, and when to direct people to speak to a press office, rather than assuming people are automatically going to screw up?  Also, what is media, and how do you train people to spot a genuine media approach, versus a journalist using a fake twitter or facebook profile? Where do we draw the boundary – is it fleet street journalists, online journals or producers of tiktok videos? What is media for the purposes of this DIN?

There is too not a uniform application of policy – while there is a strong presumption against speaking out on some issues, or of seeking permission, sites like the Wavell Room have flourished despite lacking any official sponsorship. How can the MOD enforce policy of ‘not commenting on Defence online’ on one person talking on one site if other areas are actively thriving precisely because they permit troops to comment anonymously online?

In addition there is an issue around how the culture of not speaking to media and not leaking seems to go by the wayside above a certain level. There are the long-standing jokes about how you know the progress of a defence review by the nature of the options being leaked – but it is precisely this behaviour that encourages and normalises the leaking culture. If you don’t want people to leak to journalists or speak to them, then Service seniors need to stop having ‘off the record’ inspired chats or using third parties to speak on their behalf. There is a strong argument that people should either play the game fully or stop pretending and let everyone have a go.

That said, Humphrey is genuinely frustrated by those who leak without using the internal options open to them to raise issues or concerns. In an organisation as vast as Defence there is always more than one perspective to a story, hence a range of ways to allow people to raise concerns, complaints, and if needs be act as a whistleblower. If you are in a position where you are sufficiently concerned on an issue to leak it to the press, it has to be asked – why didn’t you follow the existing tools open to you first to raise your concerns via due process?

There was some concern expressed by media on twitter that this latest policy document would act as a form of censorship, preventing stories from being told. Arguably this is not the case – the policy is over 13 years old, yet in that time there has continued to be a range of defence stories in all the major papers – it hasn’t stopped people getting in contact with the media, nor leaking to them when required.

More to the point, its worth asking if the MOD is exactly alone in enforcing these sorts of stipulations. The fact is, it isn’t. Most companies have a social media policy that sets out very clearly the expectations of people, and how they should, or should not conduct themselves online.

As part of the research for this piece, Humphrey read several different public and private sector organisations acceptable use policy and came to the conclusion that, to be honest, the MOD is not better or worse than most other employers in what it expects its people to do and say online when talking on their subject of interest.

A good example of a strong effective social media policy is one from the BBC which states:

“ You shouldn't state your political preferences or say anything that compromises your

impartiality. Don't sound off about things in an openly partisan way. Don't be seduced by the  informality of social media into bringing the BBC into disrepute. Don't anonymously sanitise  Wikipedia pages and similar websites about the BBC. Don't criticise your colleagues. Don't  reveal confidential BBC information, including sensitive stories or deployments you or others  are working on. Beware revealing information that may risk the safety of you or your  colleagues. If you’re deployed to sensitive or dangerous places, switch off functionality…”

A useful summary has always been and remains: 'Don't do anything stupid’. Considering

you’re on show to anyone who sees what you do on social media, another way of

summarising it would be: ‘You’re a BBC journalist; act like it.’

b) The need for care applies all the time, on all services, regardless of ‘privacy’ settings, the

intended audience, or if it’s a ‘direct’ or ‘private’ message. Posts on sites like Facebook, or

Direct Messages on Twitter, that you may think are restricted can be easily and quickly

shared with much wider audiences. Assume anything you do or say can be seen by anyone.”

In other words, a set of fairly strong guidance to journalists to think carefully before they tweet and not act in a manner which could bring their employer into disrepute.

Overall it is hard to see that the accusations that the MOD is muzzling its personnel are fair. There are sensible policies in place for working with the media directly and how to engage with the public in an appropriate way. These are entirely in line with wider organisations guidance.

It is fair to say that no matter how you look at it, the attitude though towards online engagement and presence remains deeply risk averse and probably neither sustainable nor enforceable in practise. One has to wonder whether a lighter touch would better serve the overall goals here.