On the heels of a very successful #AUSADigital2019 event, I have been reflecting on the ways we as a #MilTwitter community can be better. Occupying that mental space, and enjoying a cup of coffee, I read a recent blog post from a close family-friend (@awktravels). She nailed it! Reading her thoughts on diversifying media, got me thinking about our own accountability, candor, and “outrage.”
This post was originally a thread on Twitter–find the original tweets HERE @CavRTK.
So much goes on in our world and within the profession of arms, our profession. Some of these things are worth of commentary, much more is not. And yet, I’ve noticed a trend lately within the #MilTwitter world. Conflict often arises not out of what’s said, but rather what’s not said. The twitter-verse breaks into hysteria because of what isn’t distilled down to 280 characters.
The virtue signaling about what others are comfortable or uncomfortable sharing is maddening and needs to end. We should not be the jury on what whether others can or should share opinions or perspectives – that’s a personal decision on their part.
There are a number of events that immediately come to mind recently on #MilTwitter.
Politics and Partisanship
Our profession is naturally a political one–but there is a difference between politics and partisan. Brig. Gen. Pat Donahoe (@PatDonahoeArmy) discussed this at @AUSADigital2019. War is, as our favorite dead Prussian said, an extension of politics by other means. That is little “p” politics, not partisan big “P” Politics. And even when in the realm of politics/policy, there are certain domains where discussing it, given our jobs, is completely inappropriate.
I am not going to comment on national policy decisions on Twitter. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have feelings or thoughts about them, but it is absolutely not my place to share them in this space. It’s wrong. There are other, much more appropriate (and official), channels to influence policy decisions within each of our workspaces. Particular to policy decisions made within our services, we have the ability to influence decision makers through official feedback loops, doctrinal revisions, surveys, and candid conversations with leadership.
Echo Chambers
Single source echo chambering of perspective leads to inevitable conflict resulting from competing views. We need to expand our reading and information sources to diversify our pallet. From @TheAtlantic to @voxdotcom, from The New York Times to The Wallstreet Journal, intentionally curate your information intake to ensure you are exposing yourself to a wide variety of viewpoints. And don’t forfeit the center; as Mr. Miyagi said, “Balance Daniel-san.” BBC, AP, Reuters, etc., take it all in, but do so with an awareness of the source and the angle.
How do YOU build perspective by examining all sides of an issue? Is it the same single source? Do you use your friends and acquaintances? Do you take into consideration competing viewpoints to see differing sides?
Here is an example of my phone news bookmarks for U.S. news sites–some of these are in stark contrast to others.
And here is my international news list:
“But SCO-Emeritus, tHaT’s a LoT oF sTufF and iT lOoKs HaRd”
Tip 1: @Flipboard is a great platform for quick scans and links to stories from a variety of sources and subjects.
Tip 2: @Google Alerts email keyword specific material to you per whatever parameters you establish. It can be daily, weekly, or immediate.
Tip 3: Many think-tanks, blogs, and news aggregators have morning daily or weekly mainling lists (e.g., @Strategy_Bridge, @WarOnTheRocks, @news360). You can use these to help diversify your perspective.
The Misnomer of Silent Consent
We are really quick to note that a RT (retweet) does not equal an endorsement. Well, the same goes for silence–silence on a topic does not mean you agree. Never miss a good opportunity to keep your mouth shut.
Your edgy critique of policy decisions outside your sphere, made on Twitter rather than discussed in a closed and professional forum, aren’t helpful. They actually hurt the civ-mil relationship, particularly if you aren’t privy to why certain decisions were made. Just as with any other issue, taking a firm and anchored position without all the facts is, well, I’ll let Andy Duphrane tell you:
–
I am thankful to @awktravels for her fantastic blog post that got me thinking about this topic. Our profession is inherently political. With this comes two inherent responsibilities. The first, is to remain informed–widely read and contextually savvy. The second, is to be careful about the venues and forums in which we share our views. Even in those times when your opinion is educated, it may not be warranted and it is likely unhelpful.
Let’s be better #MilTwitter; we can be better and we should be better.
Subscribe to The Company Leader!