Money quote(s):
"A while back someone else also wrote to inform me that he/she was "strongly reminded" that blogging can lead to at least pulling the security clearance, forced (involuntary) curtailment, followed by loss of job, arrest, detainment and prosecution. Understandably, that blog is not here or there, anymore.
The Tigers roared baring fangs, which means the threat of no food on the table, arrest, detainment, well, just about everything, really. Except they forgot to include non-promotion and career suicide. Of course, if you lose your job, there would be no point worrying about a promotion or a career." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
The "Tigers." Them's State Dept. powers-that-be (or as Dave Barry famously described them: "white men in blue suits"). A.k.a. "Black Dragons" or "mandarins."
The most famous, and fairly current example, of an FS blogger come acropper has to be We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People"). Of course, Van Buren, Esq., did a bit more than just blog, whatever you may think of the merits/demerits of how the Department has/is handled his situation.
CAA prefers to blog pseudonymously, for a number of good reasons. Frankly, it's just good operational security. On the other hand, CAA is not one of the scores of new officers who've joined the Foreign Service and were already longtime bloggers.
"In some places, the Foreign Service is now like a scene out of Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, only this time, the letter one wears in not "A" for Adultery but "B" for Blogger. You blog at your own risk under the Big House's 21st century statecraft jungle regardless of the nice things they say about freedom and the Internets.
Here are a few things I'm kicking around the campfire concerning the various disappearances of Foreign Service bloggers through the years. A quick caveat: I am talking out loud there, so try not to misconstrue the following as an advice in any shape or form; they're not. Also please do not write and ask for "real" examples of "Tiger" blog take down. They are not my stories to tell and I respect the privacy of the bloggers who make no public explanation of their online death." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Lots of excellent FS bloggers have either taken down their posts, sanitized them, or simply discontinued posting. Sometimes that simply the press of business, of work-life balance, of being to busy being and doing to spend much time writing about it. Sometimes ones FS job involves so much writing that doing even a little bit more, even when its for yourself, is just too much effort.
"(I)t seems like "FS bloggers should never mention *anything* about work." Why? Probably because vague blogging isn't as vague as you think and you never know who's reading your blog? Even if Diplomatic Security sees no problem with your blog, your regional/functional bureau or post management may have issues with it. I don't think it has anything to do with what you write per se, it has everything to do with fear and the lack of control. Fear from management that your blog has a ready, captive audience and fear that you might write something out of turn. And there is the notion that you have a direct connection to an audience and your right to self expression has not undergone any sort of vetting by the higher-ups who luv their red pens!"
The Department has evolved some since its 18th century origins, but those origins, and the Dead White Males who populated them, have left a lasting imprint on our corporate culture. In some ways, these are good things.
Por ejemplo, diplomacy is still, rather widely, seen as more than just a job. Like the military, like the church, like academia, the profession of diplomacy (and of diplomats) is a legacy out of the Middle Ages and indeed Late Antiquity (and later Byzantium) itself. Like those cited examples, the profession of diplomacy remains more even than merely a career; it is a calling and a vocation.
On the other side of the ledger, the practice of modern U.S. diplomacy has evolved considerably, with parallels to the similar evolution of micromanagement in military command and control spawned by the technological revolution in worldwide communication.
Once upon a time "our man" on the spot had to be trusted and empowered to act on our behalf according to his latest (telegraphed) instructions, his detailed local knowledge, and his best judgment.
Nowadays, our "man" may be a woman and will never be too far separated from an email, a conference call, an "instant message," and their Blackberry. Upper management's capability for micromanagement produced the temptation, even the obligation, to do so.
So throwing social media into the mix, where even lesser sorts can write, and self-publish (for values of "publish") their unvarnished observations without the benefit of a traditional "clearance" process must truly be an upsetting experience for some folks in high places.
"(M)aybe folks should never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients (visa applicants, AmCits, official contacts, etc. etc.), even if you're only complaining about somebody sneezing or snoring loudly.
Concerned about all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance? Okay, but that may not be the best subject to blog about, most especially if you're bidding.
Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now? Okay, but it won't do any good to talk about the cause of that ear ache in your blog.
You cannot/cannot blog about the smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window because it's bad form to talk about body odors, period. You cannot/cannot blog and complain about seeing boobies with nursing mommies as you conduct visa interviews because breastfeeding is udderly not optional when you have a screaming infant. Trust me on this.
You cannot make snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients no matter how loony and unreasonable their demands might be (they are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974). You cannot complain in your blog that your host country has no sidewalks, it might upset the Tourism Bureau. You cannot complain in your blog about getting Montezuma's Revenge because it might upset the host country's Sanitation Bureau. And on and on ...you get the drift? Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form in the shared drive on what FSOs should not blog about, but don't look for that list in the FAM.
EFMs must not blog about how every transfer is like a reinvention of wheels at the Big House because it would make the HR Bureau look bad. Gawd lord! They should not blog that their spouse's HR Technician kept messing up their Travel Orders because it makes the HR staff look incompetent (and some of them are). They should blog zilch /nada about housing, because hey, it's free housing and the leaking roof should not be a big deal! They should not blog about the American school because isn't it enough that you are in a country with an American school? EFMs above all should not blog too loudly about the lack of embassy jobs; didn't ya know that 9.1% of Americans in the United States of America are out of work?! Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form about what EFMs should not blog about, but it's a secret until they call you or your spouse for that Talk. (I'm having a hard time locating my sarcasm off button, sorry!)"
This is just too much (and too good) not to take a point at a time.
a.) "never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients"
Easier said than done.
Like any institution larger than can be fit into a phone booth (remember them?), the State Dept. and the Foreign Service are vulnerable to brontosaurus syndrome.
That is, information can take so long to filter through its ponderous nervous system from tail to brain (and back) that those signals can be out-of-date, and even dangerous, before they arrive. It makes them vulnerable to "the stupids."
This is not a criticism for which the Service or the Department are uniquely qualified, to be sure.
Still and all, criticizing one's host nation online while attempting to diplomatically represent the U.S. in real life is kind of stupid too. Sort of defeats the purpose.
Host nations, and cultures, can be awfully touchy about things that may seem innocuous.
Some particularly touchy nations may even seize upon blogged "criticism" as an excuse for other actions. So it's wise not to give your opponents any extra ammunition. Not to put too fine a point on it, but some of the police states to which we have diplomatic representation are not really our friends, although in the interests of world peace we certainly try our best to change that reality.
b.) "all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance"
Really? From reading Diplopundit, I've gotten the impression that, at least at the highest levels, the true path to promotion seems to run through assignment in the Human Resources bureau rather than through any particular set of hardship assignments.
That being said, I've seen officers with hardship assignments and those without get promoted. It's probably fairer to say that lots of the better or more desirable (i.e., Western Europe and other First World) assignments get tied up by Afghan, Iraq, and Pakistan "linked" assignments.
Some find it unfair that this should be so, arguing that their own unique circumstances (family and/or medical issues) prevent them from taking such assignments. It can also be argued that it's unfair that those lacking family and/or medical issues that would exempt them from hardship post assignments should have to shoulder that entire burden. And both camps would be entirely correct.
Life is not fair.
c.) "Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now"
There really is a world of difference between being a Chinese dissident liable to be arrested and have their organs harvested after a botched execution and someone be counseled to not publicly blog against their employer. The two simply aren't comparable other than as an example of how everything simply isn't co-equal.
d.) "smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window.... body odors.... boobies.... nursing mommies.... breastfeeding.... screaming infant"
Any consular officer can confirm that the 15-minute forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) interview window, even with mandatory "overpressure" airflow, is not powerful enough to prevent exposure to the body odor of some applicants.
Simply. Not. Powerful. Enough. (No offense intended to Ross or Norshield.)
Yes, Americans have a well-known and justified terror of body odors. This can be best explained by the decades-long campaigns of television advertisers to convince us we smell bad so as to sell more soap. Ever wonder where the term "soap opera" comes from?
Still, even allowing for mad cultural variations, disparities in the availability of water for personal washing or laundry, and the like, some visa applicants (and even Amcit clients) simply and frankly reek. Some truly reek far more than their co-nationals. And not overdue-for-a-shower stinky; we're talking fell-int0-a-latrine reeky. Wishing that away doesn't make it so.
(Oddly, the stinkiest identifiable groups in my recollection has been men-of-the-cloth. Not every reverend, priest, or shamen, mind you, and certainly not as a group. But they're over-represented on the stinkiest extreme of the Bell curve. And I haven't a clue as to why.)
As for breastfeeding and nursing mothers versus screaming infants, that's a no-brainer. As a visa interviewer with at least half-vast experience, I learned very early in my consular career that the occasional glimpse of bare mammaries is greatly to be preferred over a waiting room full of screaming infants. Case closed. Grow up and get over it. And if mentioning it in an FS blog disturbs any Tigers, they need to grow up and get over it.
e.) "snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients "
Yes, the Privacy Act of 1974 prevents blogging about what I term "stupid American tricks" in sufficient detail that it's not even worth trying to sanitize the story for blog posting.
Some of your American clients have unrealistic expectations about what the embassy can do for them. Some of them have gotten themselves into such personally hazardous circumstances that you wish you could send the embassy marines (if you're lucky enough to have them at your post) out with the embassy softball team's equipment (i.e., bats) to sort things out for them. (The which you may not do.)
Others are, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. Or criminals. And by criminals I mean well and truly wanted in the U.S. by lots of fine law enforcement folks.
As a consular officer, you can minimize, to a degree, some of the unrealistic expectations among your Amcit expatriats by means of an active consular outreach program, including holding local "town hall meetings" out and about within your consular district. (But that still won't fully eliminate the problem.)
f.) "complain in your blog that your host country "
See my answer to "a.)" above. This is something that FS bloggers have to gauge very carefully and finely, calibrating it precisely to your own particular host country.
g.) "HR staff look incompetent"
CAA has generally had good luck with HR folks, at least the U.S.-based ones; and even abroad it's been fairly passable. Not everyone is so lucky.
h.) "Housing"
FS housing is one of those things that varies wildly from post to post. In my own career (incl. Western Europe, Third World, embassies, and a constituent post), I've lived on embassy-only compounds, on the economy, in apartments, and in houses. Plus I have the perspective on government-furnished housing that a prior, military, career can lend.
Nowhere is going to be just like home. Nowhere is going to be like your last place in D.C. Nowehere is even going to be like your last overseas post. I've seen FSOs (and their spouses) with frankly outragous and unrealistic expectations as to how they should housed and with what amenities.
(Dude, you passed the FS exam; you didn't win the lottery!).
That being said, in my own browses of FS and FS family blogs, I've seen far more posts which are complimentary of embassy housing maintenance and other support in dealing with the problems that unavoidably come up than I've seen princessly whining.
It does seem like blogs by FS spouses deal more with the problems, and problem-solving, of embassy housing than those by the officers (and specialists) themselves. But then, how could they not?
Military readers will be familiar with the phrase "Household" or "Kitchen" "Six." "Six" signifying the commander, and "Household" (or "Kitchen") signifying itself. CINCHOME: Commander-In-Chief, Home Front. Whatever you call it, the spouses are large and in charge at home, dealing with housing issues, while the FS hubby or wifey is about America's business abroad.
So it should surprise no one that they blog about their triumphs and travails on that front.
i.) "blog about the American school"
See my last immediately above. Everything I said about spouses and housing goes double for anything related to FS kids and their education.
I've been at posts that did, and ones that did not, have an American school. Sure, the families at the one without would have loved to have had the luxury of dealing with the problems of the posts that do have them. Life, and blogging, is like that. You write about the experiences you have, not about the ones you don't have.
j.) "lack of embassy jobs".
This is a very big deal. The career, financial, professional, and employment dynamic of American families, of married couples, is vastly different than that of only a few decades ago.. The ability, or inability, of FS spouses to find (or be offered) gainful employment during their FS hubby or wifey's assignments abroad has a measurable and drastic impact on both their gross family income and their retirement benefits. That's a fact. It's also a fact that, due to job requirements (such as language fluency or lack thereof), not every embassy support staff job is suitable or available for an EFM to fill.
So of course it's going to get blogged about.
One of the little leadership laws that's passed down within the military is the adage that you should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.
(How big a hint can I make this? Should I draw a picture?).
"I am convinced that some bloggers are "allowed" to blog by default because their bosses have no idea what a blog is. Seriously.
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because maybe they are lucky enough to have adult bosses with no control issues who recognize that warts and all are part and parcel of real life, even in organizations. As long as your blog does not end up in NYT or Al Kamen's column, you're safe. Of course, their bosses may have blogs, too :-) and did not want to be outed!
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because no one has yet complained about them, or the blog is obscure enough it does not register on anyone's radar screen.
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because their bosses look the other way. These blogs are usually like mini-DipNotes. What's the harm in letting them PR blog for free? And if they write something nice about their bosses, then that is super great, too.
Finally, I think some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because the Big House has not yet found the right stick to scare them to death and make them stop. In almost all instances they eventually find the right stick, so the blog disappears. Unless ... the blog stays .... in which case ... well, that's another story down the road."
CAA has not (yet) been called upon the Tiger-y carpet. There's no accounting for that. A number of my colleagues know (more than I probably realize) who I am. At least one DS agent knows, because he made a fairly pointed, if friendly, crack to me one time about "an FSO's anti-Administration blog."
(Anti-administration? I've commented upon criticisms of not only this, but the previous administration. No matter.)
"I've lost count the number of FS blogs that have gone dark. A trend that is both disturbing and sad. In the end, I think every FS blogger must decide on his/her own comfort level and decide how much grief he/she is willing to put up with in order to blog, tweet or FB. As long as the Big House considers blogging a "dangerous" hobby or preoccupation even in its employees/family members private capacities, this is also a "livelihood" issue. When you butt head with city hall, you will get more than a headache."
Part of the solution to this issue will be FS bloggers learning to manage upwards. There's still a huge cadre of very senior folks within the Department for whom "leadership" is still something of a foreign concept, so I expect "social media" is going to take a little longer. So watch your blogging, watch out for each other, and try to train upper management to see blogging as a positive force.
Smart upper management is going to keep an eye on FS, particular FS spouse, blogging as a bellweather to spot problem areas early, well before they become the sujbect of an OIG investigation or congressional inquiry.
"Truth to tell, I have not seen or heard of Tigers actually yanking anybody's clearance due to an offending blog. I am aware of private sessions of discouragements, issues with onward assignments, and of course, threats of various colors and stripes among FS bloggers. And as far as I know, they have not technically kicked out anyone who blogs either -- unless you call the "push" to retirement a payback kick.
Fear as we all know is a great motivator. Sometimes, a Tiger's growl is just that, a growl and enough to do the job. Of course, it does not mean that the Tiger will not also eat you!"
9/14
3 comments:
Thanks for the link! I got a B- in Irony and Sarcasm in my writing school.
Thoughtful post and sage observations as always. My view is that the “Tigers,” rather than being a term of identity, is one of behavior. Many commentaries on this topic leap to the conclusion that somewhere in Department a crack team is waging a coordinated campaign against bloggers. That gives the Department WAY too much credit. Fact is, as I pointed out in my column in FSJ, the feedback bloggers get is all over the map and from a very diverse collection of characters and offices. And this vacuum in which there is a complete absence of cogent, comprehensible, and sensible guidance is responsible for that environment. Consequently, bloggers are left to speculate on the goings-on in the Big House and develop urban legends and sweeping conclusions based on experiences and encounters with officials who have expressed disapproval with their Internet activities at one time or another.
The Department, as a result, is often criticized more harshly and frequently than it probably deserves.
But it has no one to blame but itself. Information vacuums are quickly filled with rumor and speculation. Until the Department formulates, promulgates, communicates, and then enforces a code of conduct that is appropriate, workable and well-understood, it will continue to draw fire and suffer from this perception – justifiably or not – that it would much prefer its employees and their EFMs abstained from social media altogether.
Post a Comment