Army Public Relations
UPDATE: The DVIDS command have been in contact, and have been very gracious. This is an extremely useful product for the media, and I have been assured that they will hold to their statements on site that all materials are in the public domain. I appreciate the efforts made by these folks and I have no problem with them at all. 2-21-2008
In Dad’s Army, there was a creature called a REMF. It was generally a soldier who was in the rear and used his power for anything but the benefit of the troops on the line.
I do not characterize this non-com as an REMF.
I featured Missouri National Guard Soldier Spc. Sarah Lupescu in my catgory Our Best: Babe Edition.
This morning I received the following:
Good morning,
Mr Simmins it has been brought to my attention that you regularly use products from the DVIDSHUB Website for your blog which is fine. However I have received some complaints about the use of some of the photo’s , mainly the titling of females service members as “Babes”. While I cannot tell you and do not desire to tell you what to post on your blog as a service member I would like to ask you to refrain from addressing female service members as babes.
In addition as the Non-Commissioned Officer in charge I can deny you access to our site. Please try and keep in mind that these ladies have families and friends, they themselves maybe uncomfortable having their pictures displayed in such a manner for the world to see. Take for instance SPC lupescu she is 19 yrs old and she made it clear to me that she is not comfortable at all with her photo being posted for use on a personal blog without her permission. It is unprofessional and I highly discourage the display of any service member in anything other than a professional light. Thank you for your time and assistance
I’ve done a search, and I am the only site outside DVIDS that has used the image and caption, which was reported accurately. The image was one of two at DVIDS from the 70th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment.
Here’s my reply:
Col. yyyyy, please be aware that I find Sgt. xxxxx’s e-mail highly insulting and presumptuous.
I use a variety of media products from all levels of the armed services to produce America’s North Shore Journal. DVIDS is but one. Had Sgt. xxxxx taken more than a moment to read my on-line magazine, he would have seen that I regularly publish material that may be found at no other non-military site. I support the military as strongly as any other publication in the United States.
All of the material I use from DoD sources is labeled as free for use, or free for use with attribution. I presume that I would not have access to material not intended for publication.
I am sorry that SPC Lupescu feels the way she does. I have changed the title of the post to read Our Best: Show Me State Edition.
The Our Best: Babe Edition category was created to highlight the women of the military who are doing their jobs and doing them well. I have received many comments from friends and relatives grateful that I featured their daughter or sister. In the time I have been posting these stories and photos it has become clear that few of them will ever appear anywhere but on a military site or on my magazine.
I have working with PAO’s in theater, and with DoD staffers for some time. Just today, I was part of an interview with Major General Lynch in Baghdad. It is not and never has been my intent to insult anyone in the military.
As for “unprofessional”, I would suggest that an Army that promotes GI Jill on her own army.mil website as Miss Utah could surely be generous and overlook the use of the term “babe”.
Should Sgt. xxxxx feel it necessary to ban me from DVIDS, so be it. Most of the material I publish comes from other sources. And, he will have been successful in offending a friend to the Army and to the United States military.
Here is the latest:
You are entitled to your own opinion and it is unfortunate that you are insulted, that however was never the intention of my email my point was about the titles being used to feature female service members being unprofessional. I see no post about male soldiers being referred to as Hunks or studs. In the military we pride ourselves on professionalism and would never refer to a female soldier as a babe, to a service member that is disrespectful simple as that. Having worked with numerous public affairs specialist this should be common knowledge.
If you read my email sir I never once implied that you where anti-military, anti-war or insulted anyone my concern and responsibility is to the integrity of the US Army and DVIDS period. Mr Simmins again the only reason I contacted you at all was because I received a number of complaints and not just from the young SPC her entire Chain of Command from commander on down shared their displeasure. Like I disclosed initially you are entitled to your opinion, however so is everyone else and not everyone shares your view.
Note that Lupescu is a member of the 70th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. If this is the manner in which this unit deals with the media…
Let’s face facts. Nobody in the world is ever going to read about the 70th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment and Spc. Lupescu in the N.Y. Times or see them on CNN. I’m really sorry that I even though that there was a story here worth publicizing.
As for DVIDS, I dislike being threatened by non-coms. I have been approached in the past to remove certain publicly available information from stories at the request of the individuals involved. I would certainly have considered doing so in this case had Lupescu or ANYONE in her chain of command contacted me. You know, the people running the “Public Affairs Detachment”.
Instead, I received not one, but two poorly written e-mails containing a threat to remove my access to publicly available information. FYI, here is the DVIDS policy:
Information presented on or via DVIDS is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.
Were I a real SOB, I would file a FOIA request for all communications, written or electronic, from the DVIDS office concerning the use of DVIDS materials.
[...] February 15, 2008 by Steve Field E-mails to bloggers like this. [...]
Delete the URL if you wish. I would not describe myself as insistent on havng my say-more like simply unsympathetic to the Sgt’s complaint.
Because its an uneven playing field. The women can get away with any comment-and do-while if a man expresses an honest and tactful sentiment, he gets pilloried. Its not right.
This will, however provide grist for the mill next month, when I comment on Women’s History month on my blog. I suspect the good Sgt will not like what I have to say there either.
C’est le vie!
I’m a bit confused. Is the DVIDS site a DOD official site? Is the NCO writing in an official capacity. Was the picture of Spc. Sarah Lupescu taken by a member of the military in their official capacity? Because, if so, the photograph is in the public domain. PLAYBOY could publish the picture if they want. HUSTLER could take the picture and airbrush away her uniform.
If Specialist Lupescu is “not comfortable at all with her photo being posted for use on a personal blog without her permission,” then she ought to not have joined the military, where pictures taken of you in the performance of your duties are in the public domain.
[Editor: DVIDS is a US military site, run by a private company under contract to DoD. The good sgt. was writing to me in his "official" capacity on the DVIDS staff. Yes, it was and is public domain. The DVIDS site states that quite clearly.]
I can see how PFC Lupescu might have had a concern about this…but not for the reasons stated by Sgt xxxxx. And since we haven’t had the pleasure of the PFC’s input, we can only speculate. If I were in her shoes, my concern would be about the reaction and treatment that follows such notice. Invariably, the majority of men (and to a lesser degree women) assume that pretty faces equates with a lack of brain power and/or will. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to assert myself to the point of being b1tchy because the men around me thought I was just another young pretty face without two brain cells to rub together. And when a woman has to go to that level, the label warps and the expectation of her behavior warps. It’s a rather vicious cycle really.
On the other hand, I don’t understand how appreciating a naturally beautiful person is a bad thing. If a person, man or woman, is a babe, then they’re a babe. Ignoring that or pretending otherwise doesn’t change anything.
I agree…the command should have had her contact Chuck personally and take things from there. It’s that whole flies-vinegar-sugar thing. There was a better way to handle this.
Thanks for the good work Chuck.
heres a question for a self appointed editor:
the REQUEST wasn’t respectful?
even less respectful is arguing in support of doing whatever you want as opposed to respecting anyones wishes. You give freedom of speech an ugly side.
[Editor: self-appointed? Ummm... yeah. I own this publication and I pay all the bills. Read some of the other comments. I have said many times that I would have considered the request had the soldier, or even her command, contacted me. They are a public relations unit, and should be able to manage a simple contact. They chose to involve a third party, instead, and that third party proceeded to make a threat.
And, Chris, just because someone doesn't like a comment doesn't make it wrong. When you have looked at as many military photos as I have, you may also conclude that the military chooses to release photos of attractive women who are serving. Indeed, the Pentagon set up a website to support Jill Stevens for the title of Miss America.
Two photos from that unit were released. The one I posted was easily located. I had to search to find the other one, of a middle-aged man. DVIDS put her pic up. I just used it in a story, exactly as they had intended.]