I just had the rather singular opportunity of not only watching and listening in to Blog Nashville's section on military bloggers, but also joining in, along with Greyhawk, Blackfive, and Mustang 32, among many others!

Sadly, since I could hear myself over the speakers with a bit of lag, I'm afraid I probably came off as a non-native English speaker.

However, everyone who spoke provided a bit of biographical information, how they got into blogging, and what they think the value of MilBlogging is.

Someone asked me if I thought that reporters who are embedded with troops are more likely to be positive toward the military in their reporting than reporters who are here, safe at home.

I said that I had no way of providing a statistical breakdown, or even a ballpark figure, since the reporters I've met have run the gamut of personal politics - we're talking an Oliver North to Seymour Hersch spectrum.

The reporter with the most "combat" experience I've met is Martin Savage, who came to 2ID while I was there, and had just finished a lengthy tour through Afghanistan and Iraq. He had helped change a Humvee fuel pump (I think) under heavy incoming small-arms fire, and the soldiers at the Korea Training Center were very impressed with his stories. He was a really affable guy, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say he was pro-military, he was certainly not anti-military.

Anyway, despite tripping over my words, I had a great time. I would have liked to tie the principles of Gonzo journalism into the discussion, but I don't think there would have been time.

Readers - What's your take on the value of milblogging? How should it be regulated, if it can be regulated at all?

-30-

See Greyhawk's post here.
Blackfive reported on his input here.