 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! February 11, 2006 Yawning at Yon in LA?By GreyhawkArmed Liberal presents two must-reads inspired by the LA Times recent front page sneer-piece on Michael Yon. Two. It's only fair to note that if the mainstream media holds Yon in any contempt, the feeling is not mutual. My thoughts on all that later. There's much to discuss. Update one: From the LA Times piece: But Carl Prine of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a National Guardsman and former Marine, saw platitudes, thin reporting and a lack of context in Yon's work.Those comments are from several months ago - for a more in-depth examination see Chap's response. Prine's real problem with Yon is that he's not a mainstream journalist - he explains in some detail why he thinks the work of the NY Times reporters is much better. But his critiques are somewhat contradictory: He’s not a very good writer. He doesn’t understand, yet, that not every detail needs to go into a dispatch. Not everything is relevant.Is followed closely by: He’s not a good reporter. He misses things that should immediately trick up some imagination. Here’s something he wrote the other day:In other words - too much detail I don't want, and not enough detail I want - "I" being the key word. And yes, the headlines and focus in a media story about a mission would likely be on the gear that failed, so we must credit Prine with having the "nose for news" that distinguishes today's successful mainstream journalist from guys like Yon. What he misses is that this is exactly why readers find Yon appealing. But this quote is even more revealing: I’m not sure who is “raving” about Yon. Nor am I exactly sure how Yon can continue to do what he’s doing and make money. He seems to be scraping by on donations.Actually he did much better than "scraping by". Prine's "marketplace" is "what mainstream media wants" - the market Yon tapped is what people want. That those markets aren't one and the same is but one of many reasons why so many old-guard media producers are seeing plummeting ratings and sales. Update 2: By the Numbers More from the Times: Although the profusion of links gives an indication of Yon's growing popularity, the blogger has yet to draw an audience as large as many traditional news outlets, which measure their traffic in millions. His blog has not hit the threshold of 360,000 distinct monthly users to be tracked by Nielsen/NetRatings.There's a reason the LA Times obsesses over this fact. Their own numbers, while significantly greater than Yon's, are disturbing. Here's a quick calendar year in review: 1Q: Circulation revenue at The Los Angeles Times fell in the first quarter, according to Tribune Co.'s first-quarter results.2Q and 3Q For the six months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported a six-day Monday-Saturday average circulation of 869,819, a decline of 3.6 percent from the prior year, and Sunday circulation of 1,247,569, a decline of 3.5 percent from the prior year, according to figures filed with the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC).The fourth quarter - could they finish strong? No. Fourth-quarter earnings tumbled 38 percent at Tribune Co....LA Times/Tribune Co. folks will acknowledge some reasons for declining circulation - one is the competition they face from their own online version of their paper - and their competitors'. Long accustomed to being the only game in town, major metropolitan newspapers now struggle to come to terms with business models shifting at the speed of thought. On the internet they now find themselves competing for a share of online readers from around the globe - a huge potential audience - but local car dealers and other businesses have little incentive to advertise to folks from the other side of the Mississippi (or the Pacific, for that matter). And local readers unhappy with the local paper are free to click elsewhere. A subscription fee for reading the online version won't work with so many other options available for casual news consumers, nor will it drive those people back to the print edition. If such a fee was adopted the resulting decline in online readership will bring reduced ad revenues there, offsetting the subscription income. And of course it's those ad revenues that support the newspaper business, not the profit from subscriptions or newsstand sales. No paper has ever been so highly regarded that it could survive purely on its sales - because never in history has a public been willing to actually consider a newspaper so indispensable that they would be willing to pay enough for it that it could be sustained independent of corporate sponsorship in the form of ads. And if you're thinking ahead of me you've already realized the underlying reason for the Time's obsession with Mike Yon's readership numbers, and the jealousy underlying it. While the LA Times may boast a large ("millions") number of people willing to read their output as long as they don't have to pay for it (and a dwindling number of people willing to part with a few pennies a week for the actual paper) Mike Yon enjoys a smaller readership (thousands) willing to underwrite his efforts to the point that he needs no corporate sponsorship, or "success" on the terms defined by media dinosaurs. By himself, Yon represents no threat to the LA Times. He doesn't have the inside scoop on the Lakers, offers no clue as to whether his readers will need an umbrella tomorrow, and offers no advice whatsoever for the lovelorn. Update 3: Conservative estimates If you're a reader here I don't need to tell you who Yon is, but the Times recognized they would have to define him for the majority of their readers: Michael Yon may not be a household name, but he emerged last year as the reporter of choice for many conservatives and supporters of the war.But is "conservatives and supporters of the war" an apt description of his readership? An interesting question. Yon was working on another story when he learned that two friends had been killed in Iraq. As the Times reports, The deaths galvanized Yon. He contacted an Army officer he'd known in high school, who in turn put Yon in touch with a commander in Iraq. That got him a ticket to Baqubah.The Times doesn't point this out, but the deaths of friends doesn’t motivate one to become a champion for an unjust war in which they died (this same fact applies to all milbloggers). And Yon did not become that champion - even if the Times would have us believe otherwise. In-country he simply reported what he saw, told the story of the war without the filter of a major corporation and a league of editors re-writing his accounts to fit available space in column inches and the box defined by their own distant view of events - shaped by whatever forces that may be. Thus Yon's dispatches became a valuable source of information for those wanting a full picture of what was going on in Iraq - people whose quest for knowledge didn't stop with what the local paper had to say - or worse, the two-minute soundbite on the TV news. Those who do limit their knowledge to those sources comprise a large number of Americans. It's odd (Orwellian, if you give it any consideration at all) that the Times labels the rest of us - those who seek information from all possible sources - as "conservative". I'd speculate that those same people who read Yon, this site, or any other MilBlog are also familiar with the efforts of Michael Moore. That they are nonetheless "supporters of the war" speaks volumes to their ability to decide for themselves. Bottom line: "conservative supporters of the war"? The Times was half right. I've noticed that same mislabeling phenomenon here. Whereas hundreds of thousands of visitors have found this site via links from center-to-right wing weblogs, the Left avoids this site - and other military blogs - like the plague. (Perhaps due in no small part to the fact that they can't dismiss us with the "chickenhawk" label - the most powerful - albeit lame - argument they can muster against those who support the war.) But this site thus gained a reputation as being politically "right wing" and "conservative", in spite of the fact that I don't wade into issues of Supreme Court appointments, border security, homosexual marriage, and a host of other topics unrelated to what we're about - authentic "boots on the ground" coverage of the war - from those wearing the boots. And the double irony of the situation is that far from being cheerleaders or mouthpieces, we often have to fight the Army to make that happen. So if you're still here, I've got some news you might not appreciate: you are probably a liberal. While others shy away and deny themselves a robust view of the state of the world today you are looking for the complete picture. An we'd like to think we offer that, or as close as we can - in our daily Dawn Patrol and in the weekly Meanwhile back at the Front. There we'll present as many sides of the story that we can, from the front-line GIs and citizens in Iraq to the editors in New York, LA, London, and all points between. We're confident that you'll draw your own conclusions. After all, isn't that what being liberal is all about? Elsewhere: Soldier's Dad, in comments below: "...no Media organization, obsessed with advertising revenue, would hire Yon. The purpose of a newspaper, is to get people to read the Advertisements, not the news.Touché. Read this too. (First posted: 2006-02-10 17:37:52) Posted by Greyhawk / February 11, 2006 1:05 PM | Permalink 5 TrackBacksWhen the LA Times wrote, Lone Gun In War Reporting, about Michael Yon I knew it could get ugly. It didn't use the title I did, but mine is more accurate in terms of how the piece reads. It begins: Michael Yon's blog made him a hero among ... Read More But the Times sure does do a good job of showing itself to be nothing more than a bunch of 4 year olds in terms of their maturity. And that, I believe, is almost insulting to my 4 year old. Read More I'm too tired to do it justice but do not miss Greyhawk's post here. Be sure to follow the links, especially to Armed Liberal's post here. (You know, for a liberal AL's really not a bad guy at all.) Read More Check out this post over at Mudville Gazette. I was amazed that the LA Times was bothering to comment on Michael Yon--he must be getting under some MSM skins. Which is all to the good--since when do journalists have a Read More Dear Mr. Rainey, Your LA Times article includes a quote by reporter and veteran Carl Prine. But Carl Prine of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a National Guardsman and former Marine, saw platitudes, thin reporting and a lack of context in Yon’... Read More 26 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Gosh guys, everybody knows bloggers like Yon are not real journalists like those in the LA Times! Anyhow, how can he be impartial (like they are in the LAT), he supports the troops for cripes sakes!!
Let's hope Mike gets a Pulitzer - wounldn't that get the attention of the "real journalists" scumbags?
The story came across as nothing but a bunch of sour grapes.
"Although the profusion of links gives an indication of Yon's growing popularity, the blogger has yet to draw an audience as large as many traditional news outlets, which measure their traffic in millions. His blog has not hit the threshold of 360,000 distinct monthly users to be tracked by Nielsen/NetRatings."
nanny-nanny-nah-nah...
- hfs
Mike Yon's blog was the first real clue I had that all was not as the media portrays it. I routinely send folks to check out his riveting story-telling.
His writing is amazing - clear, intelligent and riveting. He gets along on donations so that he does not have to bow to any editor with a not-so-hidden agenda.
This guy needs to spit out the sour grapes.
YEAHHHHH....what they said. He/They sound very whiny and jealous.
I'd challenge any LA Times reporter to start their own blog and see what the readership would be. My guess is they couldn't average 6k visits a day for 3 months - assuming they were all different that would be half that "360,000 distinct monthly users to be tracked by Nielsen/NetRatings"
I'd extend that challenge to any msm reporter.
Linked it.
Thanks for posting on this. Meanwhile, the LA Times continues to drop in subscription numbers.
A couple of tidbits -
http://soldiersdad2.blogspot.com/2006/02/la-times-owners-define-customer.html
Includes Tribune Company quote on the definition of "Customer Satisfaction"
Also Newspaper Association of American Letter to Presidential commission, defining their competitors as "Direct Mail Marketers"
Somehow, I don't think the writers at the LA Times know that their real competitor is Money-Saver Mailers.
Pretty sad really, being so unaware that you don't even know what the corporate "Mission Statement" is.
What a bunch of losers! Could their envy be more transparent? Have they NO shame?
But hey, Jack Bauer could write the the LA Times AND the New York Times by himself, and still beat their circulation. Before lunchtime. And then kill a bunch of terrorists.
(I know, :groan:)
"I’m not sure who is 'raving' about Yon. Nor am I exactly sure how Yon can continue to do what he’s doing and make money. He seems to be scraping by on donations."
I may have missed something, but since when was Yon in it for the money? And I don't know about "raving," but I have read and trust Michael Yon and have never heard of Carl Prine until now.
"In the marketplace is the arbiter of value, then Yon has little. If he was so beloved, if there were so many raves, then he mgiht [sic] be a bit more successful."
Well, I've never spent even a dime on the Times and never will, but I have donated money to Michael Yon. I consider respect to be a sign of success and under that criterion, Prine and the MSM have been a complete failure.
"sour grapes" is dead spot on. The LA Times, like so much else of the msm, sees their power slippping away, and they're scared. As they ought to be.
My dear 'ole mum, took early retirement from Capitol Cities/ABC. It wasn't about the story anymore. It wasn't about real people anymore. It was about style, and fonts, and ADVERTISING revenue. USA today does quite well on dumbed down articles and a lot's of colorful pictures and graphs. One can read it cover to cover in 5 minutes, and know nothing.
Yon did what reporters WANT TO DO, but aren't allowed to do.
The LaTimes guy got it right, no Media organization, obsessed with advertising revenue, would hire Yon. The purpose of a newspaper, is to get people to read the Advertisements, not the news.
Yon writes stories people want to read. They'll miss the 3/4 page ad for BillyJoBob's Auto Emporium.
Print depressing news...a new car from BillyJoBob's Auto Emporium is just the cure.
Who reads Michael Yon? I do and so do many of my fellow military retirees. We also send donations to support his work. I am old enough to remember Ernie Pyle and Michael has that same ability to capture the moment with the soldiers he accompanies. Kaplan, who wrote Imperial Grunt is the only other writer I know who can do this. God Bless Michael Yon and keep him safe.
OK. I went and read the stuff between "Chapomatic" and Prine. I have to say that Prine is entitled to his opinion and I think you were unfair with him.
It seems to me that a reporter who is in the military would be the right person to ask what's wrong with some reporting about the military. He put out his case pretty well. At least I think he did.
I used to read Yon when he was in Mosul and I thought then what Prine said about it. It kind of was boring for those of us who have been in Iraq and I wished someone else was doing it.
Not sure I want the NY TIMES to do it! Prine is an expert on reporting and he says a bunch of Yon's reporting is "vapid" and "misleading."
I don't have to be a reporter to see the same thing.
Sorry, I missed something. Who is being unfair with Prine, and how?
I'm sorry but Prine's complains seem to me to be a way to rationalize how Yon can possibly have a positive attitude. The "Sode Straw" effect is a way of dismissing his upbeat coverage. "He doesn't see a quagmire because he's not looking in the right place.. but we all know it really is a quagmire.. right?"
Yon wasn't pretending to report on what's happening all over Iraq. He was up-front about living with Deuce Four and reporting their exploits. Those of us with brains can read the writings of other reports in other parts of Iraq and splice them together into a coherent picture of events. It's precicely the raw nature of the information we get from Yon which gives it incredible value - it's unfiltered by any of the (generally) highly opinionated, ignorant newspaper and magazine editors who know how to put a negative spin on any news.
We also have people like Bill Roggio have military experience who trawl through news reports, putting together a coherent and insightful picture of what's really going on over there in an operational and strategic sense, when we don't have the time to do that ourselves.
I'm hate to paint with such a broad brush but Prine, being part of the MSM, calling Yon "misleading" is just sad. If I want to read something misleading I only have to buy a newspaper or magazine. If I want to read a gripping account of one day in the life of some soldiers from Deuce Four, written by someone who has walked the walk and knows how to talk the talk, I'll read Yon. Vapid? I really can't see where that word comes from, other than Prine has run out of ways to belittle Yon.
I'm sorry but I don't want to believe what the newspapers, magazines, radio and TV want me to believe. I want to form my opinions independently, by cross-validating as many sources of informed commentary as possible. The MSM has shown us we simple can't trust semi-anonymous third party analysis of complex situations. And besides, I *enjoy* reading Yon. Compared to what I'm fed by the Main Stream Media, that's a revelation.
'But this site thus gained a reputation as being politically "right wing" and "conservative", in spite of the fact that I don't wade into issues of Supreme Court appointments, border security, homosexual marriage, and a host of other topics unrelated to what we're about - authentic "boots on the ground" coverage of the war - from those wearing the boots.'
Unfortunately to many on the left, the military and even the concept of the military is "right wing." Since their world-view is primarily shaped by their ideology, there is no way that they will look at military blogs because they assume them to be Bush propaganda organs or pawns. That is very unfortunate because most military blogs do nothing more that give an account of what the individual blogger experiences, which when one takes all sources of information into account, are the only ones you can really trust.
I also find it interesting that many on the left totally discount the role of Iraqi bloggers for the simple reason that very few of them support their point of view. I guess when you get down to it, if you are against the war and your point of view is based on your ideology and what you learn from the MSM, it is very inconvenient to accept opposing points of few from people with first-hand knowledge (but whose profession is not to tell you what is happening).
Why should I trust the LAT or the NYT or any of a host of other shining examples of journalism? Why would I want to read any paper that gives Cindy Sheehan more print space than Paul Ray Smith or others like him? If the papers ever figure this out I might just be willing to start buying them again.
OK. I guess I'm still a little confused. This Prine fellow is a MSM reporter. OK. But is the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review really a Cindy Sheehan kind of newspaper?
I doubt it. If he's talking about "quagmires" then why did he quit reporting to be in Iraq in the National Guard?
I hate to say it but what he said about Yon and Bill Roggio I think too. So hate me, right?
I think Yon is boring, whether he is "unfiltered" or not, and Roggio just doesn't get the details.
I have never heard of Prine but that doesn't mean he's not a good reporter or that what he says makes sense. It sure does to me. Is he going to be a reporter again when he goes back? Is he back from Iraq now?
I can't keep track of all this.
I think Mudville is backing the wrong horse here but that's just my opinion.
You're welcome to think Yon is boring, if that is how you feel about his writing. However, I think you're in a minority.
I tossed "quagmire" in there as an expression representing the always-negative attitude of the media. What bothers me is not that Yon specifically is criticised, but the pattern which I see of criticism falling largely on those who have something positive to report.
As for complaining that Roggio "doesn't get the details" - what do you expect of a strategic overview? A description of what kind of MREs the soldiers ate on a particular operation? Sometimes detail is interesting, which you get from the day-to-day first-hand reporting which Yon does. Sometimes I want to get a high-level overview putting the various tactical operations in place in the overall strategic scheme. Detail at that level seems superfluous to me.
I've never heard of Prine either. And I've not said he's a bad reporter. What I am saying is that his disdain for Yon is disappointing, but what I would expect from a professional reporter. Maybe what he thinks people want to read, and what "Soldier Again" wants to read are the same thing, but maybe there are a lot of people, including me, who want something different.
So, if Yon has a "market" (and surely he does with 365k unique visitors) then why not let him fulfill his market in peace, and you can get your news elsewhere.
Soldier Again:
I don't want to seem adversarial here, as I said you and Prine both have your opinions and you can publish them too.
However, there are two things that bother me. First, Yon gives me a perspective on events which isn't really available anywhere else, including the MSM. There are some reporters from the MSM who have since started reporting in a similar fashion, but at the time I was reading his blog, his was one of the few places I could go and read about the exploits of a particular unit in a particular location and how they fared over a number of months, without reading what was written by a member of the unit. It was interesting, watching them take control of Mosul and seeing the personalities and the problems they faced.
Now, maybe that's boring. I don't know. But it is DIFFERENT from what I've come to expect from the media, and variety is important. Prine is complaining that Yon doesn't have the attributes he associates with good reporting. But those differences can be strengths. There are thousands of media outlets and none of them captivate me. Why would I want Yon to turn into just another reporter like anyone else? I'm dissatisfied with regular media reports and I think a lot of other people are too. Yon gives us a fresh perspective.
Seeing an (ex-?)reporter complain about him, especially the hypocritical aspects of it (e.g. complaining he doesn't give enough detail, when most reports have far worse detail and often incorrect details), makes me feel like this is sour grapes.
Anyway, continue to hold and express your opinions, and read what you find interesting. I know I will, and I think a lot of what I read will continue to be alternative media, simply beacause I get what I want there.
I'm sure many people found Ernie Pyle and his stories about ordinary soldiers boring, too.
OK. Maybe I continue to just not get it. If Prine is a "sour grapes" reporter, then why was he making these comments on Chapomatic as a soldier, not a reporter? He quit to go to Iraq, right? And from the context of his talking with Chapomatic, he seems to be an enlisted guy to boot, and in the infantry.
Some of his comments take on Yon as a reporter, but most seem to come from his experience as a marine and now a soldier (finally, he chose the right uniform).
I sent an email to his Tribune account and it came back with his military email, so I hope to hear from him so maybe we can hear his perspective on all of this. If it's "sour grapes" I'll tell you.
If he's at some real distant FOB, he probably doesn't even know anyone is mad at him. His comments seemed really constructive to me. Kinda made me want to be a reporter, but I don't want to retire until I hit my 20 and I've got a couple more years to go!
I don't know why I'm getting all invested in this stuff. I don't really care about him or Yon but he seems like an interesting guy.
I've posted edited hightlights of the wit and wisdom of Carl Prine:
http://www.planningblog.com/2006/02/boy-named-sue.html
What convinces me about the quality of Michael Yon's work is that he does everything that Mr. Prine dismisses. (Sorry.)
I've been reading Yon before he became well known. He made me see the Iraq operation and understand it. That's the most important thing. 1--Excellent cultural context (he knows it's never just a military conflict) 2--up close detail, military and civilian 3--personal involvement. A core of decency and civilized outlook at the basis of his outlook (that makes him American). Finally, an amazing literary quality to this off the cuff composition. In fact, if the great war journalists of yesteryear would here to vote, they'd like Yon's stuff. MSM dinosaurs such as the LA Times have a right to fear Yon. Would that soon (maybe over their Iraq Lies!) they would go belly up like their long ago namesakes.
"Maybe I continue to just not get it. If Prine is a "sour grapes" reporter, then why was he making these comments on Chapomatic as a soldier, not a reporter?"
Let start at the the starting point. The military is a LARGE authoritarian regime. It has to be, we don't want the 82nd Airborne taking out Oracle because Bill Gates was offering triple overtime.
There is no shortage of reporters, that can't accept that fact. They are quick to point out the inefficiencies and sometimes seemingly insane side effects.(A C5-A toilet seat costs $350 because it has to conform to 500 pages of specifications, the bolt holes alligning and being the right color is not enough)
OK. I went to Carol's website. I really began to feel for Prine while reading the squabble on Chapomatic's blog. He seemed to be very tolerant of a great deal of verbal abuse I guess I would never take. He must be a very patient small unit leader. Or he has children.
He had me laughing, but perhaps that's just a soldier's humor.
Sue me, but I'm going to withhold any judgement about him until I hear from him by email. I think that's fair.
I also don't see why everyone is attacking him and not his position. I agree with his position as an officer, if not as a gentleman. I think he offers some point for us to discuss the issue from a military perspective.
If I might offer some talking points. Perhaps the reason so many people like Yon is not because he is that good of a "reporter." I can't really judge what a good "reporter" is, but I would hope he got details right, understood the context of the war and tried to make sense of what we do.
If Mosul was like our sector, then I think Yon was intentionally disregarding a lot of things. Some would say it's patriotic to do that, and I would tend to agree. But I don't think that's what a reporter's role in our world
is.
Am I wrong about that?
This Prine man seems to have reached a similar decision. He said that he couldn't be a reporter and a soldier at the same time, so he choose to be a soldier.
I want to talk to him because I think that's pretty great. I'm at the point now in my career that I want to meet men like that. If Prine is Iraq now, maybe I'll get my chance.
When is Yon coming back? Maybe I can get them together.