
![]() | |
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! August 28, 2009 Even More Bad PressBy Greyhawk"We just help the military figure out what embed is right for a particular reporter," one Rendon employee told me over drinks. "If a reporter is classified as "negative" they are less likely to go where the action is and more likely to be covering a platoon that guards sandbags in Herat." Did I mention before how bad this idea was? Yes, I did say it was bad, but I didn't say how bad. I'm not sure I can gauge that just yet. Really, really bad seems too weak. Because it keeps getting worse. Will it get worse still? It could - major media folks tend to respond to outrages perpetrated against their sacred honor swiftly. But then again, maybe not - the downside for reporters: none will want to learn the Pentagon looks favorably upon them - it could be the kiss of death to many a career. Update: Okay, I'm not letting the Pentagon off the hook here (Have I mentioned that this was a bad idea? Why yes, in three posts now, with additional details in the comments...) but my final paragraph above does raise interesting questions in my mind. How far can the media go in reporting this story? Small Wars Journal linked the Washington Post coverage. A question raised in comments there: "Is it asking too much for reporters/editors to provide some perspective with the story, rather than just dropping the tidbits of information that are likely to rile people up?" appeared to be rhetorical, but got me thinking and prompted this response: That's a tough call for them - they have to "balance" getting readers riled up at the implication that all embeds are simply regurgitating Pentagon-approved facts with the knowledge that if they let it go too far they'll have to explain why that means "except ours, of course". But that problem has at least one potential solution. Here's a report from Wired Magazine's Danger Room:
So the case for "you can trust powerful corporate media - but not those little guys" can be made - if those in said media want (and are permitted) to make it. (No doubt the temptation is there.) Update: Spokesman: execution of termination intended Posted by Greyhawk / August 28, 2009 6:15 PM | Permalink 8 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 |
Yeah, to reiterate what I had commented before, this is bad. But, to me, it goes beyond the mere concept of 'rating' anybody.
I mean, I'm reasonably sure my stories would be rated in the positive-neutral range. I know what I wrote, and I can be reasonably objective about it. As a courtesy, I always emailed soldiers/commanders the links afterwards, and nobody ever complained. Mostly, they said they liked them.
But if that earned me a 'positive' rating - does that mean I was an easy mark? Easily snowed by wily and deceptive soldiers? Should I feel snookered?
Should I have reported more critically? Should I have put aside what I considered context? Should I have reported EVERYTHING that I saw and heard from our soldiers?
That's what a rating system like this encourages. It's not going to make anybody try to be positive. It will make many reporters try their best to be rated negative.
Anyone can Google any reporter, and I'll take a compliment at face value. But as soon as anyone rates me on paper, and I don't agree with the methodology, it will make me question if my approach needs to change.
I have no idea if I'm even included in any of these files, but I'll be trying to find out.
I liked the comment about "Tobia continues to humanize US soldiers by quoting mainly US Military personnel and detailing the soldiers’ backgrounds, homes and reaction to fighting in Afghanistan."
Because I'm well aware of what a PAO once told me: a quote from a troop makes it likely that at least the kid's home town paper will run the story. Otherwise it will probably be ignored. That's fact-of-life journalism 101, it strikes me as odd that the Rendon group even finds it worth mentioning. It's as significant as "jimmy uses vowels and punctuation".
Besides that, this is a winner: "…It should be noted that his [Village Voice] article was titles “Afghaniscrewed: How I Spent My Fall Vacation.”"
Really, how many reporters write their own headlines? You can't judge a reporter by that. (For that matter, how much of a finished product is a result of an editor's slant?) Do the guys making money to provide the Pentagon with this crap know anything at all about what they're doing?
Bottom line, it appears that someone in the Pentagon decided to contract out a job a private could do - and if that private was a trained public affairs troop they could do it a hellalot better than the guys who got the big bucks.
"Reasonably objective?" What the hell does that mean? Aren't reporters supposed to be just plain "objective?" That's sure as hell the way I was required to write, but then I was writing for a liberal little town rag as one of the lone conservatives in the newsroom. I guess that's just another one of those rules only certain folks follow.
"Reasonably objective." Wow.
No, I don't agree the Pentagon has any business rating reporters' stories. That said, I sure as hell understand WHY they do it. The last thing they need is a Rachel Maddow or the like on the front lines undermining every thing that happens. And it's not beyond the realm of possibility for these same types of folks to manufacture ANYTHING they could think of to give a false impression back home.
And don't tell me that would never happen. We've seen just that sort of thing happen in domestic news reports over the last decade or so. RatherGate anyone? Or how about the infamous SUV rollover report?
I've never wanted to admit it, but I do believe journalism may well be dead. When a writer readily admits, in an effort to look superior to others, that he can be "reasonably objective" things are NOT lookin' good for journalists.
Simmer down there, fireball.
Read my comment again - I'm saying I can be "reasonably objective" when I'm judging the content of my own stories. Because of that, I can confidently say my stories were "just plain objective."
Here's another way I know that, from face-to-face quotes culled over three embeds, where I saw the same soldiers during repeated deployments.
Soldier One: "To be honest, the only reason I'm talking to you is because Soldier Two said your stories from last time were really truthful."
Soldier Two: "We really like how you just tell the truth. It means a lot."
Soldier Three: "We loved that story, we didn't care Soldier Four got in trouble. It was true."
So, if you were a good journalist, you might want to carefully read what you're commenting on - you know, before you make a comment attacking someone's reputation.
Monica,
I completely understand where you're coming from, but you also just illustrated a problem in evaluating someone's writing. I learned long ago that there's nothing I can write that can't be completely misunderstood.
As for barring reporters, I'm against it. In part that's because no matter what they might report, the public imagination of anything they are "forbidden to report" will be worse by orders of magnitude.
I do think banning is authorized in some instances - think OPSEC here, along the lines of Geraldo's map in the sand. (I'm also concerned at the potential to abuse the OPSEC call, there are certainly grey areas.)
And I think it behooves anyone who a reporter seeks out on any topic to do some homework before responding, maintain their own record of any conversation, and respond swiftly to any inaccuracies that may appear in the resulting reporting.
And I really wish the military hadn't done so much to effectively stifle milbloggers. One good corrective report from an on-scene milblogger would do as much damage to any agenda-driven reporter's fraudulent claim to objectivity or accuracy as this "rating" idea has done to the Pentagon.
Bottom line: false reporting can be countered with truth, but true stories of reporters being "evaluated" make that harder by orders of magnitude.
But again, a contractor made some cash, and that trumps all.
Well...I talked to an old friend within DOD PAO, and he wasn't impressed with the truthfulness of Tobia's report.
I'm not saying I agree/disagree with any of what he said.
But, mainly, he doesn't believe any report would be that long. He believed any such report would be just a few bullet points, and would not be so specific and detailed - basically that nobody would care about minutia.
I told him that because there aren't that many embed reporters, doesn't it make sense to have detailed reports like that?
But he said it makes no sense, since they're not just dealing with embeds, local national media, and media working from bureaus, etc. So they just aren't going to have time/interest to read a long file about anyone.
So, that's a very unofficial DOD response to that post. But, it's just an opinion...so who knows.
My friend's bottom line: the military doesn't need a report to know which journalists are credible and truthful, whether it's good or bad news.
Anyway, maybe I'm not quite as strident about this as I was previously - but I guess that's because I'm easily fooled by wily PAO folks.
I told him to dig up some Rendon dirt on me. So we'll see what he finds.
Hmmm - Tobia's posted Rendon report is (by his admission) an edited version of the complete report. I wondered what he had left out.
"My friend's bottom line: the military doesn't need a report to know which journalists are credible and truthful, whether it's good or bad news."
What, they take one look at you and decide? :) But seriously, it goes back to what you said in the first place (and that I repeated without crediting you as bottom line in my first comment, sorry) - a contractor made some cash. Yes - no frontline commander, at least not many, would care enough about that outside, bought and paid for opinion to read it. If he wants to form an opinion ahead of time about an inbound reporter, he'll use teh Googles and read for himself (or expect his PAO - if he trusts their opinion enough - has already done so). Third parties need not apply, thanks.
Really, think about it. "Here Colonel, we paid some guys to provide us this opinion of a reporter so you wouldn't have to come up with your own." He might say "thank you", but if he takes it into the porta potty with him it ain't because he's gonna read it.
Seriously, much embarrassment here for anyone who ever embedded, and anyone who ever hosted an embed, because some Pentagon REMF thought it would be a great idea to contract out one of the simplest, least time consuming tasks in the world.
Right - the colonel should get a few bullet points from his PAO staff. Period. And if the PAO can't handle that job all by themselves, then they need to reevaluate their purpose. That was what my friend was saying - but he was defending them, so...
In typical military, bureaucratic fashion, they take something which is totally valid - having advance knowledge of reporters they'll be dealing with - into some skeevy, underhanded, secretive system. J-O-K-E.