previous post next post  

Bill Arkin responds to the milbloggers.

By The Armorer on May 30, 2007 | | Comments (5)

In his bit today - Mr. Arkin responds to our criticism of his Baseball and the Military post.

Hey, he responded. It's a conversation, and so far it's not gotten too bad. He responded to Blackfive, Op-For, Badgers Forward.

He noted me directly, and followed with his summation paragraph.

One Milblogger, Argghhh!!!, seems to agree that there needs to be more accountability at the top: "Mr. Arkin - there aren't too many milblog spaces out there who call for *more* Flag Officer and Senior Leader scalps and heads on pikes than Castle Argghhh!." But he goes on to say that only he and the other MilBloggers have the adequate access and perspective to criticize: "The difference, sir, between you and I, is that I actually have some experience on the inside behind my call for summary executions."

I guess I'll continue in my naïve hope that a free press, not a fan base, is our best hope for encouraging impartial and well-rounded criticism. As for only team owners and players commenting on the team and hoping to be the only sources of information? I would prefer that all Americans saw themselves as team owners: that was the point of my column.

I left this comment at Arkin's place:

Heh. Fair enough criticism of my response to you, sir.

And admittedly poor writing on my part, in that I failed to convey my point adequately.

I didn't mean to set it the way you took it, in that *only* I am qualified - I meant it more in the terms that you set regarding criticism of the MSM, in that many in the mainstream sniff at us bloggers because we don't have the training and qualifications of a mainstreamer - so too I *meant* to say, I've got my subject matter expertise, too, and would suggest that in some respects I am therefore *more* qualified than you - but that doesn't make you unqualified.

And were you a regular reader you'd find I support and criticize the MSM. I know my limitations - as I said in my piece:

"No, Bill, at least here at the Castle, we're about providing context the MSM doesn't, explaining things they get wrong, and telling the stories they don't want/have the space or time to tell. I'm not anti-media, really. It's a symbiotic relationship. I'd have far less to write about if the MSM didn't exist - I know the limitations of my news-gathering abilities. But I also know my value-added, which is why some of your guys talk to me... to get that context, some back-story, some explanation beyond what the PAO provides."

We're looking in a mirror, Mr. Arkin - you criticize me for the same flaws I criticize you.

I would suggest we're both right.

Don't get me started on obscene amenities... 8^ )

Share This Article:

Categories:

5 Comments

By John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2007 2:13 PM
Heh. Does anyone besides us actually *read* Mr. Arkin's blog? Oh, I know, most people don't click through on links, especially ones like mine, buried deep in the post. But I find it amusing that I've gotten more visits from Andrew Sullivan's blog, from the trackback caused by Ry's linkage to Sullivan's torture post in today's H&I Fires post, than have shown up from Arkin's space. But maybe I should be happy about that, eh?
 
By kat-missouri on May 30, 2007 8:25 PM
Two things: 1) I can't blog from work anymore. Totally caught off from everything but news and work related sites. blogspot or any other dot coms don't work. 2) sometimes, mr. arkin just makes me want to hurl things at the computer screen so I have to make myself read him. there is this third thing. I got a notice from soldiers' angels that Rosie O'donnell donated to our organization recently (post her comments that seemed to imply the soldiers' were "terrorists" or at least, inflicting terror on the Iraqi people). I am having problems figuring out how to write about it. Mainly because the paradox simply boggles the mind, but also because I don't think private donations (indulgences) for public stupidity really erases the sin. On the otherhand, I want people to donate to Soldiers' Angels and support our troops, no matter their politics. Our troops deserve everything and all the support they can get. Now, the question is, how do I write about it without inflicting pain to on anyone including my own principles? Or, do I swallow it down and just write about it without any qualifiers? Uuggh!
 
By ry on May 31, 2007 12:32 AM
John, go back and read Arkin's comments section. He gets read. Not sure how widely but he does get read. And sorry about the Sullican thing. not typical for my reading list. Didn't anticipate those two from today, particularly how I phrased it (things I might not have been right about), causing the bruhaha that they did. Sheesh. When did I morph into the OD clone? I'm getting real unpopular with vocal parts of the readership again. Kat. I wouldn't write about it. Let it be. Unless you think somehow highlighting the donation would help get an untapped demographic I'd simply let the topic of O'Donnel be. NO point rilling yourself up and inviting trolls to come say nasty stuff about you on your blog as a bonus for it. Let her generosity, such as it is, go. Got your back either way, but I'd let it go since the value out is not real high compared to the effort in. If you feel compelled to write about it, why do you think your own principles are compromised by accepting her gift? It's her hypocrasy and not yours. All you're doing is fighting for Troops. You aren't offering absolution or anything. If she's claiming it it wasn't because you guys offered it. Money is money. If a drug lord gave you cash I'd expect you to use it, and not speak up for him at trial. It doesn't negate the prior act---you guys aren't in the absolution business. She did a good thing, to try and make up for a bad thing. Don't let guerilla PR work. Simply having her name linked to donating to SA is a PR bonus for her. Let it go unless you absolutely have to write about it.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 31, 2007 6:16 AM
Ry, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, and a discussion of 'netizen behavior. There's a growing anecdotal body of knowledge that indicates that if you "excerpt" from someone's post you're linking to - usually with the intent of it being a teaser to get someone to click the link, that in fact, you get fewer click-throughs than if you just link without excerpting. That is certainly borne out, albeit unscientifically, with Arkin's post yesterday. 6 visits from his post. 48 or so from a buried trackback at Sullivan's place. It's just... interesting.
 
By Cricket on May 31, 2007 6:30 AM
Link her name and do nothing more. Sometimes the least said is the easiest mended. I think in Ms. O'Donnell's case, it would go down easier to just not make a big deal about it. If people see her name, then yeah, they see it and move on with their lives.