Jolie Rouge
05-24-2007, 12:52 PM
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
If Only War Reporting Were More Like Sports Reporting
Let's see if I can do this without insulting either baseball fans or bloggers. Blogging baseball fans, I ask for your forgiveness preemptively.
I went to a Red Sox game on Saturday, and up above home plate I couldn't help but notice the press box: five, six, seven tiers of desks, filled with print, radio, television and who knows what other media all reporting every move and anomaly. It dawned on me that there are more reporters covering the Sox, just one baseball team, than cover the Pentagon.
I've been wanting to write about the 2nd Annual MilBlog conference (I wasn't invited), and did write earlier about the brouhaha over the Pentagon's supposed new restrictions regarding blogging.
The MilBloggers got an extra boost of attention after the news about the Army's "crackdown" on blogs, with the overheated claim that the new operations security (OPSEC) and bandwidth rules cut off soldiers from their families and restricting people's freedoms. An extra boost from whom, you ask? From the mainstream media they so seemingly despise -- with various noterati of the MilBlog world being interviewed and quoted regarding the impact of the military's new rules.
As I see it, beyond the social networking and communications functions, the Milblogs have set themselves up as an anti-news media squad. The conference included many discussions of the deficiencies of mainstream press coverage of Iraq. In fact, some people actually believe that, with the availability of worldwide news on the Web and the emergence of military blogs, the Pentagon press corps and even the mainstream news media is obsolete.
Which brings me back to the Red Sox game -- specifically, Section 15, where I was sitting. I couldn't help but notice that the baseball aficionados felt quite confident about their knowledge and views. Everyone had an opinion on the game; everyone was an expert.
For the super-fans who can actually afford to go to the games, or who commit their lives to the Sox, the professional reporters are hardly the enemy. These are people who can't get enough news and analysis. They depend on the news media for commentary and amplification and insight; they study and memorize the statistics.
I've often thought if we could cover the military like sports, with transparency and intimate knowledge and a play-by-play that was both affectionate and unsparingly critical, we'd have a healthier debate. Interest and knowledge on the part of the typical American in foreign affairs and national security would actually increase.
But alas, it is the military, and whether it is the death of Pat Tillman or a war plan, the impulse of the institution is strategic defense. Secrecy, of course, is always justified on OPSEC grounds.
In war as opposed to baseball, an attitude that has become more and more pronounced during the Iraq war is that the team -- the U.S. military and the American soldier in particular -- can't be criticized. There is no room to call someone to task -- not even a general -- for his managing, fielding or batting errors, no matter how egregious. Not only are the details held quite closely as to who is responsible, but to actually hold the team itself accountable is to be disloyal to the big team, the country.
That is why a vigilant and independent news media is needed more than ever.
There was a point in the sixth inning of the Red Sox shellacking of the Atlanta Braves that fans in the stands began to taunt the visiting team with the tomahawk chop and a mock humming of the Braves fight song. It was hilarious and painful for the "enemy": no righteous victory here, no compassion.
I'm not sure if that mock hatred made Atlanta more determined to come back and win the night game -- but they did, stomping the Sox 14-0. Then again, I may be overthinking. It's only baseball, after all.
By William M. Arkin | May 22, 2007; 11:01 AM ET
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/05/if_only_war_reporting_were_mor.html#more
Comments
Arkin,
As others have pointed out, you don't have to be "invited" you just have to apply. I realize that that makes for some planning but surely that would have been better than sitting down to a blank screen of a morning and asking, "Heck, a column due and no work done to fill it. Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll write about something I didn't didn't do."
Lazy, Bill. Just dog lazy.
Posted by: Vanderleun | May 24, 2007 11:42 AM
what a tool.
Looks like Arkin knows as much about baseball as he does about the military.
The issue isn't criticism, the issue is informed criticism. Arkin has proven time and again he simply doesn't have the knowledge or the mental wattage to provide that function. Instead he tosses out half baked assertions and cries like a little girl when called to task.
BTW, if you'd even bothered to look at the program from the conference you could have saved yourself a beclowning.
Posted by: streiff | May 24, 2007 07:48 AM
So sticking with the sports analogy. Imagine what hometown fans would do if they decided to simply quit in the 7th inning. And We're back.... in the bottom of the 7th and we have Harry Reid up to bat. He's been in a slump as of late...Oh what's this. Time is called and Pelosi is talking to the umps. Amazing, I've never seen anything like this Jim. Pelosi and Ried have just called the game and forefited. I guess it was just to tough for them. Let's go to commercial..Today's game brought to you by Arkin Co. Just because our product is bad is no reason not to buy it. Remember folks when you want substandard. Remember Arkin Co.
Thank You for continuing to prove with every word you write that you are a complete tool.
Posted by: Alexander | May 23, 2007 09:07 PM
"I've been wanting to write about the 2nd Annual MilBlog conference (I wasn't invited)..."
Mr. Arkin: All you had to do was register, and the registration was on the conference site for over a month (3/18 - 4/27). It closed out a few days before the conference so arrangements for the food service aspects could be handled.
For a mere $40 fee, you could have been in the room. I suspect you may have enjoyed the opportunity to meet some of the people and exchange ideas.
Did you expect an invitation, complete with a free pass be delivered by courier to your office?
By your very statement, you have made it sound like you couldn't come. It appears to me that you didn't make the effort to attend. That is a big difference and a lack of intellectual integrity that the MSM is so regularly criticized about. You didn't help any by your article, with such a mis-representation.
On a separate subject, many sports fans grew up playing sports. While they may not be experts, they certainly have had a reasonable degree of experience with what they are watching, having been there. Not so any more with the general populace and military service. I don't think you have to have been in to comment, but it would be helpful to have at least studied the topics before commenting. I see a lack of experience showing through in the person on the street type polls that tend to be held up as valid. They are opinions, yes, but they are not generally based on some degree of understanding of the seriousness of the matters at hand.
As one commenter wrote above, the "sports model" has portions I'd think would help us tremendously as a nation in having the war on terror. One example is at the ball game, we know the rules enough to know when the refs/umpires are making bad calls, and we stand up and boo them. We also don't cheer when the "other team" scores. We usually boo that, or at least stay quiet.
So, if it were only as you say....
Posted by: Xformed | May 23, 2007 12:25 PM
If Only War Reporting Were More Like Sports Reporting
Let's see if I can do this without insulting either baseball fans or bloggers. Blogging baseball fans, I ask for your forgiveness preemptively.
I went to a Red Sox game on Saturday, and up above home plate I couldn't help but notice the press box: five, six, seven tiers of desks, filled with print, radio, television and who knows what other media all reporting every move and anomaly. It dawned on me that there are more reporters covering the Sox, just one baseball team, than cover the Pentagon.
I've been wanting to write about the 2nd Annual MilBlog conference (I wasn't invited), and did write earlier about the brouhaha over the Pentagon's supposed new restrictions regarding blogging.
The MilBloggers got an extra boost of attention after the news about the Army's "crackdown" on blogs, with the overheated claim that the new operations security (OPSEC) and bandwidth rules cut off soldiers from their families and restricting people's freedoms. An extra boost from whom, you ask? From the mainstream media they so seemingly despise -- with various noterati of the MilBlog world being interviewed and quoted regarding the impact of the military's new rules.
As I see it, beyond the social networking and communications functions, the Milblogs have set themselves up as an anti-news media squad. The conference included many discussions of the deficiencies of mainstream press coverage of Iraq. In fact, some people actually believe that, with the availability of worldwide news on the Web and the emergence of military blogs, the Pentagon press corps and even the mainstream news media is obsolete.
Which brings me back to the Red Sox game -- specifically, Section 15, where I was sitting. I couldn't help but notice that the baseball aficionados felt quite confident about their knowledge and views. Everyone had an opinion on the game; everyone was an expert.
For the super-fans who can actually afford to go to the games, or who commit their lives to the Sox, the professional reporters are hardly the enemy. These are people who can't get enough news and analysis. They depend on the news media for commentary and amplification and insight; they study and memorize the statistics.
I've often thought if we could cover the military like sports, with transparency and intimate knowledge and a play-by-play that was both affectionate and unsparingly critical, we'd have a healthier debate. Interest and knowledge on the part of the typical American in foreign affairs and national security would actually increase.
But alas, it is the military, and whether it is the death of Pat Tillman or a war plan, the impulse of the institution is strategic defense. Secrecy, of course, is always justified on OPSEC grounds.
In war as opposed to baseball, an attitude that has become more and more pronounced during the Iraq war is that the team -- the U.S. military and the American soldier in particular -- can't be criticized. There is no room to call someone to task -- not even a general -- for his managing, fielding or batting errors, no matter how egregious. Not only are the details held quite closely as to who is responsible, but to actually hold the team itself accountable is to be disloyal to the big team, the country.
That is why a vigilant and independent news media is needed more than ever.
There was a point in the sixth inning of the Red Sox shellacking of the Atlanta Braves that fans in the stands began to taunt the visiting team with the tomahawk chop and a mock humming of the Braves fight song. It was hilarious and painful for the "enemy": no righteous victory here, no compassion.
I'm not sure if that mock hatred made Atlanta more determined to come back and win the night game -- but they did, stomping the Sox 14-0. Then again, I may be overthinking. It's only baseball, after all.
By William M. Arkin | May 22, 2007; 11:01 AM ET
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/05/if_only_war_reporting_were_mor.html#more
Comments
Arkin,
As others have pointed out, you don't have to be "invited" you just have to apply. I realize that that makes for some planning but surely that would have been better than sitting down to a blank screen of a morning and asking, "Heck, a column due and no work done to fill it. Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll write about something I didn't didn't do."
Lazy, Bill. Just dog lazy.
Posted by: Vanderleun | May 24, 2007 11:42 AM
what a tool.
Looks like Arkin knows as much about baseball as he does about the military.
The issue isn't criticism, the issue is informed criticism. Arkin has proven time and again he simply doesn't have the knowledge or the mental wattage to provide that function. Instead he tosses out half baked assertions and cries like a little girl when called to task.
BTW, if you'd even bothered to look at the program from the conference you could have saved yourself a beclowning.
Posted by: streiff | May 24, 2007 07:48 AM
So sticking with the sports analogy. Imagine what hometown fans would do if they decided to simply quit in the 7th inning. And We're back.... in the bottom of the 7th and we have Harry Reid up to bat. He's been in a slump as of late...Oh what's this. Time is called and Pelosi is talking to the umps. Amazing, I've never seen anything like this Jim. Pelosi and Ried have just called the game and forefited. I guess it was just to tough for them. Let's go to commercial..Today's game brought to you by Arkin Co. Just because our product is bad is no reason not to buy it. Remember folks when you want substandard. Remember Arkin Co.
Thank You for continuing to prove with every word you write that you are a complete tool.
Posted by: Alexander | May 23, 2007 09:07 PM
"I've been wanting to write about the 2nd Annual MilBlog conference (I wasn't invited)..."
Mr. Arkin: All you had to do was register, and the registration was on the conference site for over a month (3/18 - 4/27). It closed out a few days before the conference so arrangements for the food service aspects could be handled.
For a mere $40 fee, you could have been in the room. I suspect you may have enjoyed the opportunity to meet some of the people and exchange ideas.
Did you expect an invitation, complete with a free pass be delivered by courier to your office?
By your very statement, you have made it sound like you couldn't come. It appears to me that you didn't make the effort to attend. That is a big difference and a lack of intellectual integrity that the MSM is so regularly criticized about. You didn't help any by your article, with such a mis-representation.
On a separate subject, many sports fans grew up playing sports. While they may not be experts, they certainly have had a reasonable degree of experience with what they are watching, having been there. Not so any more with the general populace and military service. I don't think you have to have been in to comment, but it would be helpful to have at least studied the topics before commenting. I see a lack of experience showing through in the person on the street type polls that tend to be held up as valid. They are opinions, yes, but they are not generally based on some degree of understanding of the seriousness of the matters at hand.
As one commenter wrote above, the "sports model" has portions I'd think would help us tremendously as a nation in having the war on terror. One example is at the ball game, we know the rules enough to know when the refs/umpires are making bad calls, and we stand up and boo them. We also don't cheer when the "other team" scores. We usually boo that, or at least stay quiet.
So, if it were only as you say....
Posted by: Xformed | May 23, 2007 12:25 PM