Conffederate
Confederate

February 02, 2007

Appropriate Responses

William Arkin has garnered quite a bit of heat for some of his comments in a blog entry posted earlier this week that labeled those who wear the uniform of the American military "mercenaries," and stated, "Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform..."

It was, in a word, disgusting.

Yesterday, Arkin offered up a response to the immense blowback his previous post generated, and Arkin, much to his dishonor, chose to single out the most angry responses to his initial post, while utterly refusing to engage the most thoughtful ones. In some ways, his response was more outrageous than his initial post, apparently labeling those serving in our nations military as fascists:

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

A very interesting point about his response was that it was not posted on his blog's main page; it was only available through a direct hyperlink. Was Arkin or WPNI (Washington Post Newsweek Interactive, the company running Washingtonpost.com) attempting to hide the post?

By early this morning, another oddity occurred: The second post was back on Early Warning, but as a sharp-eyed reader of Stephen Spruill's Media Blog noted:

Hmm, this is interesting. Now there's a third post sandwiched *between* the other two, offering a somewhat more sincere (but halfhearted, frankly) apology for the use of the term "mercenary".

That post simply wasn't there before, even when the "Arrogant and Intolerant" post was added to the table of contents.

By my account, the apology *followed* his second tirade. But now it's showing up before it. Is Mr. Arkin trying to reorder the timeline here, to make it look like his detractors are blowing right past it?

Sure enough, that is exactly what I found when I checked Arkin's blog around 9:00 AM, but minutes later, the posts had flip-flopped with his third screed now posted in a correct chronology.

I don't know if Arkin was playing as fast and loose with the posting order and the transparency of these articles as he played with the pejorative statements he aimed at our military in not one, but two separate posts, but it does bear asking.

On another front in this discussion, some bloggers are calling for a boycott of the Washington Post's advertisers over Arkin's inflammatory (and to my mind, unnecessarily vicious and indefensible) attacks, and still others are calling upon the Washington Post to flatly fire Arkin for expressing these opinions.

I don't agree with either approach.

Arkin is entitled to his apparent contempt for the military, and has the right to share his opinion, no matter how offensive we find it to be. If Arkin was misrepresenting facts, that would be another case entirely, but his posts were clearly opinion pieces.

That said, Arkin's rants—and I feel that his specific, intentional and acknowleged choice of wording justifies the term "rant"—along with the rather questionable re-ordering and obfuscation of his posts should be reviewed by both pundits and the Washington Post itself as two separate, but related issues.

The purpose of Arkin's blog Early Warning is stated to be this:

Starting Sept. 14, Early Warning will report daily on the comings and goings of the national security community -- military, special ops, intelligence, homeland security -- part blog, part investigative journalism (a jog!). Here I can post documents, go into great detail, stick with a story when others have moved on, and introduce one that has escaped the mainstream media.

There's no question that The Washington Post is mainstream media, but in this space of theirs, I'll have more freedom. Still, I won't fudge facts or feed an even more confused and conspiratorial picture of the secret agencies.

My basic philosophy is that government is more incompetent than diabolical, that the military gets way too much of a free ride (memo to self: Don't say anything bad about the troops), and that official secrecy is the greatest threat citizens actually face today.

Earlier this year, I wrote a book -- Code Names -- that not only lays out my views on secrecy, but also provides the goods (and thanks friends for keeping code names coming). As you'll find out, I'm an obsessive compulsive kind of collector - acronyms, code names, nomenclatures, events, dates, documents. For 30 years I've been putting together little pieces of information to try to produce the BIG PICTURE.

Early Warning is an opportunity to put my stockpiles to good use. As I dig into the hundreds of documents already in my possession, I'll be looking for your comment and dissent (and for those of you with your own stockpiles, for your contributions). I know I'm writing mostly for a hyper-informed world of national security geeks, but my larger objective is a more informed public and to demolish false authority, in government, in the special interests, and in the media. My target list, frankly, is too vast to even summarize. I also hope to have some fun in writing without the straitjacket of traditional journalistic conventions.

Calling those in our military "mercenaries," stating that we have "indulged" them through "every rape and murder," only to later imply they are fascists in a follow-up post, shows that Arkin has clearly failed in his memo to himself: "Don't say anything bad about the troops."

This is a failure on Arkin's part, but we all fail or contradict ourselves at some point if we write long enough; human beings are, unfortunately, often hypocritical beasts. If any blogger feels that they have not been hypocritical or contradictory at some point they are simply deluding themselves. This alone is not a firing offense. All he is sharing is an opinion, though an unpopular one.

What perhaps the Washington Post should perhaps consider in the future is whether or not Arkin is the best person to continue writing this particular blog. It seems quite possible that this series of rants has created an adversarial relationship with the very national security community he was apparently hired to cover. It might be that because of his opinions, he has poisoned the proverbial well, and that the editors of the Washington Post may find that his stated opinions have made him unsuited to continue this particular assignment. That decision, I hasten to add, is completely and wholly a decision to be made by the editors of the Washington Post. He either retains his ability to do his job effectively, or he doesn't, and that can only be determined by his future performance. If the editors determine in the future that his ability to continue in this position has been diminished, perhaps they will opt to find another person of equal or greater ability to continue writing on this subject, but in no way should Arkin's employment by the Washington Post be determined purely for the opinions stated in these two posts.

The separate but related issue of the rather questionable re-ordering and obfuscation of his posts is another matter entirely.

If it can be reasonably determined that this was merely a technical issue or an honest mistake by either Arkin or someone at WPNI, then this is quite understandably something that can be forgiven. If however, it is determined that Arkin or someone else purposefully kept his second post from appearing on the front page of Early Warning, or if someone purposefully re-ordered the post order to intersperse his second response in order to make his critics appear harsh, or unforgiving, then we are discussing an ethical matter which may require a more immediate and permanent response.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at February 2, 2007 10:04 AM
Comments

Arkin - a five pound turd in a three pound sack

Posted by: negentropy at February 2, 2007 01:44 PM

"I don't agree with either approach".--CF

Well it would appear then for all your contempt for Arkin's activities that you are not in favor of anything that might actually have some effect.

Are you basing this upon that famous 'freedom of expression' argument ? The one that frankly has been so distorted by the 'usual suspects' that it no longer bears the faintest resemblance to what was intended or indeed written in the Constitution.

You have 'freedom' from State reprisals for your non-violent 'expressions of opinion'. Nowhere does it say that you have an automatic 'get-out-of-jail-free' card permanently in your pocket. You still have to face the 'social consequences' of your actions and 'expressions'. I'm not in the business of 'defending unto death' some idiot's right to be idiotic. He's on his own. As long as the mob does not committ grievous bodily harm on his person, they can bay for his 'corporate blood' 24-7 in my book.

You are essentially saying that the WAPO is the sole determiner of what they will publish, and you are correct(as far as you go). Then you follow up by saying that we must rely on their good-will and sense of 'fairness' rather than exert any (undue)pressure on their 'decision making' processes.

With all due respect, that is a recipe for the same-o, same-o. And the same-o, same-o is what gives us a leftist ideologue commenting on National Security. And Mr. Arkin by many accounts IS a leftist-leaning ideeologue.

You complain(with the rest of us) about the media's 'orientation' and 'agendas', and then when an opportunity arises to not only expose them, but make them pay a price for their actions, you "don't agree with either approach".

It's the same situation as in Iraq. The War still goes on because insufficient 'persuasion' has been used, not because of excessive amounts of same. Iraq is being lost as we speak, and so is the War At Home. And as creatures like Mr.Arkin plainly state --- it is a War. He and his get to determine the battlefields and the weapons employed, and those who disagree get to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Must not be 'extreme' here must we? Must be ever so fair and 'understanding'.

"This is a failure on Arkin's part, but we all fail or contradict ourselves at some point if we write long enough..."

And in the effort to re-establish at least a modicum of 'balance' in the information stream, that observation matters, how? Arkin is not just a temporary tempest. He is instead a symptom of a pervasive media 'outlook'. An 'outlook' many now find 'questionable'.

You take your opportunities when they arise.

This ain't no Marquis of Queensbury ruled social soirée. Not at this point.

But what do I know ? Well apart from the fact that I don't like LOSING, and think campaigns against opponents should be conducted to WIN(within legitimate ROE). But maybe you are correct and 'compassionate conflict' is the way to go.

I'm sure that the WAPO will effectively deal with Mr.Arkin so that his efforts will not cause them future discomfort.

Of course they will. It's 'inconceivable' that they might simply take him out for a few drinks and commiserate on his engagement with the 'morons.

Inconceivable.*


* --sourced from the 'Princess Bride'.


Posted by: dougf at February 3, 2007 10:18 AM

"I don't agree with either approach".--CF

Well it would appear then for all your disdain for Arkin's activities that you are not in favor of anything that might actually have some effect.

Are you basing this upon that famous 'freedom of expression' argument ? The one that frankly has been so distorted by the 'usual suspects' that it no longer bears the faintest resemblance to what was intended or indeed written in the Constitution.

You have 'freedom' from State reprisals for your non-violent 'expressions of opinion'. Nowhere does it say that you have an automatic 'get-out-of-jail-free' card permanently in your pocket. You still have to face the 'social consequences' of your actions and 'expressions'. I'm not in the business of 'defending unto death' some idiot's right to be idiotic. He's on his own. As long as the mob does not committ grievous bodily harm on his person, they can bay for his 'corporate blood' 24-7 in my book.

You are essentially saying that the WAPO is the sole determiner of what they will publish, and you are correct(as far as you go). Then you follow up by saying that we must rely on their good-will and sense of 'fairness' rather than exert any (undue)pressure on their 'decision making' processes.

With all due respect, that is a recipe for the same-o, same-o. And the same-o, same-o is what gives us a leftist ideologue commenting on National Security. And Mr. Arkin by many accounts IS a leftist-leaning ideeologue.

You complain(with the rest of us) about the media's 'orientation' and 'agendas', and then when an opportunity arises to not only expose them, but make them pay a price for their actions, you "don't agree with either approach".

It's the same situation as in Iraq. The War still goes on because insufficient 'persuasion' has been used, not because of excessive amounts of same. Iraq is being lost as we speak, and so is the War At Home. And as creatures like Mr.Arkin plainly state --- it is a War. He and his get to determine the battlefields and the weapons employed, and those who disagree get to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Must not be 'extreme' here must we? Must be ever so fair and 'understanding'.

"This is a failure on Arkin's part, but we all fail or contradict ourselves at some point if we write long enough..."

And in the effort to re-establish at least a modicum of 'balance' in the information stream, that observation matters, how? Arkin is not just a temporary tempest. He is instead a symptom of a pervasive media 'outlook'. An 'outlook' many now find 'questionable'.

You take your opportunities when they arise.

This ain't no Marquis of Queensbury ruled social soirée. Not at this point.

But what do I know ? Well apart from the fact that I don't like LOSING, and think campaigns against opponents should be conducted to WIN(within legitimate ROE). But maybe you are correct and 'compassionate conflict' is the way to go.

I'm sure that the WAPO will effectively deal with Mr.Arkin so that his efforts will not cause them future discomfort.

Of course they will. It's 'inconceivable' that they might simply take him out for a few drinks and commiserate on his engagement with the 'morons.

Inconceivable.*


* --sourced from the 'Princess Bride'.

Posted by: dougf at February 3, 2007 11:01 AM