(I admit I am still a bit confused about what the actual hard facts were, before it became a legitimate topic for further speculation on the basis that everyone was talking about it!)
Jody Tresidder
at July 8, 2010 9:42 AM
There's more -- Hollrah wrote back most politely in response to my further request for clarification about the "Obama team" bit. I don't agree with him, I find it misleading writing, but he at least addressed the point.
His editor, Frank Salvato, first blew off my requests for substantiation by telling me to direct all replies to the author. I need to know the truth here, and continued asking for it, and he got nasty, even thuggishly threatening to report me to AOL for a terms of service violation -- as if I were some stalker, not a blogger/journalist legitimately embarrassed about publishing something that seemed to be untrue, and seeking the truth so I could correct the record...at least on my blog.
I find that behavior ugly and shocking. And especially hilarious in light of the sig at the bottom of his e-mail...an Orwell quote!
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-- George Orwell
Apparently so! And there seem to be far too few truth-compelled revolutionaries!
Amy,
I was also stunned by the editor's response.
Not just by the sneering & bullying - but because he so quickly jumped to such crazy, unsupported conclusions about your motives!
As you say, the author was far more thoughtful.
But - honestly - is it just me being thick here? Or is the author still oddly fudging?
He wrote to you: "It seemed to me that the CRM was such a preposterous idea that it would have been way over the top for career military people, but not necessarily for the Obama people. So I looked it up on the Internet and I found that the planning for the medal was confirmed by Lt. Col Tadd Sholtis (USAF) of the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul.
It was not a joke; it was actually in the works. Lt. Col Sholtis is quoted as saying, “The idea is consistent with our approach...."
How does the author extract CONFIRMATION that the plan for such a medal was "actually in the works" from the quote (from Lt. Col Sholtis) he immediately cites?
To me, the quote: "The idea is consistent with our approach" strongly indicates Sholtis was NOT personally confirming his own knowledge of any such planed medal - but was merely agreeing that the idea wasn't impossible?
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/08/calls_for_accur.html#comment-1730701">comment from Jody Tresidder
I didn't say the author was "more thoughtful." The author was more polite, but I think what he wrote was misleading. And I don't accept his justifications -- although I appreciate that he at least answered, and without calling me an idiot, an ass, and suggesting that I'm cheap!
Sorry. That was sloppy.
I should have said I thought his was the more thoughtful response.
Jody Tresidder
at July 8, 2010 11:39 AM
Best part is where the "editor" (sorry, but with syntax like that it's a bit like accepting to have my disabled great uncle referred to as a prefessional athlete because he plays chess for nickels -- end tangent) unloads on the unprofessional practices of such corrupt organizations as Reuters and AP.
Seriously?
These are the people who can only live in a world surrounded exclusively by echos of their own viewpoint, aren't they? As though if confronted by an opposing position, they'll disappear into a puff of cognitive dissonance and be gone forever.
Well we can hope, at least.
ehtrain
at July 8, 2010 2:51 PM
Thanks for following through on this. I think it's pretty evident that the article was intended to mislead, and wasn't merely sloppily written.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/08/calls_for_accur.html#comment-1730878">comment from franko
Thanks for following through on this.
Thanks, franko. I sure don't want to post inaccurate stuff on my blog. One thing that's great about my blog is that there are so many people who step up when they notice something amiss and say, "Hey, that's wrong, and here's why." As you did. Really appreciate that. And glad that you can see that I don't take it lightly when it seems something might be inaccurate. To a certain editor's extreme annoyance!
Seriously, seriously well done, Amy.
(I admit I am still a bit confused about what the actual hard facts were, before it became a legitimate topic for further speculation on the basis that everyone was talking about it!)
Jody Tresidder at July 8, 2010 9:42 AM
There's more -- Hollrah wrote back most politely in response to my further request for clarification about the "Obama team" bit. I don't agree with him, I find it misleading writing, but he at least addressed the point.
His editor, Frank Salvato, first blew off my requests for substantiation by telling me to direct all replies to the author. I need to know the truth here, and continued asking for it, and he got nasty, even thuggishly threatening to report me to AOL for a terms of service violation -- as if I were some stalker, not a blogger/journalist legitimately embarrassed about publishing something that seemed to be untrue, and seeking the truth so I could correct the record...at least on my blog.
I find that behavior ugly and shocking. And especially hilarious in light of the sig at the bottom of his e-mail...an Orwell quote!
Apparently so! And there seem to be far too few truth-compelled revolutionaries!
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2010 9:54 AM
Avenging Amy strikes again!
Martin at July 8, 2010 10:03 AM
>>I find that behavior ugly and shocking.
Amy,
I was also stunned by the editor's response.
Not just by the sneering & bullying - but because he so quickly jumped to such crazy, unsupported conclusions about your motives!
As you say, the author was far more thoughtful.
But - honestly - is it just me being thick here? Or is the author still oddly fudging?
He wrote to you: "It seemed to me that the CRM was such a preposterous idea that it would have been way over the top for career military people, but not necessarily for the Obama people. So I looked it up on the Internet and I found that the planning for the medal was confirmed by Lt. Col Tadd Sholtis (USAF) of the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul.
It was not a joke; it was actually in the works. Lt. Col Sholtis is quoted as saying, “The idea is consistent with our approach...."
How does the author extract CONFIRMATION that the plan for such a medal was "actually in the works" from the quote (from Lt. Col Sholtis) he immediately cites?
To me, the quote: "The idea is consistent with our approach" strongly indicates Sholtis was NOT personally confirming his own knowledge of any such planed medal - but was merely agreeing that the idea wasn't impossible?
Jody Tresidder at July 8, 2010 10:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/08/calls_for_accur.html#comment-1730701">comment from Jody TresidderI didn't say the author was "more thoughtful." The author was more polite, but I think what he wrote was misleading. And I don't accept his justifications -- although I appreciate that he at least answered, and without calling me an idiot, an ass, and suggesting that I'm cheap!
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2010 11:00 AM
>>I didn't say the author was "more thoughtful."
Sorry. That was sloppy.
I should have said I thought his was the more thoughtful response.
Jody Tresidder at July 8, 2010 11:39 AM
Best part is where the "editor" (sorry, but with syntax like that it's a bit like accepting to have my disabled great uncle referred to as a prefessional athlete because he plays chess for nickels -- end tangent) unloads on the unprofessional practices of such corrupt organizations as Reuters and AP.
Seriously?
These are the people who can only live in a world surrounded exclusively by echos of their own viewpoint, aren't they? As though if confronted by an opposing position, they'll disappear into a puff of cognitive dissonance and be gone forever.
Well we can hope, at least.
ehtrain at July 8, 2010 2:51 PM
Thanks for following through on this. I think it's pretty evident that the article was intended to mislead, and wasn't merely sloppily written.
franko at July 8, 2010 5:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/08/calls_for_accur.html#comment-1730878">comment from frankoThanks for following through on this.
Thanks, franko. I sure don't want to post inaccurate stuff on my blog. One thing that's great about my blog is that there are so many people who step up when they notice something amiss and say, "Hey, that's wrong, and here's why." As you did. Really appreciate that. And glad that you can see that I don't take it lightly when it seems something might be inaccurate. To a certain editor's extreme annoyance!
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2010 6:51 PM
Leave a comment