Get your warblog-coverage on

The Austin Chronicle has an article by Marc Savlov on warblogs.

Savlov had sent a request to the webmaster for austinbloggers.org for background info for the story. That e-mail addresses is an alias for several people, me being one. Although I’ve felt for years that Savlov is a prick, I responded in a helpful spirit, with some info and links.

Apart from sending no “thank you,” message, Savlov ignored or contradicted everything I sent him, which (I assume) conflicted with the story he wanted to write. This is not to say that I am right and he is wrong, but if a journalist asks someone assumed to have some knowledge of a specific field, and gets a response that doesn’t agree with what he expected or has been picking up from other sources, he might shoot back “That’s different from what I’ve been hearing. Why do you say that?”

He took the typical old-media condescending view of blogs in general.

And he spent about one-fifth of the story talking about a site that he acknowledges is not a blog but is “blog-like.” Whatever.

5 thoughts on “Get your warblog-coverage on”

  1. Adam, I was going to blog a rant about the “no thank you” thing. I’ve worked with journalists a lot, and I’ve noticed there is a significant number that won’t shw the courtesy of acknowledging your assistance.

    When a journalist says, “I’m on a deadline” I know what that means, and I give them priority. That’s exactly what happened here. I moved Savlov’s email to the top of my queue for response. I thought it was quite ungracious of him to not acknowledge it.

    So now I don’t have to blog that rant, I guess I’ll go do the one about how the so-called social software movement is largely a flatulent sham. That should make me lots of friends, eh?

  2. Chip, I think social software alliance was a good idea, but I’ll find your rant and post there. As for the Savlov piece… I think we both warned him that he wasn’t gonna find a warblog scene in Austin.

  3. Adam: Savlov wrote me back and said, “Since i’m pressed for space, I will pull a quote out of your response (which was filled with typos and half-asleep anger)” He printed the whole damn thing. I DO think the warblog thing is a bunch of crap… but I DON’T think blogs, in general are useless.

    Chip: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE rant away. I’ll root for you. As long as I’m in grouch-geek mode: “Social Software” = “Pretentious Know-it-alls-that-know-nothing-about-sociology generating endless, self-referential, self-important language for things that have been around for decades, if NOT SINCE THE DAWN OF MANKIND”

  4. Other problems with Savlov’s article that I should have included in my original entry:

    1. He makes the point that most warblogs are anti-war. I have no idea where he gets this. The most iconic warblogs are pro-warblogs, like LGF and andrewsullivan.com. When I think “warblog,” I think “pro-warblog,” even though I admit there are “peaceblogs” that are also considered warblogs.

    2. There’s a guy here in Austin (http://www.inourworld.com/) who has a very smart blog (though it’s gotten inactive): it’s blogs like his that show where blogs can have a real advantage over traditional media. I mentioned this guy to Savlov; if you wanted to talk about warbloggers in Austin, you probably couldn’t do better than him.

Comments are closed.