IntheNet on October 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Seconded. The guy has repented, admitted he can be wrong, and simply not defended his actions through the usual media tactics. He has admitted that, upon reflection, his reaction to a perfectly normal military security procedure was invalid. He made it clear that he hadn’t expected wide awareness of his blog, or the attention it got, and his entire current post seems sincere, humble and thoughtful.

I’m not joining the torches and pitchforks brigade on this one.

[shakes me head]

-

He was called Steven Freeman by one of the commenters in his original entry thread. Anyone have anything on that…?

VolMagic on October 26, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Yes, plenty of times I have said things I wish I had not said. However, I believe, and I stated this above, that this guy is a trained and experienced writer/reporter, who should know the power and nuance of words used. If he truly had no clue how “over the top” his blog was, before it was pointed out to him, then he has no business being a reporter.

Has anyone here never written or said something, and then after having someone point out something to you, regarded what you said/wrote as over the top or in bad taste? Please.

And now he’s trying to LIE his way out of the mess he made when he let his real feelings become public.

One can only hope that if he ever goes “outside the wire,” that none of those military morons he despises so much will volunteer to protect him.

Zetterson on October 26, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I don’t know that he’s a kid, I think I remember someone saying he’s in his early 40’s yesterday, though I could be wrong.

Bad Candy on October 26, 2007 at 11:58 AM

His linked-in bio states he started college in 1983.

and

“Yes, I’m obviously new to blogging. Sometimes I share too much. The blogosphere has reacted and pointed out my folly.”

This guy is a trained and experienced writer, and we are supposed to believe he was “naive” and that his newness to blogging caused him to “share too much”? Ya know, I just don’t believe it.

Sacramento Bee, beeyotch!

*cough*

As others have noted, his apology is carefully crafted. he regrets making his “personal reflections” public. He wasn’t reflecting, he was bragging about blustering his way through a checkpoint without proper identification, and relished the amusement of his personal guard by pushing his Press badge around. He calls this, on – um, reflection – “upbraiding” the guard. He still thinks he is in the right for that incident, but is embarrassed that he got caught in a moment of candor.

May he continue to receive attention, and feedback, on his writing, until the echo chamber of his ego gets dented enough to let some truth through.

As of today anyway. The fact that he actually thought his jerkiness was a good thing, up till two days ago, means the jerkiness runs pretty deep.

The proof of the truth of his apology will come the next twenty times he finds himself in an inconvenient situation, whether of his own making or not. His reaction to those won’t be public knowledge. But if he learns from this one to react better in those, then even if the “blogoshpere” never forgives him, he will have redeeemed himself.

The typo in the post headline is just gravy.

That’s not a typo, he was drunk when he titled the post. It went like this:

Gulp, gulp, ahhh! *hiccup* “I should name thish post something cool.” *hiccup* “Maybe, ‘Under Fire!’ Yea that’sh cool. Wait, I haven’t sheen any combat, but doesh that even matter. After all I’m a journalist. But, I don’t want to be called an ashhat again. Maybe,” *hiccup* “um. . ., oh I know, the Blogoshpere Reacts.” *hiccup* “Oh, yea! That’sh a good one.”

IntheNet on October 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM

I agree, he apologized, in his way, which says allot, whether people think that apology was good enough or not he does seem to be sincerely trying.

WordPress database error: [Table 'wp_comments' is marked as crashed and should be repaired]
SELECT * FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = ‘14′ AND comment_approved = ‘1′ ORDER BY comment_date

I was gonna post on his blog, but… How conveeeeeeeenient!

(Larry) Niven’s Law comes to mind: “Never throw s*** at an armed man”

I don’t know that he’s a kid, I think I remember someone saying he’s in his early 40’s yesterday, though I could be wrong.

Bad Candy on October 26, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Wow. Thanks for the correction Bad Candy. His writing just gave me the impression that he was a young ignorant kid. There goes his youthful ignorance excuse.

For that I should have been thankful. My blog should not have upbraided the soldier. My personal reflections — ramblings, if you will — about the incident should have been kept private.

His apology is for writing about upbraiding the soldier.
The problem is the way he acted, and his lack of awareness about WHY the soldier wouldn’t let him through.
It would be nice to see that he is actually aware that two kinds of people try to talk themselves past checkpoints:
1) Those with a legitimate reason to get through and
2) Those without a legitimate reason.

He is safer in the green zone because soldiers don’t listen to blow-hards trying to talk their way in. THAT’S what I’d have liked to see him acknowledge.

krakatoa on October 26, 2007 at 11:44 AM

This was really not an apology. He first attributes his neivity not to his arrogant, thoughtless world view but to his newness to the blogging world. This is an excuse, not an apology.

He then goes on to say:

My personal reflections — ramblings, if you will — about the incident should have been kept private.

What he is saying here is, “I’m sorry you read this.” He’s not sorry the thoughts entered his mind and then became written words. He’s saying that his written words were not supposed to be read by everybody.

A real apology would should have been an expanation for why what he wrote was wrong. To just say its wrong and then not explain why is not an apology. The angry commentors on his blog were not upset at the fact that they words were there, they were upset by the misguided thoughtlessness that drove him to write what he did.

At the end he mentions that he is going on assignment. A thoughtful apologist would have taken this opportunity to explain that he did actually learn from this experience and he is going to carry what he learned with him onto his next task. He failed to do that and in the end he failed to apologize because he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to explain why what he said was so repulsive.

Zetterson on October 26, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I don’t know that he’s a kid, I think I remember someone saying he’s in his early 40’s yesterday, though I could be wrong.

IntheNet on October 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM

I question the sincerity!

Seriously, I do, look at this quote from his site,

My blog should not have upbraided the soldier. My personal reflections — ramblings, if you will — about the incident should have been kept private.

First off, his blog didn’t ‘upbraid’(only a journalist would say upbraid, or Gallivant for that matter) the soldier, he did. Let’s look at the second line, his reflections should have been kept private, screams “I’m sorry…that I got caught” to me.

He admits he made a mistake, several of them in fact, and he offers a public apology. I see that for what it clearly is… cut him some slack… How many of the other biased media are unapologetic to this day and remain so? That should be our focus, not someone who realizes his error and has potential to be better.

IntheNet on October 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM

What he gave was a typical journo-apology. It read like he was saying “I’m sorry you took what I said the wrong way. My intention was not to offend so I’m sorry that you read it.”
Bottom line is what he gave was not a real apology and it deserves not to be accepted. Part of an apology reqires that the apologist explain why what he did was wrong. Explaining why is the most important part of an apology. He makes absolutely no effort to explain why what he said was wrong. I honestly think the kid learned nothing. He’s like a little brat who got a slap on the wrist and now he’s going to be right back at misbehaving again.

How often do we actually get a real apology?

Regardless of this guy’s actual feelings on the subject, it speaks well of him that he at least didn’t give the old “I”m sorry if what I wrote upset someone” non-apology. Or the satire defense.

This guy may hate soldiers, Bush, bush, Republicans and apple pie. He’s entitled to that hatred, so long as he comports himself well in polite company. Yes, in his original post he failed, but this is a good apology and I for one can accept it.

That would have been great reading.