Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts

6.11.09

Rogue Praetorians?


It has been quite a while since I last updated this blog, as Twitter seems to have sated most of my creative and informative writing urges. But fear not! I've recently come up with an array of stuff that I would like to share, and I'm going to be putting out some of it over the next few weeks. First a little writing, then perhaps some old photography (for real this time). Who knows where my semi-productiveness will take me?

In any case, a review: I recently came across an audiobook of Jeremy Scahill's seminal work, Blackwater: World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which I had heard so much about in some of the more excitedly liberal circles. If the topic (American mercenaries in Iraq acting as modern-day Praetorians that are exempt from oversight) was not enough of a hook, the cover art surely was.

Unfortunately while it was interesting listening to the book, honestly I was a little disappointed. Blackwater came across as being too much of a YouTube indictment, with the author wringing his hands over minor anecdotes rather than putting together a cohesive narrative. He seems to expect the reader to be rah-rahing him on, and without a healthy topping of righteous indignation the work rings rather hollow. But it simply is hard not to notice that his book, though extensive, is principally just conjecture and recantation of relatively well-known news stories. To top it off, Scahill's roughshod approach to military parlance and culture makes him appear rather confused and inexpert in a topic that clearly deserves a more considered hand.

While I went into the work looking forward to a stirring and fascinating take on one of the most controversial horrors of the Bush era, I came to a limpwristed finish thinking that if these were the worst examples to be found, then perhaps the usage of mercenaries in Iraq probably wasn't all that bad. Amusingly enough, this was much the conclusion of Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, though he later partially apologized for his confrontational attitude.

The most memorable example of this sort of thing was when Scahill details an action where enlisted US soldiers join Blackwater contractors in fending off thousands of advancing Iraqis armed with small arms, RPGs and mortars. In the midst of describing this hours-long firefight that ends only after American gunships show up to put down the mob, Scahill chastises Blackwater for potentially creating the conflict by firing warning shots, according to unnamed sources. After raising the issue, he then seems to dismiss it entirely in a sort of "We report, you decide" parody of Fox News. The author further expects the reader to join him in an eye-rolling reproach of a soldier who asks the Blackwater mercs (who are typically highly experienced and ex-special forces) for permission to fire in absence of a US officer or noncom.

In short, while I admire the ability of the author to pick a great topic and then to write an even better jacket cover, I was sadly discouraged by his lack of follow-through. The only thing that he convinced me of is that writing about Blackwater is a fantastic way to use the term Praetorian Guards, and otherwise I should remember to look for good journalism from experienced organizations like the Washington Post, not well-meaning Democracy Now! hacks.

As a parting shot in this unashamedly negative review, I was most amused by the opinion of Publishers Weekly on the book. Not only did it ravage Scahill for his "scare language", but it applauds audio narrator Tom Weiner's cool baritone delivery for balancing out the histrionics of the text. It would appear that this is one of the few works where the narration not only improves the content, but outshines it completely.

21.1.09

Huffington Post Review


The Huffington Post considers itself to be an Internet newspaper, and in many ways this seems to be a good description of its content. It has a centerpiece front page, with an important news story featured prominently so that all viewers will read it. It has different sections that focus on different kinds of news, like the Politics, Entertainment or Style sections. There are style palettes, standardized formatting, and the other trappings of a regulated news source. The site even has the same type of in-body ads that support print newspapers.

But there is much more to the site than merely being an electronic version of a common print newspaper. It is filled with multimedia - photos, slide shows and videos dominate the website - as well as a host of other web devices. Links, RSS feeds, search functions and menus can be found on all of the pages - nearly overwhelming the reader with their potential functionality.

Interestingly enough, there is also plenty of content that is not produced by the Huffington Post staff at all. It is also something of a public forum. There are extensive user blogs (some are even featured via the editorial sections!) comment sections, where registered users can post their reactions to news stories (though they are unfortunately limited in their ability to interact with each other rather than the original story). There are also links to content produced by other news organizations, such as this CNN video, plenty of AP photos, or even links off the site altogether.

However, while this visual vibrancy is refreshing after the staidness of the standard print newspaper, there are also some truly bizarre parts of the website that don't seem to work well. The mass variety of content is incredible, but it also makes for a confusing diversity in tone. Some of the stories are serious, considered news pieces, others are entertaining puff pieces, while others are satirical and should not be taken seriously. Without clear and obvious indications of which is which it can become a difficult and confusing way to look at news.

So in summation, while the Huffington Post website does appear to be a good one, it also seems to have some room to grow. The Wikipedia-esque level of cross-linking and depth in the site is fun and engaging (there must be six different ways to find a specific story, each good in its own way), but much of the functionality is poorly explained (if at all). And while it is good to have a news source that is willing to show its readers more than the small amount of information that its staff can produce, the multiplicity of sources can also prove quite confusing.

After perusing the website for this class review, I plan to continue coming back and using the site for my own news needs. However, I probably won't be recommending the site to my less computer-literate friends and family. The site's functionality (such as its openness to Google Reader and other aggregate generators) is fantastic, but it also seems to get in the way of readability.