Call for comments

(1) Good writing.

(2) Interesting angles.

(3) Not important.

(4) Appealing pitch. Critical situation.

(5) Left.

(6) No. Opposed vehemently.

(7) Yes. B2I was not embedded and was not dominated by corporate careerist considerations.

(8) Yes, but they are quite rare. I will support independent journalists to the very limited extent I can.

(9) Geniune independence, neutral-to-left political bias, situation, my degree of poverty.

Forgot something, Chris:

Thanks!

1)Well presented, independent thought

2)To see if the format would fly and via comments what sort of audience it would garner

3)Took part a bit within time constraints, communities take time to become substantive; not a necessary function for me to make return visits to B2I

4)Wanted to but didn’t have the cash…publicly sponsored journalism is a great idea especially given the evidence of sychophantic behavior by corporate news agencies during the Iraq war

5)Liberal to MOR

6)No

7)Yes. Independence in journalism is everything.

8) They could be. I find many of them smacking of a sort of elitism that can easily become as blinding and skewed as mainstream media

9)Maintenance of the independent stance

1. A lack of original, well-written / observed content on the war in Iraq

2. Excellent writing that maintained a perspective but did not stoop to partisan bias. The beautiful pictures certainly didn’t hurt either.

3. Not hugely important here, as the main draw was the author’s writing and perspective, rather than ideology and debate. If others writing comments had been on the ground, I would have loved that debate (e.g. if Salam Pax had been around to compare notes with you).

4. I didn’t, to my shame. Certainly will next time.

5. Unabashedly Liberal.

6. Not in this unilateralist configuration (bi-lateralist? — we did have one ally). A UN-backed disarmament might have been different.

7. Yes. It was the time taken to talk to people, to get their views and give a sense of their lives. The personal side, the feeling of real-life characters (flawed, humorous, intelligent, courageous) humanizes the conflict way beyond the level of the Iraqi/Kurd/Turkmen-in-the-street survey which is usually the best we can expect.

8. Yes, I believe they are. Many people outside the mainstream (from all sides of the political spectrum) feel unrepresented and uninformed by American media. Many blogs will arise, few will stay popular, but those that do will change the face of journalism in a surprisingly democratic way. Very willing to donate to those who provide me with fresh perspective and information.

9. Do they offer a fresh, articulate perspective (ie not one that I can easily pick up from reading the major paper’s editorials)? Is the writing good? The feeling of reading a true old-fashioned-honestness-to-goodness reporter’s “voice” is a huge attraction in a dulled-down, dumbed-down age. Most of all, does the author of the blog actually have fresh information? ie is this person on the ground, talking to people whose voices I would not otherwise hear and seeing things I could not otherwise see? So many blogs fall off because they are just information which I could find elsewhere with appropriate partisan spin. It’s not that difficult for me to log onto the Guardian, the Telegraph, CBC, BBC or Al-Jazeera, so I expect more. Fresh content carries the day.

1. I was looking for information about the conflict with Iraq and eventually found myself here.

2. I kept coming back because I was intrigued about what Christopher had to say and I enjoyed debating other people here and commenting.

3. I feel it was somewhat important, it was one of the reasons which kept me coming back more often. But, even without the “community” aspect, I still would have been interested in at least reading Christopher’s columns. Yes, I took part in commenting.

4. I did not donate. Because I just didn’t have any money to donate, but fortunately Chris was able to complete his goals.

5. I would guess that I’m conservative, I lean to the right. I consider myself a open-minded and fair person.

6. I do not support war, unless it’s necessary. And in this case I feel it was justified.

7. Yes and No. B2I did bring some stories that I probably would not have heard in the mainstream media. But, I did not rely on B2I for news, and I feel that I was able to get an objective analysis from the mainstream media.

8. It could be. But, it will take a long time to establish credibility and respect. As long as it’s independent and unbiased it could be a new form of journalism. The author of the blog can’t turn his/her blog into an Op-Ed, it must be objective.

9. I’m not sure. But, I believe it has to be genuine and what I said in #8 etc…

1. Independent journalism.

   1. Great writing.

   2. Not really, was busy at “The Agonist” forums.

   3. N/A

   4. Anarchist.

   5. Hell no.

   6. A left-wing viewpoint. Completely absent from the Corporate Media.

   7. Hell yes, the more independent and biased, the better. Once I graduate and have a real job, you may very well be seeing some funding from me.

   8. Quality first, left-wingers second, right-wingers third.

Hi Christopher! So glad you’re back safe and sound :)

My responses to your questions:

1)I found you in my search for REAL news and

2)came back because I like how and what you write

3)I am not into that much of the community aspect,being more interested in reading what you have to say than in expressing my own opinions

4)I would have contributed if I could have

5)My political leanings are fiercely independent; not party affiliated

6)No, I did not support this war

7) Embedded media members’ lives are dependent upon the military personnel with whom they travel. They can’t help but get close and perhaps even identify, to an extent, with their fellow travelers, particularly those from non-Arab countries. Their reportage was based upon their experiences while traveling with the military so they have a narrower view (news as seen from the barrel of a gun). YOU were with the local population and gave us a wider scope of information; a wider scope of the action as opposed to a view from just one side. The view is different from the ground than from a military tracked vehicle.

8)I believe that blogs are a more honest form of journalism and viable amongst those of us who search for facts; truth.

9) Good writing is the main criteria and I like to read news that does not appear to be parroting anyone else’s political agenda.

May I suggest that you include e-gold as a form of payment for donations? I would rather use it that other forms.

http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=139817

As the war drums rolled in March, I found B2I n my quest for more information. Eureka! I hit gold and read everything. I recognized your name and knew I’d found what I was looking for (“Why Iraq” is an example)

Thank you for your bravery and committment to excellence.

1. A hope of a new journalism, being myself a sitting journalist.

2. The unpretentiousness of the reports (and Chris’s mom’s comments…)

3. Very important, though I did not take part. It was the first time i did not read predictible stupidities on the net. I liked very much the first discussions about Chris’s style, though it was on a very unimportant point. But the important point was the discussion itself.

4. I tried to donate, but my donation failed. Don’t know why.

5. Ex-left, and now what ? I don’t know

6. To be honest, I did not unsupport it.

7. As a matter of fact, I did not learn much from the stories of B2I. I mostly read the story of a guy who is trying to join the war, but who fails. This was the most exciting point for me : will he do it ? (cross the mountains in time)

8. More or less. See 9.

9. It will depend on the pretentiousness or the unpretentiousness of the authors.

1. The fact that the information was not being filtered by any government or corporate officials.

2. My own interest in the politics of the region, and Chris’ integrity as a journalist. The stories were presented with a keen sense of fairness, even if they were not intended to come off as “unbiased”. The readers were privy to Chris’ political views right from the start, which was helpful. Even if the site was written by a right wing indy journalist, I still would have come back all the time.

3. Moderately important. It’s nice to see the comments and I posted a few, but unmoderated online that allow anonymous posting can only be useful to a point. Plus I didn’t usually have time to read the comments.

4. It was worth a small contribution for me to help Chris see this bold experiment through.

5. Progressive. Pro-U.S. Constitution.

6. No, not as it was presented by the U.S. administration. I said all along that I could possibly have been convinced by a good-faith, humanitarian case for the war. But since I was lied to and insulted about the various shifting justifications, I decided there was no possible way the world could abide this arrogant war. Still, I’m happy to see Saddam gone.

7. Yes. Particularly some of the stuff about getting into Iraq and the perils that Chris faced while moving about without official cover. We don’t get that sort of information from any corporate new source.

8. Yes, they are viable. Yes, I will and do support other blogs.

9. The credibility and credentials of the person writing the blog, and whether or not the stories are interesting and well-chosen. Anybody can have a blog, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to pay for it. The fact that Chris had former press credentials made me more willing to open my wallet, for sure.

1. I met the author of the site at my Iraq event at Columbia and was very attracted by his interest and obvious knowledge of Iraq and Kurdistan.

2. The unique, excellent first-hand reporting.

3. I occasionally browsed the boards but never felt the inclination to participate.

4. Sorry Chris, I didn’t donate

5. Pan-Kurdish. Strong supporter of a free, independent Kurdistan encompassing all parts of Kurdistan. Also a non-Iraqi member of the democratic Iraqi opposition.

6. The war began when the Ba’ath Party took power. I wholeheartedly supported the American-led military campaign that brought the Ba’athist war against the Iraqi people to an end.

7. I think that B2I provided an excellent personal touch and an opportunity to read stories by someone who didn’t have an agenda and didn’t have to worry about sounding diplomatic, etc.

8. If I had more disposable income, I would support this form of journalism.

9. See above…

1. The well-informed point of view of the writer. The accessible, interesting and yet informative character of the writing.

2. Curiousity - what would happen next? -and- the high quality writing.

3. Not so important to me; tho enjoyed reading comments and occasionaly posting my own.

4. I looked at it as picking up a Newsweek or NY Times newspaper at the newstand. Also, thought that the author might enjoy a Starbucks coffee after his return :)

5. somewhat leany. Depends on the issue. Civil rights, social issues, liberal. Fiscally, conservativish.

6. I was against going to war based on the reasons given by the U.S. govt. Once war was declared, supported our troops.

7. Good question. I do think that the stories were different from mainstream American media; the stories seemed to more closely match British correspondent dispatches. Evenhanded. Also, the b2i writer seemed to be more deeply aware of, better informed about the Iraq/Turkey situation than many of the American writers/reporters over there. The author has an ability to take in a big situation, sift through the info, sum it up, and come up with astute, relevant observations and opinions.

8. Yes. Tho I predict that the successful reader-funded sites will likely be few.

9. The sites must offer something that I can’t find elsewhere for free. (b2i filled the void that was the american media during the war).

1. What was the primary factor that attracted you to B2I?

Internet URL Reference.

1. What was the primary factor that kept you coming back?

Independent reporting without an obvious agenda. (tho’ an anti-war bent came through)

1. How important was the “community” aspect of the site to you? Did you take part in the debates and comment sections?

Somewhat. Some very useful xreferences were cited and some good analysis. High ratio of sentient comments. (I’d be concerned that as you gain popularity more nutcakes would chime in…)

1. If you donated, what was the factor that led you to do so?

Guilt. Waited till you’d proven yourself to my satisfaction.

1. How would you describe your political leanings?

Modified Libertarian.

1. Did you support the war?

No and Yes

• I did not (and still don’t) believe that we had just cause to go to war. That sanctions had pretty much kept the (red-herring imo) threat of WMD at bay.

Once war started, the best way out I could envision was to finish quickly, as was done. I couldn’t see the US saying ‘oops’ and stopping and returning home…

1. Do you think B2I brought you stories and information that the mainstream media didn’t?

Damm straight.

If so, why do you think that’s the case?

Too much consolidation of American media, not enough competition. Too much reliance on media services on ‘AP’.

1. Are blogs — and specifically reader-funded blogs — a viable and new form of journalism? How willing are you to support other independent sites such as B2I?

Yes. I think they’re going to be one future of media. I can see it as a way for free-lancers to get their views out.

1. What would be the deciding factor(s) in supporting other sites?

Continued objective reporting on verified facts…

some investigative reporting to follow up on some loose ends:

a. Where is RAED - I’m curious too as to the story on that. Was it an authentic blog? If so did the author survive?

b. What ever happened to the three alleged Iraqi ships (reflagged under other nations colors) reportedly sailing the ocean…

Thanks for your work.

1. I wanted a different perspective

2. It was interesting.

3. I scanned the comments a few times, but did not really participate in anything.

4. I wish I could have.

5. I’m growing more anarchistic with age.

6. NO!

7. Yes. I think you seemed much more personally invested.

8.Yes. I would be willing to support such things, but unfortunately I’m not paid enough to support much more than rent.

1. See above.

I am also curious about the fate of Mr. Pax. Is he still around?

1.) Independent journalism, straight from the source. Also, blogs are really my only source of information because I have a busy schedule, so it was really awesome for me.

2.) As silly as it might seem, the sense of adventure. I felt like I was right in the action. Also, the sense that this was revolutionary. And of course, the top notch journalism.

3.) I didn’t take part in the comments sections, no time, plus my experience with comments is that it can degenerate into bickering, mudslinging and troll-baiting.

4.) Sorry man, highschool student, no dinero.

5.) Sigh, it used to be center left…far left. Specifically, democratic socialist. The USA I would like to see would resemble Sweden in operation.

6.) Nope.

7.) Most definitely, because you were searching for stories, not letting CentCom feed them to you. Real journalism.

8.) Yes, they’re the new wave of journalism. Believe me, if I had money, I would have bankrolled that trip myself.

9.) Do I feel that they are interesting and informative enough that they provide me with a unique experience that I cannot get on other sites? Do their actions warrant or require my donation?

1. Topic. My stepson is in the 101st Airborne in Iraq. I wanted (craved) news about the area, about the people, about what was REALLY going on there.

2. Frankly I missed some of the reports. But what did bring me back when I had the time, was the quality of content, the writing, the photography.

3. Very important. It was a continuing story that many of us craved—an alternative to the “news bites” so prevalent in most journalism—which are a kind of throw-away writing. I was not interested in the debats. Enough of that going on on the internet and elsewhere; boring.

4. The pertinence of the topic in relation to my interest, along with the quality of content.

5. Depends. Mostly “left”; frankly I have little patience for such tagging; it obviates the real issues.

6. Yes

7. Very effective. We need more of the unfiltered, less “sound-bite” type of journalism: real experiences with real people. No commercials, no hurry. Writing that stays with a story, doesn’t throw it away after the initial splash.

8. Yes. I am willing to support those that suit my interests.

9. Cost should be reasonable, but above all, the quality of content is the main factor. I can (but don’t) subscribe to any number of popular news magazines, even some news web sites. All of which tend to carry a left vs. right, or some other agenda, that spoils the integretity of individual journalists that write for them. I’m tired of that kind of us/them/agenda mentality (whatever political leaning). I think the independence of blogs such as yours is a good step toward the kind of journalism I seek.

1. Enticing link from another ‘blog.

2. Great photos!

3. Not all that. Affirmative.

4. Great pitch. Appealing photos.

5. Away.

6. Nope. Not by choice.

7. Yes. You were not embedded and individuality is extremely attractive.

8. Yes, for the discriminating consumer.

9. If they can rise to the bar you set.

1. I was attracted to the ideal of independent journalism co-mingling with travel and adventure writing from a different perspective.

2. I hoped that B2I would provide great stories

3. The community part was fun but way too “rah-rah.” There was little diversity of opinion. Your mom was great however.

4. I donated because you seemed like you were serious. I now believe you are.

5.I am Independent politically.

1. I still don’t know what to make of it. The lack of WMDs makes it all ring a bit hollow.

2. I felt sometimes you provided amazing insights but far too often you sounded like a college kid on a summer adventure.I didn’t feel like you were truly independent. I was taken aback by the picture of you and the 3 Kurds in Taqtaq where you had your arms around them. That said “bias” in a very big way. You were “embedded” with the Kurds!

I kept waiting for you to get at the heart of your daily story but felt like you were outside the real core of the big picture… . like a cop looking into the interrogation room through the one-way window. I wanted you to take me INTO the interrogation room.

I felt like I was getting tidbits and not the main course. Your passion for the region was palpable and your risk taking was admirable. I was just hoping for more.

1. Some great writing continues to come out of the region from both blogs and mainstream writers like Peter Maas. I respect and support what you are doing and hope you will grow into a true reporter.

The blog idea is great so long as some of the blogs get off this “us against them” mentality with the “mainstream media.” It’s such a load of crap that “mainstream” reporters are somehow unable or prohibited from writing the truth. I know plenty of men and women who have risked their lives to tell the truth about this war — whatever their perspective.

There is room for this type of writing but I wonder what ultimately happens with “patron” supported blogs. Do you make your readers happy so they can cheer you on? Or do you write from the soul no matter how disturbing it may be to your patrons? Do you dare piss them off? It’s an interesting concept as we all go down this road.

I just hope you can take it all up a notch with less hyperbole and more insight.

1.) First I was curious to see if you were serious about going. And if you would get the funds necessary to make the trip. Then, after reading your previous postings, I thought this might be a good thing and be worth watching.

2.) How could we abandon your commitment. No one else was reporting from the north. Even though you had a late start the details were compelling.

3.) Community was not important to me but because it was there I took advantage of it. I read every comment and replyed when I thought it was of value to either you or others.

4.) I did not.

5.) Registered Democrat. Haven’t voted party ticket since 1968, and only voted that way because media said “Humphrey has chance in Colorado”, learned my lesson that day. Now I support voices outside the mainstream.

6.) Support the lies and deception of the Bush administration? I think not.

7.) There wasn’t a lot coming from the north, which answers both parts of the question.

8.) Blogs are by their nature small fish in a big pond. To be viable they must reach a large audiance. Viral infection is needed. Part 2.) I wanted to hear of other blogs like yours worth reading and supporting but either they weren’t there or the links weren’t available.

9.) WIIFM, What’s In It For Me? Is the subject of interest to me? Would my support be a critical factor? Can the writer produce?

1) to have another view, and a different one (!), about what was going on.

2)style of writing and efforts in neutrality

3)no time to take part but I read some of the comments

4)…sorry, no money as a student!

5) I would say left wing in search for more certainties….

6) not at all

7) I think so. No economic and political influences on it…a part from the site writer and supporters..

8)yes, they are. It’s all a matter of sourches, as long as they are uncovered and clear I’ll try to support them.

9)People working on them and their relialance.

1. The truthful reporting and interesting perspective.

2. My concern for Chris and genuine interest in both indie journalism and the conflict in Iraq

3. Unfortunately I joined up with the B2I community late, and didn’t get to participate in many debates. However, I think they are wonderful thing.

4. I did not donate due to lack of resources. This sounds bad, but I’m a teen with no job.

5. Politically agnostic :)

6. No.

7. Definetely. No censorship, no opinions that affected the content of the writing…

8. I love the idea of a blog for journalism. I’ll continue to support them and I believe they might be the next step in journalism - and if they turn out like B2I, it’s a VERY good step

9. Their content

1) Independent, un-embedded journalism about Iraq.

2) Good writing, details from the front, a sense of the complicated relationships in the region.

3)Not especially important, but I did spend some time reading the forums here, and elsewhere.

4)I did not donate, because I currently have a deficit larger than the U.S. gov’t.

5)fiscally centrist; socially liberal

6)absolutely not

7)yes, because there was only one level of editorial

8)I hope that they are viable; but having worked ‘providing content’ for a web journal for the past few years, I am not certain of any kind of survival

9)my financial situation, quality of journalism, writing that addresses areas of interest

1. The American pastime is rooting for the underdog, so it seemed the natural thing to do.

   1. A desire to see something different. One of the most interesting BLOGs to me was ‘Where is Raed’ because of the unique perspective of the author. Similarly, your blog had that pull - although I would have liked to have seen more frequent updates (hint-hint).

   2. ‘You had a community section?!?’ - needless to say it wasn’t evident to me in the layout of your blog.

   3. I did not donate. Since I am married with children, and my property taxes went up this year - there wasn’t much money for anything else.

   4. Republican - middle of the road. I believe strongly in the seperation of powers, as well as of church and state. I think melding our federal government with fundamentalist Christian dogma is just as dangerous as Iraq becoming an Islamist republic; democracy in both cases must be allowed to shine free. Given that, I don’t identify with such ‘Republican’ groups as the Christian Coalition. Similarly, some of the powers that Congress has ceded to the executive branch also concerns me.

   5. I supported the war. I feel that the Iraqi people, the Middle East in general and U.S. interests will benefit more in the longrun from a no-nonsense approach. Just as you don’t corner a ferocious tiger, we also must leave a way out - and that way is for countries in the region to abandon sponsorship of terrorism. I do not believe they would do this of their own volition, and thus this war served as a strong message, which seems to be making a positive impact.

   6. Yes. Judgement of what is newsworthy or not is a very political process in mainstream media outlets. Many of the very people who own and operate the mainstream media have close ties with government and big business; in fact they are big business themselves. Given that, when a story comes across the desk of the editor the political consequences of airing that story are weighed, in terms of impacts on government ‘friends’ as well as on the media outlet’s business interests, the public ends up with very ‘vanilla’ news coverage. Independents, like yourself, have no limits placed upon them, and can thus provide unique perspectives. Unfortunately, regardless if you are one of the ‘big boys’ or just a lone blogger, no one has a perfectly clear view of the reality behind the close approximations we call ‘stories’. You can report what you see, you can report what someone else said. Thats it. Rare glimpses of truth are few and far between (and something Ernest Hemmingway spent his life pursuing, exhorting us to write the ‘one true thing’).

   7. I believe blogs are a viable new outlet for an old form. Decentralization, interactivity, and the resultant low costs allow lone journalists to reach audiences starved for variation and novel approaches in ways unheard of before. This medium will thrive - to the dismay of some I am sure. I will certainly support with my readership - when funds become available, I might donate, or even put up a shingle of my own (kids will be leaving home in a few years - might be a good opportunity for me to do something worthwhile :) ). Over the course of time the blogs that consistently provide good reporting will edge out the others, and attract better funding, and more opportunity to spend time looking for stories instead of pan handling for travel money. There will always be a ragged fringe - Thomas Paines and Martin Luthers of the world, willing to put out their word at any cost.

   8. In a word: Quality. If I want vanilla reporting I will turn on the boob-tube and listen to network news. I want to see solid reporting, and nuances that show the character and personality behind the lense/keyboard. I don’t want to see too much editorialization, nor blatant one sided reporting. As I mentioned before, reality is a many faceted jewel which prevents any one human being from seeing the whole. While truth is fleeting, I would support any journalist who pursues it with an open mind.

(1) Wanted to get an independent view, outside CNN, FOX, MSNBC

(2) Good writing, photos

(3) Not important

(4) Sorry, you didn’t fit into the budget.

(5) A long time ago I was Republican. Very bad choice. Now I don’t know what I am…..mainly p*ssed. Actually, I really do hate politics. It’s sad, I’m not Democrat but I’m going to vote Democrat in 2004. Present day Republicans are simply too dangerous.

(6) Definitely NO. This war is illegal.

(7) Yes. You didn’t put a huge political republican vs. democrat, democrat vs. republican spin on it.

(8) If it’s available, I’ll use it. I want news that is as uncensored as possible. I don’t mind opinions, but when opinions are presented as facts…that’s bad news.

(9) Proximity of writer to where action is with first hand editing (not layers of editing). I want the truth. I want the opposite of FOX news.

I just surfed in via blogroll, and will blogroll your site for my readers. Wilson’s Almanac has been loud (some say strident) against the “war on terrorism” since 9-11.

Good luck and thank you.

1) I linked to it from the “Where’s Raed?” Blog

2) I came back as I found it to be well written, with a nice balance between events and thoughtful commentary. Also, I wouldn’t call it “balanced” per se, so much as a realistic POV that was generally straight-forward and in general agreance with my own thoughts on the war.

3) I found the blog late in the game, and did not participate in the “community” much. I did leave one or two comments, and probably would have left more had I found the site earlier.

4) I did not donate.

5) Left— left of the dems, right of the greens

6) Absolutely did NOT support the war.

7) I felt B2I was more successful in purveying the general situation in Iraq, rather than the “battlefield” perspective so many reporters tried to present. I found this much more important/relevant.

8) I think it’s a great forum, I found it easily accessible, and enjoyed the forum as it gave me a chance to respond in real-time, unlike newspapers and tv reports; but I’m not sure that I would ever contribute money to such blogs.

9) I don’t think I’d support sites such as this financially, in general

1.As far as i could find, it was unique among war blogs, vis a vis the dedication to field reporting.

1. I kept coming back b/c of B2I’s other outstanding feature (first is mentioned above) - humane, skillful writing with a basic feel of truth.

2. I read the comments sporadically but have not participated until now

3. n/a

4. left of center, green, with libertarian streaks

5. no. certainly not before it started, and only in an over-soon-with-few-killed sense during.

6. absolutely. perhaps your willingness to report within your limits led you to a greater understanding and description of your particular slice.

7. Viable - I hope! New: yes. Comparisons to Martha Gellhorn etc. are poorly done because they ignore the then-nonexistent 12(24?) hour news cycle, which the blogoshpere trumps handily. Gellhorn and others, meanwhile, were subject to at least a small degree of editorial control and they were more or less of the news cycle, if its creators - not a thing apart - and superior in ways - like the blogger is to the rest of “mediastan.” If I had more money I’d’ve been rather willing to give to B2I. I almost did anyway, but I am poor.

8. how serious (important, determined, purposeful, possessed of some type of gravitas - but not full of shit) they seemed to be.

The story on wired. Too bad B2I wasn’t more visible.

I wanted to see how the business model worked out.

Ranting is fun.

I’m libertarian but try to disagree with Ayn Rand as much as possible.

The war cost money and lives and hurt iraq. So far it has had no positive results. So I don’t support it.

You write well enough and have a personal perspective.

Well, it worked.

Quality of the writing, importance of the topic.

Wired brought me here too.

I was very strongly opposed to the war, which I still consider illegal, but can hardly object to the toppling of Saddam.

What will follow now I find worrying. The world has been changed in ways whose impact we are only beginning to fathom, and many of them are not for the better.

As a fellow hack in one of the big three news agencies, yes, Chris, I found you reached and reported on some of the parts others haven’t and I’ve followed you as often as possible.

Until today, I’ve not taken part in the debates here and I won’t have time to do so in the future, but I’ve read several of them.

They help to make what you’ve done all the more worthwhile and I’m convinced that such blogs are a valuable contribution to the profession.

Would I support such sites financially? I can’t afford it. But I would and have encouraged and link to such professional work.

I probably won’t answer the questions in a completely systematic way, but what attracted me to your blog was the fact that you were approaching the war from the position of an independent journalist. I remember being profoundly disturbed by the concept of the “embedded reporter,” especially after the embarassing pro-military coverage of the first Gulf War.

I was also relatively new to the weblog medium and wanted to see if blogging was a useful way of disseminating information that might challenge status quo coverage of the war. Like many other readers, I came across your blog through teh article in Wired. I consider myself to be on the left politically, and the coverage that you provided was a welcome relief to the “video game” and “Top Gun” images that I’d see in the mainstream media. I did find your first-hand accounts rather ccompelling in ways and I think the personal nature of blogging provides a useful antidote to the pretensions of cable news.

I think Back-to-Iraq has definitely demonstrated the benefits of blogging in general, the potential for community, discussion, etc. I didn’t participate in any of the discussions until recently, but I thought it was important for you to know that your work was appreciated. I also couldn’t support your work financially, since I am currently on a relatively tight budget. I’m sorry these answers aren’t a little more organized, but again, I’d like to express my thanks and appreciation for you work covering the war.

1. The primary factor that attracted me to B21 was being able to obtain information from a journalist not ‘in bed’ with the military.

2. The primary factor(s) for return visits: Quality writing, information not garnered anywhere else, and a perspective not found in the mass media.

3. The ‘community’ aspect enhanced the site. I did take participate in the comments and found some interesting links as a result of people sharing their comments.

4. Unemployed single parent…no; yet would have if I had been able, because I feel it is a worthy cause.

5. Political leanings? Independent.

6. No, I didn’t support the war. I didn’t support Saddam, either; we didn’t look at other solutions to the problem.

7. B21 definately brought stories that the mainstream media didn’t. As an independent journalist you didn’t have to work within the confines of what would be ‘acceptable’ to print.

8. I do believe that blogs are a viable form of journalism. I have found several that are quite informative. As far as supporting them, it would depend upon my financial situation…

9. Deciding factors in supporting other sites would be their credibility, sense of ethics, and honesty in reporting. It seems that the mass media has lost perspective in reporting the news and instead has begun to wallow in biased ‘reporting’.

Take

fioricet for headache.

Anyone can

buy fioricet at his local

pharmacy. You can buy

online fioricet and it will

be

cheap fioricet. Check

fioricet side effects before

using. http://www.buy-fioricet-butalbital.us