CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

[paulcalloway]

Many of you may recall a bit of a firefight that took place here last fall on the AC regarding the WD merging with the CCG. Some harsh things were said by folks with opposing opinions in that thread. There was also at least one exchange between Troy Groves and Craig Barry over private messages.

I was informed of the private message exchange, I asked Troy to tone it down and assured Craig and Bill Christen that Troy was expressing his own opinions and they weren't necessarily the opinions of the AC admins, etc. Meaning - he wasn't acting in any official capacity on behalf of the forum.

Well things quieted down until the March 2008 edition of the CCG came out. See attached.

Note that this "Letter to the Editor" was never a letter to the editor, it was a private message exchange here on the AC, which is protected by AC copyright and should be protected by common decency.

Your thoughts?

Note to read the page attached, click on it, it'll come up in a black box. Click again and it should launch a window. Once you have the new window up, IE users should find an icon in the lower right corner that will let you click to expand it to a resolution that is legible.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

Paul,

This is absolutely dispicable!

And perhaps at this point it is a good thing certain individuals have decided to move on from the AC...

For an individual claiming to "unite" the community through his pen & publications, he sure made a stab to not only openly personally attack another individual, but the "authentic" community and specifically the AC as well...

Unfortunately, I don't believe this constitutes as slander...since even though written in a private message (from Mr. Groves to Mr. B); we're lead to believe that these are his own words...and as such an indictment of himself (even though these now appear printed out of contect and as a letter to the editor).

Paul B.

Who's wondering why some individuals self-motivated agendas cause them to force deeper wedges in between the communities...?

[Milliron]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

I would suggest a word or two from you to the CCG might put this nonsense in its proper light -- if they print it.

The capacity of some people for pettiness is truly amazing.

[DougCooper]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

I was so infuriated by this entire issue that I cancelled my Watchdog subs immediately. I had a 3 year subs to the Watchdog but can't stomach trying to get by the trash to get to the Watchdog in the middle...which had gone downhill anyway.

Instead of tossing the latest one, the front cover was so bad I decided to look inside

I did not realize it was a PM within Camp Gossip. I was focused on the useless Camp Gossip response to Virginia M's excellent letter on a tea article in a previous issue.

CCG, in my humble opinion, is worse than useless. It could be a great force for education but instead perpetuates the hobby of 30 years ago. In fact, it is not as good a magazine as it was in the early 90's, the last time I cancelled my subscription and long before the AC, etc.

There is precious little info inside on anything having to do with preservation. CWPT ought to have a corner somewhere, or at least a free ad. There is an ad for GAC masquerading as an "article" on the world's largest stone wall built for Picket's Charge this year. The photos on the front and back cover of this last issue were awful - modern jeans, CS gaiters galor, etc. There is of course no mention of any part of the authentic end of the hobby. The typos, poor layout, poor editorial policy and the "Anybody Can Be a Star" photo policy round out the picture of a rag that does nothing to advance preservation, education or improvement in the hobby. Too bad.

The PM Camp Gossip expose' really takes the cake though...what cowardice.

[AZReenactor]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

It really peeved me to find my private conversations with Mr. Berry stitched together and published like this. That is, until I considered that the modern Dawg and CCG cater to a hobby that I really care little for and, even more poignant, have very little if any influence or relevance to either that hobby or this. I see little point in replying to them in print there or here.

While I may help with some of the moderating tasks around here from time to time, I do not speak for the hobby or forum, merely about it. The opinions and ideas I have and express are entirely my own and would be expressed here or in other forums no matter what my status. (What else can you do with $.02 in this economy but throw it around freely. :wink_smil) They should in no ways be ascribed to the owners, other moderators, nor members of this forum.

[Phil McBride]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

Doug’s strong words about the Camp Chase Gazette (CCG) gave me pause. Since the CCG has been printing articles I’ve submitted to them since 1999, I’m spurred to respond.

First, the CCG has certainly been erratic in the quality of its content, and in some key technical matters like proofreading. Beyond those matters, the publication of an article that had previously appeared in the Civil War Historian (CWH), was inexcusable. Moreover, the slick paper, fantastic layouts, and creative use of photographs in the Civil War Historian make the CCG look amateurish in comparison.

On the other hand, my side-by-side comparisons of both magazines from the past year reflect that the CWH has largely abandoned the military side of Civil War reenacting in favor of civilian living history topics and straight military history articles unrelated to the actual hobby of Civil War reenacting. The CWH is a great magazine, but it’s hardly about us and our hobby anymore.

Meanwhile, the CCG is still plugging away, still focused on Civil War military reenacting. While Craig Berry may be a flashpoint about some things, his contributions have put a lot of relevant and interesting meat into the CCG since the Watchdog merged with the CCG. (He also shared with me that he was also surprised to see the exchange from the AC Board published as a letter.)

As to the CCG ignoring “our side” of the hobby, they have printed every article I’ve submitted about campaign events including Pickett’s Mill in 2001, TAG in 2003, Port Gibson in 2003, Bank’s Grand Retreat in 2007 and Outpost II in 2007. The point is the CCG will print stories about campaign events when such articles are submitted to them. The CCG also continues to print “how to” articles about reenacting and articles about the “material culture.” It’s about us, our weapons, our events, not ladies shawls and dresses.

Certainly, there are several improvements I would love to see made by the editor and publisher of the Camp Chase Gazette. Sadly, my take is that most of those improvements would cost more in materials (like slick paper), personnel (proofreaders, graphic artists, staff photographers), and technical tools (computer graphic software), than the magazine can generate.

But for all that, now that the Civil War Historian has ceased to focus on the hobby of Civil War military reenacting, the Camp Chase Gazette is once again our only voice in print to a national audience. And it will be a better voice if more campaigner reenactors send them articles of the type that are in the archives of this forum.

Doug, I urge you to write an article or a letter to the editor of CCG for publication. Instead of panning the CCG, toss it a bone every now and then. What can it hurt?

Phil McBride
The Alamo Rifles
Lockhart, Texas

[tsgalloway]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

This is a pretty low blow. Private messages shouldn't be published without the consent of both parties involved. It doesn't help the situation to have things misrepresented.:(

[paulcalloway]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

Phil and Doug -
Lets be careful here. I don't want to see this thread turn into a "whats all wrong with the CCG" bash-fest. Or even a "whats all wrong with the CWH" bashfest.

Lets keep this discussion specific to the March 2008 Camp Gossip column.

I thought you all deserved to know what had transpired.

[DougCooper]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

Phil and Doug -
Lets be careful here. I don't want to see this thread turn into a "whats all wrong with the CCG" bash-fest. Or even a "whats all wrong with the CWH" bashfest.

Lets keep this discussion specific to the March 2008 Camp Gossip column.

I thought you all deserved to know what had transpired.

You are right of course Paul.

Phil, your articles are excellent - but the latest issue sent me over the edge.

[Hank Trent]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

While Craig Berry may be a flashpoint about some things, his contributions have put a lot of relevant and interesting meat into the CCG since the Watchdog merged with the CCG. (He also shared with me that he was also surprised to see the exchange from the AC Board published as a letter.)

Just wanted to quote that for emphasis, because it took me by surprise. I just figured, like most people probably, that it was Craig Barry's decision, as editor, to edit and approve Watchdog letters to the editor.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Virginia Mescher]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

I did not realize it was a PM within Camp Gossip. I was focused on the useless Camp Gossip response to Virginia M's excellent letter on a tea article in a previous issue.

Doug,

Thank you for your comment on my letter about tea, not that it did any good. Craig only published part of a number of our exchanges where I offered documentation to refute his premise that Earl Gray tea was common during the mid-19th century and brick tea was a common item in the western world. He conveniently left out the rest of my responses and only published the initial letter.

I did not intend it to be a letter to the editor, only a note to offer him some additional research so that he might want to publish a correction in a later edition. It doesn't look like that will happen. After he received the first letter, he did mention that it might make a good letter to the editor and I said he could do with it what he wanted. I guess from now on, I won't be quite so naive.

Hopefully I will have a more comprehensive article on tea coming out soon but I won't say more until it is actually published since there have been delays in the past. I think that it will prove helpful to military guys as well as civilians.

[Charles Heath]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

I just figured, like most people probably, that it was Craig Barry's decision, as editor, to edit and approve Watchdog letters to the editor.

Hank,

First, you owe me a new keyboard. Second, did you point like The Bambino just before hammering that home run, or just step up to the plate and knock it over the wall?

Although Paul didn't want this to turn into a "let's bash the hobby publications," type of thread, and we aren't headed there with this blurb, Phil McBride's excellent comments bring up a larger question or two. The first being whether or not the dwindling hobby market is sufficient to sustain multiple publications, and by that I mean the CWC, CCG, CWH, and CWN. The latter being of a more general nature, it probably shouldn't be lumped in with the first three, and it is probably realistic to expect CWC and CCG to eventually merge, especially since they are both owned by Lakeway. Whether the end product would be a newspaper or magazine is up for conjecture.

That leaves CCG and CWH. In addition to wondering about readership, subscriber dollars, real business concerns, and reading the circulation reports when posted, the next bit of curio is whether or not the pool of writers is sufficient to sustain both publications. Beats the heck out of me, but a quick look at the articles from the past 24 months, as a sample of sorts, is telling. Both publications are in a state of transition at the moment, and perhaps this is a good opportunity to sort out which one to support at a time when print magazines & newspapers are suffering as a whole due to the success of the Internet, the dwindling size of the hobby as a whole is reducing the number of subscribers and potential subscribers, the writer's pool is shrinking, and people are just fed up with some of the shenanigans going on in the background. I'm not talking just CCG, but that is a nod to those who felt what Matt Caldwell was saying a while back, too.

Another pair of thoughts:

Or not. If both magazines evaporated tomorrow, how would it really affect your hobby?

To dovetail with Brian Hicks' thread about the 150ths, which magazine, if supported, has the potential to help grow the hobby during the sasquat..., er, Sequoia,..nah....sesquicenten.., um, yeah, 150ths.

While none of this sweetens the bitter taste in Troy's mouth, this incident provides for yet one more opportunity for reflection, introspection, and maybe even a crossroads in terms of hobby journalism.

[DougCooper]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

Hank,

First, you owe me a new keyboard. Second, did you point like The Bambino just before hammering that home run, or just step up to the plate and knock it over the wall?

Although Paul didn't want this to turn into a "let's bash the hobby publications," type of thread, and we aren't headed there with this blurb, Phil McBride's excellent comments bring up a larger question or two. The first being whether or not the dwindling hobby market is sufficient to sustain multiple publications, and by that I mean the CWC, CCG, CWH, and CWN. The latter being of a more general nature, it probably shouldn't be lumped in with the first three, and it is probably realistic to expect CWC and CCG to eventually merge, especially since they are both owned by Lakeway. Whether the end product would be a newspaper or magazine is up for conjecture.

That leaves CCG and CWH. In addition to wondering about readership, subscriber dollars, real business concerns, and reading the circulation reports when posted, the next bit of curio is whether or not the pool of writers is sufficient to sustain both publications. Beats the heck out of me, but a quick look at the articles from the past 24 months, as a sample of sorts, is telling. Both publications are in a state of transition at the moment, and perhaps this is a good opportunity to sort out which one to support at a time when print magazines & newspapers are suffering as a whole due to the success of the Internet, the dwindling size of the hobby as a whole is reducing the number of subscribers and potential subscribers, the writer's pool is shrinking, and people are just fed up with some of the shenanigans going on in the background. I'm not talking just CCG, but that is a nod to those who felt what Matt Caldwell was saying a while back, too.

Another pair of thoughts:

Or not. If both magazines evaporated tomorrow, how would it really affect your hobby?

To dovetail with Brian Hicks' thread about the 150ths, which magazine, if supported, has the potential to help grow the hobby during the sasquat..., er, Sequoia,..nah....sesquicenten.., um, yeah, 150ths.

While none of this sweetens the bitter taste in Troy's mouth, this incident provides for yet one more opportunity for reflection, introspection, and maybe even a crossroads in terms of hobby journalism.

Very, very well said.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

Paul,

Does anything done by anyone associated with Lakeway Publishing and Camp Chase Gazette surprise anyone anymore? I now believe that the marriage of The Watchdog with CCG was appropriate, given that they appear to have some similar ways of doing things.

Deal with ANY of these people associated with these publications at your own risk. And, by the way, Lakeway does not appear to take complaints seriously, nor written correspondence. Perhaps only a lawsuit would potentially make them wake up. That they feel it acceptable to treat their constituency like this is amazing, as I view it.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: CCG's March Edition: Camp Gossip

The PM Camp Gossip expose' really takes the cake though...what cowardice.

Doug,

As outrageous as it is, I suggest that their outright, word-for-word plagarizing of thousands of words by others, copied without authorization in numerous instances from more than one author, is what takes the cake about CCG. That CCG and their publisher continues to ignore this issue, as if it will simply go away on its own, is icing on the insult-cake.