Camp Chase Gazette and the Watchdog

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Agree. You are right again my friend. Astute as always. The lack of product reviews was one of the factors that influenced the current course of action. There were fewer and fewer products being submitted by vendors for The Watchdog to evaluate. I can think of a variety of reasons for the failures in this area, more than a few of them were our own fault and some that were not. In fact, the final edition (Vol 15 # 2) has a product review on the Cedar Creek Supply Depot M-1861 elongated ball .69 cartridge box. This is one reason why we always privately published, so as not to be influenced by funding provided by advertisers.

"The Watchdog", as its name implies, was founded as a sort of "Consumer's Reports" for reenactors. As I view it, "The Watchdog" abandoned that founding credo long ago.

Darn shame, too. In this day of "designer vendors" for reenactors, who's products are often taken as accurate simply because "Joe" made them, there's more of a need than ever for "Consumer's Reports" for reenactors.

"The Watchdog" can never compete with the likes of CWH and even CCG. It should have kept to its old niche, because no one fulfills that need anymore, and it was the reason why most folks who subscribed to "The Watchdog" in the 1990s did so.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

I'll opine here that I don't care a whit if any publication attends "campaigner" events or not. What I care about is whether that publication meets it goal and satisfies its target audience.

The goal of "The Watchdog" was originally product reviews for reenactors. Along the way, someone decided that "The Dog" should also publish how-to articles to compete with the Internet, CCG, CWH, and others. The utility of the content of "The Dog" was it exists today is probably the main issue about why its subscription rate has dwindled.

[LindaTrent]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Craig wrote: What insight into 1860s material culture would be gained by attending a modern immersion event, which is an interpretation of history and not the thing itself?

Of course one could say that even a really good reproduction is just an interpretation of the historic item and not the thing itself. To me, what's always been cool is doing the research and learning about everyday life and how items were used. Then collecting everything I need whether original or excellent reproductions, and putting it all in context to see how things might have worked back then. What insight can be gained? A whole lot more than just looking at the items, and wondering how they would work if put to use in a period manner. :D

Linda.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

On another, closexd thread was written,

Mr. O'Beirne, actually I don't think that discussion would be all that lengthy regarding the support of The Watchdog over the last few years. They have had the same high quality information, articles, and reviews as they've had for years, but I think with the competition offered from the higher quality format of Civil War Historian, coupled with less of the "old guard" of C/P/H reenactors taking to the field or staying involved in the hobby, created less of a readership therefore less subscriptions. That is all, of course, prior to this new undertaking. I think that will indeed create another set of issues.

Ross,

One needs to look at "The Dog" under its original publisher versus what it became. For example, in the early and mid-1990s, "The Dog" had product reviews written by informed people who compared the repros with originals.

The current issue has an article about the future of mega-events. My, how "The Dog" has strayed from its original home.

There is noplace on the Internet that I know of where anyone does systematic, critical reviews of repro wares, and compares them against origianls and against history. If that site exists on the Internet, please send me the link.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Kevin, after reading this last issue of The Dog that I recieved in the mailing this very afternoon, I couldn't agree with you more. As a "last issue" it was incredibly disappointing, and the product review they did chose to run was from an above average vendor, not museum grade. This issue was like finding out you had parked your car on top of your favorite huntin' dog - flat and dead.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Some of you have expressed disappointment. Let me disappoint you some more...

1. If you are a subscriber to The Watchdog, the decision we made about no longer self publishing the magazine has been communicated to you, as well as your options. If you are not a subscriber or a customer, and most of those posting here are not, then while we value your opinion I do question your motivation. What concern is it of yours? Kevin O'Beirne in particular...a writer and researcher whose work is respectable, but who cares what you think about The Watchdog?

2. Charles Heath...where to start? Your post here is a bit ambiguous...reading between the lines, can I assume then that The Watchdog will not be receiving any monograph on "Rations" from you any time soon? Then you are neither a contributor, a subscriber or a customer. Don't let me slow you down while you look for someone who cares what you think either.

If you think the material we publish is without merit, that we have not and do not "Get It Right", that our battlefield preservation efforts are substandard, the simpliest recommendation that can be offered to you is "buy the books and magazines you like best."

[AZReenactor]

the simpliest recommendation that can be offered to you is "buy the books and magazines you like best."

Craig,
And that little suggestion is probably the very best explanation of why the dawg's readership, at least from this end of the hobby, has declined so...

most of us do...

[dusty27]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Craig,

I asked some questions back on page 3. When you have time, could you answer any of them?

[Watchdog]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Perhaps it is time for me to chime in here.

All:
Looking at the very first issue of the WD, I see that Nicky Hughes wrote that "The Watchdog will provide accurate, comprehensible information to allow reenactors to shop intelligently." That first issue contained six column inches of general commentary on tin cups (whether they are "farby" with bright bras bottoms, or should lead free solder (not available in 1860) be used and do not use the post-war cups stamped with a "US"). Next came eight column inches on a warning about enamelware. There was a whole page article on inaccurate wooden chairs. There was a review of the 130th Perryville event (a whole page). The best article (two pages) of the issue was a well-documented description of parasol design elements. Near the end of the issue there was a three-quarter page commentary advising individuals interested in accuracy to do their homework by visiting museums and historical sites. On the back (eighth page) Nickiy editorialized for five column inches about the dangers of using original items in the field. For five years the WD was a newsletter with about seven pages of content each issue.

Fifteen years and over fifty issues later the WD grew from eight to twenty or twenty-four pages of "comprehensible information" that still allowed any reader (reenactor) "to shop intelligently." For the last ten years, as publisher and editor it has been up to me to decide what and how that information is presented. Incidently, the subject of tinware, enamelware, inaccurate parasols and slat chairs is still topical as these items are still seen in the same or greater quantities. If readers were unhappy, they sure did not communicate their feelings directly to me. I suppose that, as AZReenactor suggests, they voted with their feet. However, I feel that the Internet and online forums also had something to do with a decreasing interest. The WD has not been the only hobby publication similarly affected.

Since then, of course, we have had the stratification, labeling, name calling and general "balkanizing" of our hobby or community. As a member of Thomas's Mudsills I can testify as to the negative impact what that kind of behavior did to one on the best units in the CW role-playing community. It self-destructed due to the "I am better than you," "do your own research" and "do not come here for any help if you are a fresh fish" movement.

All:
Some members of this forum might not realize that I started in the hobby thirty years ago. I have experienced the changes in the social and material culture of our tribal practices. I have worked hard to do my part to promote historical accuracy. For example, all the layout and editing work on the CRRC2 was donated by me. It amounts to well over five hundred man-hours and that doesn't count the time spent filling and shipping book orders. I enjoyed doing it. But to sit here are read all this hot air about how the Watchdog is "not worthy" is beyond my patience. I am also going to add that our total battlefield preservation donations amount to at least $10,000.

Kevin:
The CCG did not knowingly allow your articles to be plagarized. They may have been sloppy in their selection of the articles, primarily because the new editor had never even read your original articles. It is curious to note that this forum allowed the plagarizer to almost become a pop icon before he was booted. I can certainly understand your feeling of violation, but I do not believe that the CCG acted with malice. I was guilty of printing an article based on one in a publication that I had never read. We worked out a proper resolution without resorting to lawsuits and incriminations

Hank:
I do know how you dragged event types into this discussion, but that has nothing to do with the WD's business plan or editorial content. I have personally participated in a variety of events since 1977 from intense immersions to the most parocial of street fairs--with a variety of good magic moments and embarrassing and fun experience in funny clothes. WD staffers are free to express their CW-self as they see fit. I do not see your dog in this fight. I do see a personal agenda.

Ross:
I will be sending you a personal communication about your beef shortly. There are other factors, of which you are not aware.

Full disclosure:
I offered Nicky Hughes the chance to return to the WD as editor (I would just handle the business end) well before he took on the job as editor of the CCG. He said at the time that "he was not interested in editing anything." A few months later he took on the role of CCG editor and later jumped ship to the CW Historian. The CW publishing business is a smaller world than is realized. By the way, I will be the first to subscribe to any new publication that reviews products.

Charles:
I do not ever recall you submitting one word to the WD. For some one so swift of tongue and pen, it seems like you ignored a chance to support the original goal of the WD during the last fifteen years. Is it the footnotes and documentation that scares you?

AZReenactor:
Were you ever a WD subscriber under either publisher?

All:
I am quite comfortable with our plan to help "improve" the quality of the Camp Chase Gazette and The Citizens' Companion, both professionally and personally, as we move forward. I have always learned that presenting a solution or being willing to help fix a problem is better than just whining about it.

After reading these posts of the last few days, I am even more convinced that Craig and I are doing the right thing in finding a venue that will bring "accurate, comprehensible information" to a broader and more receptive audience.

By the way, we have a "bully" buy. Complete copies of back issues each year of the "old" and the "new" WD are available for a mere $5 per year $6 if you use PayPal).

[paulcalloway]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

I can honestly say, I hope the CCG merger plays out well for all parties - I'll take a wait-and-see approach.

I admit, it's been a long time since I've subscribed to the WD, especially after being out of the hobby for a couple years. But I remember it fondly and have quite a few issues still here on the bookshelf.

My concerns with the deal are altogether concerning this entity known as Lakeway Publishing. I too would have prefered a CWH/WD merger but its not up to me and sometimes the best deals aren't the necessarily the ones offered.

Good luck with it - I'll nose through the CCG from time to time at the Allen County Library and see how its coming along.

[Bill]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Wow,

In case you guys haven't figured it out, the CPH side of the Hobby doesn't have a monopoly on the use of authentic clothing and equipment. Ask any of the vendors on the A-C's approved list and they'll tell you their business depends on customers from the Mainstream side of the Hobby.

I subscribed to the "Watch Dog" from issue one, back in 1993, until the final issue. For the most part, the magazine discussed the authenticity of both specific products and general areas of material culture. What you did with that information was up to the individual. I'm going to miss the "Watch Dog".

[Craig L Barry]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Well there you have it. No hard feelings to any and all. Appreciate the feedback from those who were qualified to give it, such as Bill Rodman who actually subscribed. For those less qualified to opine, publish something like a book or pamphlet and build some credibility for yourselves. If we've failed at The Watchdog, we failed trying to accomplish something worthwhile, that being "getting it right" and "battlefield preservation". The ones whose accomplishments = zero, you are the "Authentic Complainers"...keep looking for somebody you can intimidate and reading the material that panders to your vanity. That's not The Watchdog.

Me? I'm out of town for a few days on business, not hobby business and then I've got Cedar Creek, plus research to do for the books, pamphlets and articles we are going to publish now and in the future. You are right, those are probably not for those in the 1% of the A-C Forum but rather the other 9% who post less often, but read more often and the 90% who don't post enough...and probably some in the rest of the hobby. The dozen or so Private Messages I have been getting all day from the silent majority have been quite opposite to what was mostly posted here. Like I wrote earlier, there are clearly a number of other opinions that vary wildly from what has been expressed here about the merits of our business plan.

As far as Outpost III. Negotiations are still in the preliminary phase with the War Department. May get down there for a day. Half being better than none.

[paulcalloway]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Lets ALL try to maintain a respectful tone in these posts. There's nothing served by attacking or counterattacking.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

I think we are all just being honest with each other if not completely respectful in tone. It's hard to communicate the message "take your petty grudges somewhere else" and say it nicely. All apologies for our part. Bill C, too. It obviously struck a nerve with him. No hard feelings and so on. We don't have time for it, frankly... more pressing matters demand our immediate attention.

I will leave with a final thought on all this. A particularly grating aspect of the dialog here (for those reading between the lines) is the lack of support or gratitude by the two members of the Columbia Rifles in particular after the enormous investment of time and money The Watchdog put in to publishing the Columbia Rifles Research Compendium 2nd edition. Bill said he put in five hundred hours laying it out and editing it? As well as thousands of dollars that had to be invested, a good portion of it borrowed, so that the CR book could see the light of day. CRRC 2nd ed is a very good book that like The Watchdog, did not enjoy enough support from whatever we want to call "our part of the hobby" to cover the costs of publishing it. The book ultimately re-couped its costs and the first run is about to sell out, but not from the support of the EBUFU crowd, the CRs or the vocal minority (1%). Now, put in that light reconsider the commentary in this thread about the relative merits of The Watchdog from those quarters. There are some names for characters like that, they aren't very respectful...but they are honest.

Finally, since Civil War Historian has earned such undying loyalty here...and as a subscriber from day one I enjoy CWH, too...do you believe the editor(s) there would similarly donate their time or invest their own money (some of it was our personal funds) to publish the CRRC? Let me know how all that works out for you. A "for profit" venture like CWH (or anyone else) would probably not be very interested in the economics of that publishing project. However, you can take the portion of CRRC not written by Watchdog Asst Editor John Tobey and make a nice pamphlet out of it and see what they say.

Going off line for a while. As I leave to go out of town the private messages and e-mails are running 20:1 in favor of the moves being made by The Watchdog. The last one is short, it reads "Good for you". Not a statistically significant poll, but quite telling. The "1" negative being a long time subscriber and close friend with a legitimate gripe.

[LindaTrent]

Re: C/P/H and The Watchdog

Hi Craig,

We have been subscribed and let our subscription lapse about 7 years ago. Why? You basically gave the answer in your opening post on this thread. We got our computer in1998, and found the AC and other forums and list serves where we could get answers within minutes, hours, or days, rather than quarterly. We have instant active interaction with those who are giving their opinions about the item(s), as well.

Of course there are downsides to the internet, and that is the crashes where we lose years of electronic research, which is why I try to save all the interesting posts in a Word document, so I can find them later. Again, if I don't get them on a disk they're subject to computer crashes as well. But I've lost/misplaced a good many Watchdogs, too. :)

As Bill said, there are only 24 pages in the Watchdog, and unfortunately most of that probably isn't something that I'm currently looking for, or will be looking for in the future. So, we let our subscription lapse. There are those who still like to hold something in their hands and read from a paper copy, and that's great! I just don't have the patience to wait quarterly for the next issue.

I really hope that you can make Outpost III; I think that you'll find that the cphers aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be.

As to whether or not I believe that Mr. and Mrs. Hughes would donate their time or invest their own money to publish the CRRC, well, I assume you asked and you know. What I do know is that the Hughes' have supported the EBUFU movement since day one (though they also attend and support other events). Susan and I were both slated to attend Outpost 2000, but major health issues (gall bladder surgery two weeks before the event, for me) had us in the hospital right around that time period. Both Nicky and Susan have been supportive of events like Smithville (Goldsboro civilians held at SV), carpe' eventums held during the SV event, both attended The Inn at Peak's Mill, and Nicky was at the 1864 Trial event. Nicky had us all pose afterwards for pictures and he hopes to have an article about the event in the CWH in one of the upcoming issues. The Hughes' been there from the birth of the movement and have been active amongst our numbers for many many years.

Do I believe that the Watchdog has a place in the hobby? Most certainly. It just isn't for me for the reasons I mentioned above, but I'm sure that a lot of people have improved their impressions due to the information contained therein. Good luck with your merger.

Linda.