Jump to content
mrkstvns

Unlikely beginnings of Boy Scouting...

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

So Scouting began in 1909?   Funny. I have been with two U.S troops that started in 1908, and many Canadian troops did the same.  But, then, it's the Washington Post: "The 2016 election is already decided. History says Hillary Clinton wins."

Like much of the world, the answer to the question of when scouting began is "it depends". 

B-P's first Brownsea gathering was 1907. 1908 is typically identified as the first troops in Britain. The date most commonly used as the beginning of BSA is 1910. 

Picking out just one date from the entire podcast puts on blinders to the overall essay.   

Good to hear that you have personally done much more extensive original research and had your facts double-checked and edited much more thoroughly than the professional journalists at one of America's foremost news organizations. It's no wonder you have earned more Pulitzers than the Post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mrkstvns said:

Picking out just one date from the entire podcast puts on blinders to the overall essay.   

Good to hear that you have personally done much more extensive original research and had your facts double-checked and edited much more thoroughly than the professional journalists at one of America's foremost news organizations. It's no wonder you have earned more Pulitzers than the Post...

That's an ad hominem attack. Unless you think that the typical journalist is a specialist of all knowledge or never make mistakes. I'd expect most forum members here to be more knowledgeable about Scouting than the average Journalist. Good on the post for writing about Scouts, but details matter. If a journalist makes a claim and get it wrong, it does cast some doubt on the quality of their journalism. Especially in today's mad scramble to be first to publish, issue retractions or corrections later... maybe. 

I don't have time to listen to the whole podcast right now while at work, but the summary states 110 years ago. However ,the publishing date was May 2018. There are two generally accepted dates of the birth of the Scouting Movement. 1907 the year BP first did his Brownsea camp, or 1908, when he published Scouting for Boys. Given that the article was published 110 years after 1908, I'll grant it as correct, and kudos to the Post for writing about it.) 

Tahawk, in his rush to jab the Post, didn't look at what year the article was written, merely the year it was posted here. 😋

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

That's an ad hominem attack. Unless you think that the typical journalist is a specialist of all knowledge or never make mistakes. I'd expect most forum members here to be more knowledgeable about Scouting than the average Journalist. Good on the post for writing about Scouts, but details matter. If a journalist makes a claim and get it wrong, it does cast some doubt on the quality of their journalism. Especially in today's mad scramble to be first to publish, issue retractions or corrections later... maybe. 

I don't have time to listen to the whole podcast right now while at work, but the summary states 110 years ago. However ,the publishing date was May 2018. There are two generally accepted dates of the birth of the Scouting Movement. 1907 the year BP first did his Brownsea camp, or 1908, when he published Scouting for Boys. Given that the article was published 110 years after 1908, I'll grant it as correct, and kudos to the Post for writing about it.) 

Tahawk, in his rush to jab the Post, didn't look at what year the article was written, merely the year it was posted here. 😋

 

Well said, Sentinel.  I apologize to Tahawk if my comments were perceived as any kind of personal statement. My intent is not to insult a fellow forum member.

However, the crux of my post stands. Snide comments about the press are not useful and are not appreciated. Too many folks these days seem to think its cool to cast stones at hard-working people who  do the heavy lifting of bringing us high quality information each and every day.

Journalists, scientists, academics, etc....they are all generally much better equipped than the average internet user to get accurate, relevant details.

In the realm of current events, journalists are the unsung heroes of quality information. They dig for facts and they present them responsibly: the writers don't put things in their articles that they can't corroborate. The organizations don't publish articles without having them reviewed for accuracy by fact checkers and reviewed for balance and relevance by editors. Of course, all these people are human, and the occasional error might slip by...in which case the professional news organization prints a retraction. 

As you point out, a look at the publication date shows that the Post really did not make any error...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"June 13, 2019

The unlikely start of the Boy Scout movement"

Washington Post.

 

As it happens, I looked at the date Wapo assigned to the publication linked in the OP, quoted above.  Using the posted link, Wapo would not let me read more than the first paragraph of the written article unless I subscribed to their "service."  I have used up my lifetime quota of "free" reading.  Nor do I have access to the podcast.  So you got me; I only read the date Wapo assigned, not the publication date of the story - if different.  If different, when did he publish the story?

As for me, I am an elderly trained historian and have spent over fifty years studying Scouting history, with access  for the last twenty years to the thousands and thousands of volumes and files of Scouting literature at two Scouting museums (one in Canada) to supplement my personal lifetime collection of books and clippings.  I only wished I had the "Log Book" of Troop 43. founded in 1908. which documented the founding of California Peace Scout Troop 43, eighteen years before BSA showed up in Orange County, California,. Although I read it cover-to-cover many times, memory fails over fifty years later.

When I went over to the dark side, I defended newspapers in libel actions in state and federal court - not a line or work for one who needs to win - holding down the bleeding was the optimum practical outcome..  I found that beating the opposition to the story had a much higher value than accuracy.  Perhaps standards have improved or are higher at WAPO. Although the flawed story generated by three WaPo reporters "on deadline" about the Covington Catholic High Schoolers "confronted" by "activists" in D.C. in january, 2019, suggests otherwise.  WaPo originally reported that one Nathan Phillips, a Vietnam vet, was prevented by a Covington Catholic High School student in the group from moving past them. The newspaper had also stated Phillips had been taunted by students before the encounter, and that the students were the instigators of the incident.  When the full range of sound tapes became public and weeks had passed,  WaPo published: "Subsequent reporting, a student’s statement and additional video allow for a more complete assessment of what occurred, either contradicting or failing to confirm accounts provided in that story,” the Post’s note states. WaPo acknowledged that it erred in stating that Phillips, who served in the U.S. Marines, was a Vietnam War veteran. In a separate correction, WaPo also noted it incorrectly characterized a statement from Covington High School as an apology instead of a condemnation, and had falsely stated that the group of teens involved in the incident could be heard on the video chanting “Build that wall” at Phillips.  I see no evidence of conspiracy in this, merely confirmation that "speed kills."  Mistakes will happen.   Ditto "The 2016 election is already decided. History says Hillary Clinton wins."  Not a conspiracy, just feelings.

We are all imperfect clay, imperfectly modeled.. The most distinguished military historian of my adult life, Keegan, put his name to a history of WW II replete with errors.  One infamous illustration is labeled as showing a German machine gun team in action during the invasion of France in May-June, 1040., the problem being that the MG42 shown was not in service until 1942. 

Even Homer nods. Homer never got a "Pulitzer," as is, not surprisingly, true of Pulitzer himself.

Opinions,. as noted, differ about what date should be assigned as Scouting's "birthday."  As some here already know, Scouting for Boys was first published in installments about two weeks apart by Windsor House, London E.C., during January, February, and March, 1908.  The first combined edition was, as Sentinel1947 notes,  published in May, 1908. The work had been written in 1907, the year of the first Scouting program.  We moved to Hillcourt's "Patrol Method,  (our defining method) with youth-selected leaders in 1929-1930 - very different from BP's "Patrol System" where the "officer" (Scoutmaster) appoints the leaders.  Boy Scouting as defined in BSA's Congressional charter went away this year, replaced by BSA Scouting. Take your pick of dates. The World Organization of the Scouting  Movement, joined by every national Scouting organization I can find except B.S.A.,  celebrated the Centennial in 2007.   If WaPo is "right." the WOSM must be "wrong."  I didn't say WaPo was wrong.  I asked a question and stated facts about when some Scout troops started up.  The answer to the question is a matter of opinion, and the facts remain facts.

As for jabbing the Post, they are not even in the league of BSA, which proclaimed the "100th Anniversary of Scouting" to fall in  2010. 

Are accusation of sarcasm and "snide" comments reasonably to be taken as "personal"?  I guess not.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:
"June 13, 2019

The unlikely start of the Boy Scout movement"

Washington Post.

 

As it happens, I looked at the date Wapo assigned to the publication linked in the OP, quoted above.  Using the posted link, Wapo would not let me read more than the first paragraph of the written article unless I subscribed to their "service."  I have used up my lifetime quota of "free" reading.  Nor do I have access to the podcast.  So you got me; I only read the date Wapo assigned, not the publication date of the story - if different.  If different, when did he publish the story?

As for me, I am an elderly trained historian and have spent over fifty years studying Scouting history, with access  for the last twenty years to the thousands and thousands of volumes and files of Scouting literature at two Scouting museums (one in Canada) to supplement my personal lifetime collection of books and clippings.  I only wished I had the "Log Book" of Troop 43. founded in 1908. which documented the founding of California Peace Scout Troop 43, eighteen years before BSA showed up in Orange County, California,. Although I read it cover-to-cover many times, memory fails over fifty years later.

When I went over to the dark side, I defended newspapers in libel actions in state and federal court - not a line or work for one who needs to win - holding down the bleeding was the optimum practical outcome..  I found that beating the opposition to the story had a much higher value than accuracy.  Perhaps standards have improved or are higher at WAPO. Although the flawed story generated by three WaPo reporters "on deadline" about the Covington Catholic High Schoolers "confronted" by "activists" in D.C. in january, 2019, suggests otherwise.  WaPo originally reported that one Nathan Phillips, a Vietnam vet, was prevented by a Covington Catholic High School student in the group from moving past them. The newspaper had also stated Phillips had been taunted by students before the encounter, and that the students were the instigators of the incident.  When the full range of sound tapes became public and weeks had passed,  WaPo published: "Subsequent reporting, a student’s statement and additional video allow for a more complete assessment of what occurred, either contradicting or failing to confirm accounts provided in that story,” the Post’s note states. WaPo acknowledged that it erred in stating that Phillips, who served in the U.S. Marines, was a Vietnam War veteran. In a separate correction, WaPo also noted it incorrectly characterized a statement from Covington High School as an apology instead of a condemnation, and had falsely stated that the group of teens involved in the incident could be heard on the video chanting “Build that wall” at Phillips.  I see no evidence of conspiracy in this, merely confirmation that "speed kills."  Mistakes will happen.   Ditto "The 2016 election is already decided. History says Hillary Clinton wins."  Not a conspiracy, just feelings.

When I wrote my comment about rushing to print the first thing I thought of was the Covington Catholic situation from earlier this year. 

Here's how to find the original article. The article is a "retro podcast". It was reposted on June 13th. Clicking the link that I drew an arrow to takes you to the next page. Which I have also screens shotted and has the date from May 9th 2018. I also don't have a subscription to the Post, so I can't read the whole article, and I'm too busy at the moment to listen to the podcast ( and too cheap thrifty to buy access.) I hope readers of the Post saw the article or listened to the podcast. Scouting sure needs positive press these days. 

And lets not get to our own BSA's publishing accuracy ineptitude... 
 

image.png

image.png

Edited by Sentinel947
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, as I tried to explain, not very well, "Using the posted link, Wapo would not let me read more than the first paragraph of the written article unless I subscribed to their "service."  I have used up my lifetime quota of "free" reading. "  I meant WaPo's link ("Related Link'"), which got me, and gets me:

El4ylVf.png

This screen appears a few seconds after the linked text opens.  WaPo is not in a position to give on-line access away, as it true of many other newspapers, such as the LA Times, in these days of newspaper death.  You get to sample free for awhile, then must financially support them to get continued access.  They could run an editorial "There is no such thing as free,."  But that is not likely, even as they illustrate thew point.  

Edited by TAHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×