# Teddy's Rant - The Media, Military and Afghanistan



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2007)

_Note to Mods - rant to follow, you may wish to move to some more obscure part of the forum..._

Anyone who suspects the existence of a hidden agenda within the media that reflects an anti-military bias won't be surprised by the press offerings today (13 Jul):

Soldiers are drunks and drug users:

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Afghan/2007/07/13/pf-4335601.html

(failing to mention the fact that we're now doing massively increased drug testing and that the system is much more aware of such issues than in the past)

Military conspiracy to target innocent analyst:

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=746bfb9c-2430-4851-a7f2-5b200c086fa1

(failing to mention that this is a standard tactic used by large organizations in order to prepare their leadership to address questions from critics)

Military BSs the public regarding our role in Afghanistan:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070711_171700_11872

And the topper - Inner circle of secretive "advisors" plots to undermine civilian rule:

http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/219106

Completely ignoring the truth as published by the Deputy Minister two days before:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2372

Such hyperventilating, innuendo, inaccuracy and blatant half-truths hardly serve to fulfill the media's oft-stated role of educating the public.  It appears that the bulk of the nation's mass media has already made up its mind regarding the military, Afghanistan and our soldiers.  Those few who write positively about their experiences with the CF or, worse, in support of our efforts in Kandahar Province are derided as having become co-opted dupes of a sinister, secretive organization.

Public discourse deserves better than this.  An educated debate is one thing, hyperbole is another.  Many in the media seem to be hungering for a Vietnam-style confrontation between themselves and the military community.  They appear almost desperate for a family of one of our fallen to denounce the mission in Afghanistan, leaping upon any hint of discontent or dissention as an example of a wider problem.  The way CTV News website misquoted the Dawe family yesterday was almost breathtaking. 

Poll after poll is taken with skewed questioning and questionable facts.  "Unease with War Grows", "War Deaths Too High", "Support Wanes..." seem to be today's media mantra. 

This is a plea to the media:  do some basic research before you write.  Try and learn what the various branches of the military do and which organizations are responsible for what.  If using an "expert", at least point out how that "expert" is qualified to comment on defence issues and, more importantly, what political baggage the "expert" is carrying.  _There are very few real defence experts in Canada._ 

Finally, leave your prejudices at home:  not all of us are high-school dropouts lured into the Army by promises of a free education or have been lied to by a predatory recruiting system.  Aside, perhaps, from some diplomats and NGO personnel, soldiers on the ground in theatre have a much more comprehensive view of the issues facing Southern Afghanistan than any Canada-based pundit.  Often, they have the education and academic background to bolster that first-hand knowledge.  It's unfortunate that you appear unable to acknowledge this.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jul 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> _Note to Mods - rant to follow, you may wish to move to some more obscure part of the forum..._



Rant? More like a much-deserved critique that's been well-earned by the supposedly _unbiased_ media.


----------



## career_radio-checker (13 Jul 2007)

I think it can all be summed up by saying "Bad news makes good news.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jul 2007)

Then there's this one:

Drug addiction soars in Afghanistan
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070712/Afghanistan_drugs_070712?s_name=&no_ads=

Our media are addicted to bad news.  No wonder the public seems to be giving up.

Support for Afghan intervention waning: poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070712.wafgpoll0712/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

How would you expect nice, decent, life-affirming Canadians to respond? Most sure aren't going to say any significant number of deaths is "acceptable" these days.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jul 2007)

I think the operative phrase is, "If it bleeds, it leads."


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Jul 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> I think the operative phrase is, "If it bleeds, it leads."


Or, as Arnie once said:
"If it bleeds, we can kill it"
Our Afghanistan mission is "bleeding", and the MSM is trying to kill it.
I think it's a case of Penis envy vis a vis the US: They have Iraq, we have Afghanistan.  Funny, even the left in the US is in line with the mission in Afghanistan vis a vis the UN.


----------



## observor 69 (13 Jul 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> I think it can all be summed up by saying "Bad news makes good news.



Close but actually it's "Bad news sells."


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jul 2007)

Baden Guy: Not necessarily so, since our media have not presented the "good news" side--so those who buy might in that sense vote.  Good news sold in, say, WW II, or Korea, but maybe we were a different people then.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Baden Guy: Not necessarily so, since our media have not presented the "good news" side--so those who buy might in that sense vote.  Good news sold in, say, WW II, or Korea, but maybe we were a different people then.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



We were....


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2007)

The other day I saw CNN reporter interviewing an Iraqi family in its living room that was begging the Americans to stay.  Under the interview screen, throughout the entire flaming interview ran the banner Iraqis Want Americans Out.  At the end the banner changed to The Debate Over the American Presence Rages in Iraq.

Many people keep CNN on in the background with the sound down.  What is the impression left by that Balanced Report?

Agenda?  Heck no.  Why would anyone think that?

The picking of headlines also pisses me off endlessly as does these silly emotive anchor persons that do the reporting.  

Poll indicates that support wanes.  Government refuses to be concerned.  .... Aye support waned - from 73% in favour of issue Zebu to 71%.

And spoken with end of the world emphasis and pathos.   Tsunami wipes out 10,000,000 and Lisa got two hang-nails today are announced in exactly the same tone if Lisa's hangnails are today's lead flaming disasters.

I watch the news and I read papers but I find them less and less connected with any reality I can discover from other sources.  The only purpose there is to watching and reading them now is to find out what pablum they are spewing to the herd in order to sell soap.

In the immortal words of Groundskeeper Wullie:  "Crrrrrap!!"


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2007)

Thanks Teddy, and the Mods.  I feel much better now.


----------



## kilekaldar (13 Jul 2007)

As someone who has come back from Afghanistan in Febuary and is returning next year, I would agree that this constant slew of negative coverage is due to the news media's short-sighted chase of profits. But; what should we expect from a multi-billion dollar cut-throat business?  Altruism or idealism maybe? A sense of what they choose to cover impacts real people?  A sense of morality, or a duty to tell the WHOLE story? Or maybe a desire for accuracy in presenting both the good and the bad?
I'm afraid that would be asking too much. They know that covering death, disasters and scandals will sell, and the Taliban know that the press will focus on that. It's mutually beneficial for both parties involved. And the media is very enthusiastic in it's role since as it generates more negative stories that will sell.

The Taliban leadership hiding in Pakistan know they can't win against us on the battlefield, they can only strike at us effectively via the media and use it to frighten the less staltwart Canadian civilians back home into forcing the government to withdraw from the mission.  Because, let's face it, the public doesn't know anything about Afghanistan except for what they see on newspaper headlines and nightly news soundbites, and it's almost all negative. 

I'm sad to say that while we are clearly winning the ground war, the Taliban and their ignorant proxies in the news media are winning the propaganda war.

If we are forced to withdraw because of public opinion and Kandahar gets overun -killing thousands and pluging the province into hard line Taliban Wahhabist rule- who will the press blame? Themselves? Not likely.

I do have to make note of one glaring exception: the Maclean's cover piece "Afghanistan: Reason for Hope" is an excellent article about the progress being made and the challenges facing us. You should read it.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jul 2007)

Well,

We should expect Canadians to be a little smarter than to allow their policy to be determined outside their Parliament in a biased media.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jul 2007)

kilekaldar: Very well put.  I would only add that many years ago the media felt a sense of patriotism that might temper criticism.  Sadly the Vietnam War destroyed that balance in the US and we copy-cat Canadians have simply followed on.   Better exposé than victory. :rage:

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (14 Jul 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> If using an "expert", at least point out how that "expert" is qualified to comment on defence issues and, more importantly, what political baggage the "expert" is carrying.  _There are very few real defence experts in Canada._



When there is an opportunity for free media coverage and a speaking platform, suddenly everyone is a qualified defence critic...Steven Staples is merely that most recent in a long line of 'peace experts' who feel they know the military and world conflict issues better than anyone who deals with the issues on a daily basis...


----------



## Flip (14 Jul 2007)

In short, "The medium is the message" turns out to be correct.

"Look at us" is more important than truth.

Yea, I'm disgusted.  By and large I've "felt" CBC has been better than
CTV, and Sun newspapers to be polar opposites of the "Globe"

The grass roots however, will surprise you............

The coverage about the people lining the bridges between Trenton and Toronto
to pay respects to our fallen was excellent.  Credit goes to the people.
NOT the media.  Emergency workers applying yellow ribbons - Again
the people get the credit, Not the media. 

If Canadians were to learn the truth about Afghanistan, I'm convinced they would support it.

As for experts?  Eric Margolis is my personal fave..............
I hate it when someone that bright is that wrong.
He should be a bartender or waiter.

Gwynne Dyer has disappointed me.  He has timed the release of his new book
perfectly ( for profit ).


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jul 2007)

> In short, "The medium is the message" turns out to be correct.
> 
> "Look at us" is more important than truth.



You want more proof?   The papers are full of the Conrad Black conviction today.  The ultimate in inside baseball - not to say masturbatory indulgence.

Meanwhile the King of Jordan, one of the major players in the issue that most exercises our times, is in Canada to discuss how to handle a crisis that the self-same press claims is killing Canadians, Americans, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese unnecessarily (Jews don't get much of a look in these days I'm afraid).

It is to upchuck.


----------



## Flip (14 Jul 2007)

I'm afraid I don't quite get this phrase





> inside baseball



Does this mean playing baseball in the living room 
or a single team playing with itself?

My bet.- Lord Black will probably not do any jail time by the time the 
appeals are done.

Warning: wish list 

1.I'd like to find a way to stimulate those "grass roots" and..........

2.Punish the media for their self indulgent navel gazing.

3.And most important - hang a stink on the lefties for what they have 
tried to do with Canada's national interest in Afghanistan.

4.We can get to universal peace and justice later.........


----------



## Shec (14 Jul 2007)

> Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
> But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,


                                                                                   Kipling

Plus ca change, Plus ca meme chose. :


----------



## kratz (14 Jul 2007)

Main Stream Media in Canada is concentrated into a few groups:

*CTV-Globe:* Television, newspapers and their online presence;
*Sun Media:* newspapers and their online presence (ie: Canada.com);
*Global: * Television and their online presence;
*Transcontinental:* daily and weekly newspapers, and their online presence; and
*Maratime Broadcasting Service:* Radio in the maritime provinces, and their online presence

are the ones that I can identify. From the examples of an agenda that I have seen so far, only the first two groups have reported negative comments. As a counter point though, some of the most respected reporters that this forum has approved of are also from the CTV-Globe and other media sources. Is the MSM providing a negative slant against  military? It looks like it, but there are events (base family days), results (weapons found), and support (whales freed from nets) that are being reported to counter the negatives.


----------



## punisher_6d (16 Jul 2007)

Sorry, are you saying CTV and Globe and Mail, or including Sun Media in this as well?  As for CTV, they offer pretty balanced coverage and have a bureau in KAF.  They even went so far as to provide live coverage of a news conference in Kingston last week by the Dawe family.  I also notice there is no mention of the Quebec media in all of this.  They will certainly play a factor in determining where Canada goes with this mission.  Wait 'til you see the even greater negative spin they will put on the mission as soon as the first Quebec fallen comrade has a ramp ceremony.


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We should expect Canadians to be a little smarter than to allow their policy to be determined outside their Parliament in a biased media.


I'd like to think so, but can we really expect anything better when our politicians are using the news media (& snazzy buzz phrases) as the conduit for debate?  It is interesting to note that today's poll has identified an opinion difference with the university educated being more in favour of the mission.  It seems that those who have been taught to scrutinize information are not being fooled.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> *CTV-Globe:* Television, newspapers and their online presence;
> *Sun Media:* newspapers and their online presence (ie: Canada.com);
> *Global: * Television and their online presence;
> *Transcontinental:* daily and weekly newspapers, and their online presence; and
> *Maratime Broadcasting Service:* Radio in the maritime provinces, and their online presence


No CBC?


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> I'd like to think so, but can we really expect anything better when our politicians are using the news media (& snazzy buzz phrases) as the conduit for debate?  It is interesting to note that today's poll has identified an opinion difference with the university educated being more in favour of the mission.  It seems that those who have been taught to scrutinize information are not being fooled.
> No CBC?



Absolutely 100% agreed. It seems you and I both share this view, which is also being expressed in this thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64188/post-589835.html#msg589835


----------



## 3rd Herd (18 Jul 2007)

I thought I would carry out a little research before wading, jumping, leaping into this thread. Using Google news alert with the search words "Canadian, Troops, Afghanistan, Support" I have been getting about 140 to a high of 246 articles. The majority are very favourable to the troops, the mission, and the support. Some of the real surprising editorials and stories have come out smaller papers in the Quatar, Sri Lanka and India for example. Smaller local newspapers here in Canada have been doing the same, excellent well written and to a certain extent someone did some research before publishing. BUT the major players seem to have overlooked these stories except for of course the Edmonton Sun which has picked up on a couple. I made a bet (actually a few) with a reporter here in Calgary Friday at a fundraiser. The bet wether or not her News station would carry anything on the fundraiser. I just got an email the controversy here over the ribbons on city vehicles has taken precedent. My out take on this is the Alderman in question realizes it is an election year and needs to get his name in the paper. The drivers of city vehicles have been quite good about the ribbon issues, if the driver wants one he buys it(supporting the troops) and at the start of the shift puts it on his/her vehicle.  I asked one city employee why this practice, he said "the idea is to support the troops so if they want one on this vehicle after my shift the next driver can buys his/her own and make their personal contribution". Not bad logic from a trash hauler. As to the alderman in question " Rick if you want your name in the paper here is a few suggestions 1) Figure out why hotdogs jump from  $1.85 to $ 5.85 for stampede week 2) Figure out which landlords are continually renting out houses for use as either "shooting houses" or "sales and distribution points" 3) Ensure your name is placed on the next recruitment list for one of our local Reserve Units if you do this quickly you may have a chance to see first hand what supporting the troops is about-from the receiving end.


----------



## NAL (19 Jul 2007)

I find the National Post's articles concerning the Afghanistan mission are generally in favour.


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2007)

Well, it must be that time of the month ... another slow news day as per ...

Here we go again with the drug testing story, it's been done so many times -- and so often -- it's repetetiveness is making my head hurt. It's like a big cycle; despite the fact that drug use is lower in the Canadian Forces than in the general population of Canada (which we are a relection of), the need to pull this one out every so often and add a new little tidbit to it, simply amazes me.

They are paying people to recycle this crap!! And, in this particular case, the Canadian taxpayers are paying to have this crap regurgitated to them (where was that other thread about avians and the oppostion??) Geez, who'd have thunk it?? Getting paid for recycling the same 'news' over and over again when there's actually so much real news on accomplishments and good works being done in Afghanistan by our troops, that they are constantly overlooking and failing to report to the public. No wonder Canadians have such a dim outlook on the mission and it's possibilities of success.

It's truly saddening.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act ....

CBC Article



> Nearly 200 soldiers kept home from Afghanistan over drug use: report
> Last Updated: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 9:09 AM ET
> CBC News
> 
> ...



My emphasis added.  :


----------



## Flip (11 Sep 2007)

What's interesting is how they manage to turn a non-news,
item into an impending crisis.  What I mean is, the CF have 
managed to do a remarkable job in keeping it's people clean.
And take it on the chin for Vietnam-era stereotype the media 
are trying desperately to keep alive.

Here's proof:http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/09/09/4481384-sun.php
Eric Margolis actually has the nerve to call his column 


> Damn, it's 'Nam



I don't know what drug abuse stats are - but I do know that 25% of people 
I know would test positive for cannabis.

I suspect CF members could be more accurately compared to professional
or Olympic athletes.- but that's another unnecessary can of worms. ;D


----------



## Scoobs (11 Sep 2007)

What does retired Col Drapeau think when he says stuff?  Does he not remember that he once wore the uniform and stuff he says will be quoted?  Or maybe that is exactly the point, so that he can get some attention.  I'm tired of these experts offering their opinion when they need to think before opening their mouths.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2007)

>(which we are a re[f]lection of), 

I like to see this story gain repeated traction.  It will remind any perceptive readers in the audience that the CF is composed of self-nominated people who are not, likely never will be, and should not in any event be forced to be, a reflection of Canadians as a whole.  There are some segments of Canadian society - depending on by which criteria you divide or slice it - which are piss-poor candidate pools for CF service.  Let the interested individuals step forward and make themselves fit the CF, and don't waste time or money pressuring the uninterested or trying to make the CF fit them.


----------

