# Canada pulled reporters from Afghanistan



## GAP (31 Dec 2006)

*Canada pulled reporters from Afghanistan after Aust complaints*
Sunday, December 31, 2006. 12:46pm (AEDT)
Article Link

Documents released today have confirmed a number of journalists embedded with Canadian troops in Afghanistan were removed on short notice after complaints from other nations including the United States and Australia.

According to the documents, several of Canada's allies had complained the country's policy on embedded journalists was too liberal. 

A Canadian Defence Department source has confirmed Australia was one of the nations that did the most complaining. 

The actual incident occurred in April, when four journalists were removed from their embedded positions after very short notice. 

In at least one case, a helicopter was sent in during fighting to remove the reporter. 

The Canadian Defence Department says the allies considered the country's policy overly-progressive and risky. 

It also says placating allies will always triumph over the media embed program
End


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2006)

Yep, the press reporting on themselves, their trials and tribulations. This should be good. :


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2006)

The Canadian Press?  ???

Wasn't it buddy from Eyewitness 7 in Wisconsin or something with the vids on Youtube one would consider "out there"?  (Not that I had a problem at all with his stuff...good stuff, for sure!)

G2G


----------



## scotty884 (31 Dec 2006)

I never agreed to having reporters other than things like the combat camera, makes for undo stress for the personnel on the ground.  1 more civi to look after, its all not needed if u ask me.


----------



## rmacqueen (31 Dec 2006)

Happened in April and we are just hearing about it now?  One has to suspect there may be more to this than meets the eye since, if the reporters were behaving, this normally would have been plastered all over the media.


----------



## Chimo (31 Dec 2006)

Although I too was first leery of the press, it soon pays off in the fact, it brings out the soldiers perspective better then any military person could. We in the military are generally, jaded and accepting about what we do day to day, particularly on operations. Any stories we produce ourselves are viewed as slanted in our favour.

The journalist, typically shows up with a somewhat liberal attitude, with indifference towards us .  After just a few days, they seem to be won over by the great things we do and our professionalism during difficult times. I think they should all have to take the course at Kingston for journalist, I am not sure if that is mandatory for them or not. 

We do have to be sensitive to operational matters and those of our allies, in particular where SF troops are involved. Many countries haven't embraced the idea of embedded media. Some that do are much more restrictive then we are. I think we do it about right. 

I think the journalists tell our stories better then we have the time or ability to do ourselves. Our soldiers make the stories happen through their tireless efforts and the journalist only writes it down.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2006)

Anybody know who the reporters were?  

I left in March and spoke with several, fairly professional folks...all represented the press pretty well.  Some more than others -- I especially liked Steve Chao, he's SOLID!  

G2G


----------



## vigillis (31 Dec 2006)

Fair dealings and all that jazz...  For those of the unilingual kind skip straight to the sixth para for the names of the reporters.

Quatre journalistes séparés des militaires canadiens en Afghanistan

Presse Canadienne

Ottawa


Le commandement militaire canadien a retiré à quatre journalistes intégrés la permission d'accompagner les soldats canadiens en Afghanistan à la suite de plaintes formulées par des pays alliés, révèlent des documents récemment rendus publics. 

La fin abrupte de l'intégration des journalistes, qui ont quitté les lieux des opérations en avril, laisse croire que ce programme créé des frictions avec les partenaires de combat du Canada. 

«Les médias intégrés aux troupes canadiennes qui participent à des opérations de la coalition génèrent de l'inconfort chez nos alliés», a indiqué à Ottawa le major Marc Thériault, officier des affaires publiques à Kandahar, quelques heures avant le retrait des journalistes. 

Plus tard, dans un autre document, il a ajouté: «malgré nos explications, la plupart des nations alliées considèrent que notre position médiatique est très progressive et risquée.» 
Les documents liés à cet incident et à d'autres aspects de la politique d'intégration des journalistes ont été obtenus grâce à la Loi sur l'Accès à l'information. 

Selon le rapport de Marc Thériault, les problèmes ont commencé le 2 avril, lorsqu'une unité canadienne commençait à participer à une opération conjointe avec des forces alliées. 

Un responsable du ministère de la Défense a précisé plus tard que les quatre membres des médias impliqués étaient les journalistes Christie Blatchford et Rosie DiManno, respectivement du Globe and Mail et du Toronto Star, ainsi le photographe Louie Palu et le réalisateur pigiste ontarien Richard Fitoussi. 

Ils accompagnaient alors le bataillon Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, dont les opérations se tenaient conjointement avec les Special Forces des États-Unis. 

«Il est bien connu que le Canada détient le meilleur programme d'intégration là-bas, et la plupart des pays de l'OTAN font savoir leur mécontentement à ce sujet au Canada», a indiqué Richard Fitoussi lors d'un interview. 

Des responsables militaires à Ottawa ont fait savoir que le Canada accorderait toujours plus d'importance à l'apaisement des inquiétudes des alliés qu'au programme d'intégration. 

Un porte-parole militaire a précisé que c'est au commandant local de décider si les journalistes intégrés peuvent poursuivre ou non leur accompagnement. 

«C'est un programme national, et lorsqu'un commandant travaille avec d'autres contingents nationaux pendant les opérations, leurs inquiétudes doivent se refléter dans les décisions qui affectent la mission», a noté le major Luc Gaudet, officier des affaires publiques, lors d'un interview. 

Le programme d'intégration a été établi en 1998 par la Défense nationale dans un but d'ouverture et de transparence à la suite du scandale en Somalie, qui a marqué un creux dans la relation de confiance entre les médias et les militaires. 

«Nous considérons que notre client est le public canadien, et nous visons un maximum de transparence», a affirmé Luc Gaudet, même s'il reste conscient que le programme n'est pas aussi populaire auprès des autres pays. 

Malgré tout, les 15 places du programme d'intégration canadien sont toujours occupées et elles sont devenues les plus importantes du genre en Afghanistan, plus encore que celles des programmes américain, britannique et hollandais. 

Entre la mi-janvier et la fin novembre, 175 journalistes de 37 médias ont accompagné les 2500 soldats canadiens basés à Kandahar, révèlent les statistiques militaires. 

En moyenne, 13 journalistes sont intégrés chaque semaine et le séjour de chaque journaliste est d'environ 25 jours. Au moins dix différents médias télévisés et imprimés y sont représentés en tout temps.


----------



## gaspasser (31 Dec 2006)

All I got from that was Christie Blanchford's name.  Can the poster repost en englaise, svp?


----------



## vigillis (31 Dec 2006)

The general gist of the article was that our dear Ms Blanchford and three others were pulled after complaints by allies.  It also goes on to say that our embed position is in their words "progressive and risque".  I interpret that to be daring not risky but I could be wrong.  We also have 175 journalist for 37 different medias sources, a fact that has already been reported in another thread.  Maj Luc Goddet reports that the 15 embed positions are full and that our program is seen to be more imporatant that either the Brits, the Yanks, or the Dutchies, see third to last para.

Hard to say why they were pulled, it was not mentionned.  I figured with all the numbers and english words at least 50% of the text was understandable.  Sorry about that gents, Happy New Year.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2006)

> «Il est bien connu que le Canada détient le meilleur programme d'intégration là-bas, et la plupart des pays de l'OTAN font savoir leur mécontentement à ce sujet au Canada», a indiqué Richard Fitoussi lors d'un interview.
> 
> Des responsables militaires à Ottawa ont fait savoir que le Canada accorderait toujours plus d'importance à l'apaisement des inquiétudes des alliés qu'au programme d'intégration.
> 
> ...



Richard Fitoussi (one of the withdrawn repoorters [freelance]) notes that Canada's embed program is seen as one of the best integrated but that many NATO nations have voiced their discontent about the level of integration.

Major Gaudet notes that while a national program, we must consider other coalition nations' unease with our embed program during combined operations.

G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Dec 2006)

Problem is they don't listen.

You tell them to STAY AT THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE and where are they? Wandering ALL over taking pictures and settign their cameras up at the front of a vehicle,or they move around the cordon. Now soldiers have to babysit these guys which puts the soldiers live sin danger.

Heard of an instance where one reporter was told specifically NOT to tape something and he did anyways, and put parts of it int he news.

Most of the reporters I've met are pretty good. Some of them ruin it for the rest, and ruin it in a very big way.

I love the support we're getting from home and I think a lot of that is owed to reporters but like I said, some of them ruin it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Dec 2006)

If this is correctly reported by Canadian Press, I'm all for someone breaking the rules being dragged home, but I'm FAR less comfortable with allies dictating our military public information policy because they have different ideas/policies.  I wouldn't mind knowing more about the nature and extent of the "discomfort" felt by allied forces - don't like the idea vs. reporters making identifiable mistakes?

Here's the anglais version of the longer CP story above, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Canadian military yanks embedded journalists after complaints from allies*
Jeff Esau, Canadian Press, 30 Dec 06
Article Link

Canadian military officials removed four journalists accompanying troops on an Afghanistan operation earlier this year after complaints from allies, newly released documents show.

The abrupt end to the so-called embedding of the reporters, who were extracted by helicopter in early April, suggests the vaunted program is creating friction among Canada's fighting partners.

*"Media embedded with Canadian troops conducting operations with coalition forces generate discomfort amongst allies," Maj. Marc Theriault, a public affairs officer in Kandahar, warned Ottawa hours before the journalists' removal.

In a later communication, he added: "Despite our explanations, most allied nations consider our media posture as very progressive and risky."*

Documents related to the incident and other aspects of the embedding policy were obtained under the Access to Information Act.

Theriault's report indicates the problems arose April 2 when the Canadian unit began joint operations with allied forces.

A defence official later identified the media members as Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford, photographer Louie Palu, Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno and Ontario-based freelance filmmaker Richard Fitoussi.

They were with The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group, which was operating with U.S. Special Forces at the time.

In an interview, Fitoussi said "it's pretty well known that Canada has the best embedding program there, and most of the NATO countries there are giving Canada a hard time about it."

He said he was told by officials at the time he and the others were being evacuated for their own safety, but beyond that "everything I know is hearsay," said Fitoussi.

Military officials in Ottawa have indicated that placating Canada's allies will always take precedence over the embedding program.

"Our allies having full confidence in working with Canadians in all operations trumps embeds being on those operations," a public affairs officer, Lt.-Col. Rita LePage, says in one document.

Two weeks before the April 2 incident, Canadian officers nixed a Dutch journalist's request for a five-day visit to Kandahar airfield after "investigating the comfort level of the Dutch" and learning the Dutch Ministry of Defence did not support it.

On April 11, an unidentified foreign journalist's request to be embedded with Canadian troops was passed to a Canadian officer at the multinational brigade headquarters to determine "whether or not this could be sensitive within the greater Coalition."

A military spokesman says it is up to the local commander whether to continue with an embed mission.

"This is a national program, and when a commander is dealing with other national contingents during operations, their concerns have to be factored into decisions affecting the mission," Maj. Luc Gaudet, a public affairs officer, said in an interview.

Gaudet said the decision to pull the journalists from the April mission was made by Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser, then commander of the multinational brigade in volatile south Afghanistan. Fraser has generally been a supporter of Canada's embed program.

The program is a product of the openness and transparency policies issued by National Defence in 1998 in the aftermath of the Somalia scandal, which marked a low point of relations between the media and military, Gaudet said.

"We consider our client to be the Canadian public, and we aim for maximum transparency," he said, acknowledging the policy rankles some coalition partners.

Even so, the 15 openings in the Canadian embed program are booked solid and it has become the largest and busiest in Afghanistan, outpacing the U.S., British and Dutch programs.

Between mid-January and the end of November, 175 journalists from 37 media outlets have embedded with the 2,500 Canadian soldiers headquartered in Kandahar, military statistics show.

On average, 13 journalists embed each week, and each journalist's stay at Kandahar Airfield is 25 days. Ten different broadcast and print media are represented at any one time.


----------



## gaspasser (31 Dec 2006)

Thank you MNTB, very informative.  I'm all for transparency etc, but I concur with overall OPSEC and general safety of the journalists and other soldiers.  Especailly if the journalist in question does not or can not listen pay attention to orders and directives.  
Take your pictures and interview the troops BUT do it safely and go home after X days in country and report.



Be Safe, Troops


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jan 2007)

Some more specifics about who complained, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Canada pulled reporters from Afghanistan after Aust complaints*
ABC News Online (Australia), 31 Dec 06
Article link

Documents released today have confirmed a number of journalists embedded with Canadian troops in Afghanistan were removed on short notice after complaints from other nations including the United States and Australia.

According to the documents, several of Canada's allies had complained the country's policy on embedded journalists was too liberal.

A Canadian Defence Department source has confirmed Australia was one of the nations that did the most complaining.

The actual incident occurred in April, when four journalists were removed from their embedded positions after very short notice.

In at least one case, a helicopter was sent in during fighting to remove the reporter.

The Canadian Defence Department says the allies considered the country's policy overly-progressive and risky.

It also says placating allies will always triumph over the media embed program.


----------



## GK .Dundas (1 Jan 2007)

Just every so often I honestly believe that our good friends and allies  should be politely told to screw off . I believe this quailfies .It's only fair on occasion  they've done it to us and they were in their rights to do so. We're all adults here.
 Further on the debate on the embedded press types a small question ? Are they under Military discipline while travelling? IE: Can they be charged and prosecuted for example filming a O group and releasing the video before the operation in question starts? 
 If I'm out of line just say so


----------



## civmick (3 Jan 2007)

Presumably at least Christie Blatchford has been back since though, given her recent series of articles?  Or did they have to pull all the embeds if they were going to pull one?

Wouldn't surprise me if Rosie diManno caused hassle - I can only tolerate her when she writes about sports (like a very good piece on Darcy Tucker yesterday).  When she writes about the likes of Karla Homolka it gets right up my nose.


----------



## bigcletus (4 Jan 2007)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Further on the debate on the embedded press types a small question ? Are they under Military discipline while travelling? IE: Can they be charged and prosecuted for example filming a O group and releasing the video before the operation in question starts?
> If I'm out of line just say so



All media have to sign an agreement in-theatre to abide by the Comd's rules.  They agree to follow direction for safety and OPSEC. More than one has been either turfed or had their editor/producer etc, notified that their reporter WILL be ex-communicated if they don't cooperate.  The editor/producer have then kicked the reporters arse.  No news org wants to be embargoed.  Its a business and if they don't have a story, their competitors will.


----------

