# How MSM are Preparing (or Not) for 100th Fallen



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2008)

Nice to see that at least _*some*_ get it.....


> Lynda Shorten, executive producer for CBC Radio’s As It Happens, exits a news meeting upset. After a  wave of deaths among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, management at the public broadcaster is asking: What are we going to do for the 100th death? ....  she is so bothered by the thought of covering the 100th death that she fumbles her words and cannot look me in the eye. She recognizes the symbolic meaning of 100 but worries about turning a human being into a number. By doing so, she says “you somehow diminish the death of number 53, 54, number 72, and it turns the death toll in Afghanistan into something approaching a score in a game.” ....  Shorten’s solution is to do the same with the 100th death as her show has for Canada’s other fallen soldiers. “We’ll probably note it’s the 100th but not make that the focus,” she says. “My dream intro would say, ‘To some people he or she is a number, but to so and so, he was her son.’ Or something like that ....



On the other hand, although I don't know what else was said in this exchange, <sarcasm>nice to see some news officials happy to speak for the troops</sarcasm>....


> ....  Dan Leger, (Halifax’s Chronicle Herald's) director of news content for the paper and its website, has a frank attitude about its coverage: “It’s a big-ass news story … of vital interest to Canadians and that’s why we’re covering it. And there’s no other ideology behind it.”  His thoughts toward highlighting the number 100 are equally forthright. “There’s always somebody who can say ‘assigning a number to them is just dehumanizing them into numberhood or whatever,’ but fuck it. Every soldier’s got a tag that has a number on it—they don’t mind it.” ....



Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Death Watch*
With 97 Canadian soldiers already dead in Afghanistan, Morgan Passi finds that just preparing to cover the 100th death stirs emotions among journalists
Morgan Passi, Ryerson Review of Journalism, 19 Oct 08
Article link - .pdf version attached if link doesn't work

Lynda Shorten, executive producer for CBC Radio’s As It Happens, exits a news meeting upset. After a  wave of deaths among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, management at the public broadcaster is asking: What are we going to do for the 100th death?

Almost a month later, I’m in her office. I’ve worked at the show and know Shorten to be a confident woman. Right now, however, she is so bothered by the thought of covering the 100th death that she fumbles her words and cannot look me in the eye. She recognizes the symbolic meaning of 100 but worries about turning a human being into a number. By doing so, she says “you somehow diminish the death of number 53, 54, number 72, and it turns the death toll in Afghanistan into something approaching a score in a game.”

There’s the irony. Although the death of the 100th Canadian soldier is heartbreaking, it’s also terribly convenient. News organizations have a perfect opportunity to highlight the Afghan crisis. When the death toll breaks the triple-digit barrier, the country will be listening. But with such a captive audience comes the responsibility of covering the 100th soldier’s story without discounting the other 99.

The first Canadian troops arrived in Afghanistan in February 2002. Since then, more than 13,500 soldiers have served in the country and 97 have died. Nine of those deaths took place between August 9 and September 7. Within less than a month, the death toll jumped from 80s to high-90s and news organizations were paying attention. Three deaths short of the 100th milestone, it was time to act.

This type of planning is nothing new in an industry that considers the advance obit normal. When celebrities and icons reach a certain calibre (and age), newspapers write obituaries for them in advance. The New York Times, for example, keeps about 1,200 on file, including one from 1982 whose subject has outlived its author. Such preparation is essential for people like the Queen, the Pope and even Apple’s Steve Jobs, whose obit was accidentally published—and then promptly retracted—this summer when a newswire was updating it.

“You’d have to be forehead-slapping naïve to believe that people don’t die,” says Catherine Dunphy, who spent three years writing obituaries for the Toronto Star. She acknowledges many view the advance obit as ghoulish, but says it’s responsible journalism. For most organizations, there hasn’t been much debate over whether to mark the occasion—it’s just what newspapers do. “It is a kind of natural whole number that people always use to pause and reflect on,” says Stephen Northfield, foreign editor at The Globe and Mail. “I guess that’s kind of embedded in your DNA when you’re an editor or writer working in these areas.”

Yet, the 50th garnered little attention. The deaths of six Canadian soldiers on April 8, 2007, were void of any “fifty fanfare,” as the count jumped from 45 to 51.

“It seems kind of uncomfortable and a bit rogue to look forward, but part of our obligation as a news organization is to look forward and try to make sense of these things,” says David Downey, a project, planning and development manager for CBC National Radio News, who began thinking about coverage six months ago.

When the news comes in from Kandahar, CBC Radio will issue a short bulletin announcing the deaths. In addition to feature news pieces, its current affairs shows have made plans too. Between reading the names of the 100 soldiers, The Current will air a documentary that includes a father of a soldier killed in Afghanistan saying every time he hears of another soldier’s death, it takes him back to when his son died.

Nova Scotians can relate. In Halifax, soldiers are a part of everyday life—they are friends, neighbours and coworkers. Four of the first 10 soldiers killed were from the province, and the percentage of casualties from there is higher than the census would suggest.

To mark the 100th death, Halifax’s Chronicle Herald has prepared a photo page with the fallen soldiers’ faces and a feature-length article. Dan Leger, director of news content for the paper and its website, has a frank attitude about its coverage: “It’s a big-ass news story … of vital interest to Canadians and that’s why we’re covering it. And there’s no other ideology behind it.”

His thoughts toward highlighting the number 100 are equally forthright. “There’s always somebody who can say ‘assigning a number to them is just dehumanizing them into numberhood or whatever,’ but fuck it. Every soldier’s got a tag that has a number on it—they don’t mind it.”

Welcome number 100 and with it, dangerous territory. “Probably the single greatest pitfall of this moment is that you can already see the front page,” says Northfield. He admits it may be impossible to avoid turning number 100 into, well, a number. “I don’t think it dehumanizes them, but it turns them into a symbol of something that’s different.” To avoid fixating on that person as a symbol, Northfield says the Globe will broaden its focus to the other 99.

He doesn’t want to “telegraph” the paper’s plans to competitors but states the 100th casualty is an opportunity to capture the longer-term implications of these deaths, and to check in with their friends and families. He also says this isn’t a one-moment event confined to the date the 100th soldier dies.

Shorten’s solution is to do the same with the 100th death as her show has for Canada’s other fallen soldiers. “We’ll probably note it’s the 100th but not make that the focus,” she says. “My dream intro would say, ‘To some people he or she is a number, but to so and so, he was her son.’ Or something like that. So, to take the fact of the numbering and turn it into a story about a human being.”

Meanwhile, news organizations will be waiting—and counting. Unlike that 1982 obit from The New York Times, it’s unlikely the 100th dead soldier will outlive the people preparing for his or her demise.

“It would be astonishing,” says Downey, about the possibility of the 100th death never coming. “It would be absolutely astonishing.”


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Oct 2008)

My hair on the back of my neck stands up just thinking about this topic.

I'd like to say I hope we don't have another combat death, but sadly thats unlikely.

WRT the 100th KIA (when it comes), with the overall anti-war MSN, I certainally hope they don't put No. 100 as a political tool used to feed the LWL.

My two cents.

In the meantime, here's to everyone coming home safe!

OWDU


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2008)

Ghoulish.....


----------



## Gramps (19 Oct 2008)

Yes, it may be ghoulish or even a little like vultures circling a dying animal but it is something I am sure everyone expected. I am also sure it will be something used by the "Get our troops out" crowd as a tool for furthering their agenda too.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2008)

> but part of our obligation as a news organization is to look forward and try to make sense of these things,” says David Downey, a project, planning and development manager for CBC National Radio News



And that sums up my problem with the News media in general and the CBC in particular.

As humans they share our desire to make sense of things.  Understandable.

As commentators and columnists they may be given the opportunity to voice their opinions and contribute to the debate.  The good ones inevitably will influence the debate.  That is why an organization like the CBC which is publically funded must not have commentators on staff, nor on a stringer and must allow all members of the public with their disparate views equal access to the airwaves.  Their job is to build the forum, not to control access.

As journalists, which I define as the core of a News organization, their job IMHO, is most explicitly NOT to "try to make sense of things".  Their job is that of data gathering.  They are the Recce troops of society.  Who, What, Where, When, Why.  Wrong.  Who, What, Where, When, How.

How describes the trail.  Why condones speculation.  And that speculation is what drives the story line and the story line drives both political and sales agendas.

And that brings us to Why (it is to speculate, Horatio) a News organization needs "a project, planning and development manager".  If his job is just to have on hand adequate resources to maintain a field force and a reserve to react to the crisis of the day than great.  I understand planning.   I don't understand the need for "project development" - which I suspect seeks out stories and predetermines a story line in order to advance either of the aforementioned agendas.

I'd be happier with the CBC if Peter Mansbridge retreated back to the role of "A Reader" and  PAFFO's and their ilk were "A. Spokesman" (as the cards on the desks at BBC used to read) with journalists being "Our Correspondent".  No glamour in those jobs but the Civil Service is not (or should not) be the place for those that seek glamour.   And the folks at CBC are Civil Servants.

CBC should have no editorial policy whatsoever.

I would be happy with an hour of Avi Lewis  if that were offset with an hour of Michael Coren, or an hour of George Stromboulopoulos if that were offset by an hour of Rafe Mair, or Thomas Walkom offset with Andrew Coyne.........

For the Public Broadcaster (and for that matter the National Film Board, which is also tasked to tell Canada about Canada) the model should be CPAC, TVO and Shaw/Rogers Community Programming, Not ABC/CBS/NBC and certainly not Goebbels.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Oct 2008)

May it be a long long time before they need to air/print this sad story.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2008)

*Lots* of first-rate stuff, Kirkhill - well put.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That is why an organization like the CBC which is publically funded must not have commentators on staff, nor on a stringer and must allow all members of the public with their disparate views equal access to the airwaves ....  How describes the trail.  Why condones speculation.


I'm comfortable with commentary as long as it's CLEARLY seen and understood as commentary.




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As journalists, which I define as the core of a News organization, their job IMHO, is most explicitly *NOT to "try to make sense of things"*.  Their job is that of data gathering.  They are the Recce troops of society.  Who, What, Where, When, Why.  Wrong.  Who, What, Where, When, How.


I think where some media reports fall down in some cases is, in spite of pledges contained in Standards of Practices:


> .... The information reports or reflects equitably the relevant facts and significant points of view; it deals fairly and ethically with persons, institutions, issues and events ....


Editorial Values


> ....  Statements issued by conflicting interests merit equal prominence, whether combined in a single story or used at separate times ....


or Codes of Ethics:


> ....We shall give people or organizations that are publicly accused or criticized prompt opportunity to respond. We shall make a genuine and exhaustive effort to contact them ....


the presentation of all sides of an issue.  And how much weight one gives to a side can significantly distort how a consumer hears/reads/sees the story.  And that's NOT just a CBC issue.




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'd be happier with the CBC if Peter Mansbridge retreated back to the role of "A Reader" and  PAFFO's and their ilk were "A. Spokesman" (as the cards on the desks at BBC used to read) with journalists being "Our Correspondent".  No glamour in those jobs but the Civil Service is not (or should not) be the place for those that seek glamour.   And *the folks at CBC are Civil Servants.*


With due respect to reporters out there working hard to do their job, CBC reporters and employees may be "public servants" in that they provide a service to the public, but they are no more EMPLOYEES of the federal public service any more than doctors in Ontario funded by the Provincial Government being provincial civil servants.  Yes, they spend public money, and should be accountable in both their spending and conduct, but they're NOT "government broadcasters" the same way, say, Voice of America is in the US, as can be seen by the disclaimer on their editorials:


> Reflecting the Views of the United States Government


CBC is not a state broadcaster to that extent.




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> CBC should have no editorial policy whatsoever.


If you mean they shouldn't have a "corporate position" on issues, I concur.  Even VOA's Journalistic Code, for an organization that's FAR more a state broadcaster than CBC ever will be, says:


> .... VOA reporters and broadcasters must strive for accuracy and objectivity in all their work. They do not speak for the U.S. government. They accept no treatment or assistance from U.S. government officials or agencies that is more favorable or less favorable than that granted to staff of private-sector news agencies ....






			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would be happy with an hour of Avi Lewis  if that were offset with an hour of Michael Coren, or an hour of George Stromboulopoulos if that were offset by an hour of Rafe Mair, or Thomas Walkom offset with Andrew Coyne.........


Ahhh, the balance issue.  Here's what CBC says should happen:


> ....  the CBC, as a journalistic organization, must ensure that its programming is fair and balanced. Program balance should be achieved, where appropriate, within a single program or otherwise within an identifiable series of programs.  Balance is not to be confused with the concept of right of reply. *The CBC must itself be responsible for determining when a significant imbalance has occurred, and what remedial action must be taken* ....


Self regulation, but who guards the guardians?  If some commentators say the police can't police themselves, for example, what do they say to journalists policing journalists?




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> For the Public Broadcaster (and for that matter the National Film Board, which is also tasked to tell Canada about Canada) the model should be CPAC, TVO and Shaw/Rogers Community Programming, Not ABC/CBS/NBC and certainly not Goebbels.


To take a concept from some commentators, what if the CBC had to raise money through pledge drives, like some others already do?  (Baked) food for thought?


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Oct 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> May it be a long long time before they need to air/print this sad story.


Amen!  (I'd rather it NEVER come)


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2008)

The media.....if you poll the people, politicians, lawyers and media types are the least respected, and deservedly so in most cases.

They are like vultures on a tree,,,,waiting for that 100th to fall.


----------



## Huzzah (20 Oct 2008)

Speaking of the CBC...what about Tony Burman? He worked at the CBC for
35-years.Last June he became Managing Director at Al-Jazeera English.I'm
pretty sure he wasn't the only former CBC employee to go that route.
  I wonder if Tony's previous work at the CBC had any personal bias? :


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2008)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> Speaking of the CBC...what about Tony Burman? He worked at the CBC for
> 35-years.Last June he became Managing Director at Al-Jazeera English.I'm
> pretty sure he wasn't the only former CBC employee to go that route.
> I wonder if Tony's previous work at the CBC had any personal bias? :



So?  Even Journalists have "mercenary" motives?


----------



## Huzzah (20 Oct 2008)

I don't think he'll have to modify the point of view he held at the CBC,to work for
his new employer.Anti-Americanism,conspiracy theories,bashing the West,etc.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2008)

On the other hand, anyone remember what happend when soldiers died or were killed in the former Yugoslavia?  Forgotten and ignored - since more important things like OJ Simpson were on the news.


----------



## Greymatters (20 Oct 2008)

A bit of a different situation then I think - not as much public visibility as there is now...


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2008)

Exactly my point - we're now in the public eye.  And that means increased scrutiny and discussion when events occur.

Given the choice of 1990s anonymity or current-day in the public eye, I'd rather have that civic engagement and discussion about the military, vice hiding us in a corner, a 10 second sound bite after the latest update on OJ.


----------



## Don.G (20 Oct 2008)

I agree with old solduer...they ,(the msm) seem to be waiting...all of our people who have given thier lives are a great loss to us..1st or 100th..god bless them all


----------



## Babbling Brooks (21 Oct 2008)

A big thanks to Tony for bringing this piece to our attention.  While I wrote about this over a month ago at The Torch, a look into the journalists' rationale is useful.

A big thanks to Kirkhill for laying out a good argument in such a concise way, as well.  I've responded at length over at The Torch, but the crux of my concern with that argument is as follows:



> Look at Kirkhill's recce analogy. It falls down upon scrutiny because of one word: mission. The recce troops know that they're not just looking, they're looking with a purpose, which is to help the mission succeed. That gives them a point of view. The information they bring back to their chain of command isn't designed to inform the commander impartially, it's designed to help the commander accomplish his mission.
> 
> Send out an insurance inspector, an artistic photographer, and an infantryman to report back to you on a farmhouse objective. The first will tell you about the condition of the buildings and potential hazard areas that could be improved upon from a potential insurance loss standpoint, the second will likely give you impressions of colour and contrast and shape and atmosphere that would contribute to a good location for a photo shoot, and the last will tell you how you could assault it or defend it.
> 
> ...



What offends me isn't the journalists' having an agenda.  They can't help that.  What offends me is *the agenda they've chosen.*


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2008)

What offends me is me paying for the ink and the airwaves they use to propagate their message, or their agenda.

Me, I have no problem with journos digging up stories on their own, or their employer's nickel, if that is what their employer wants.  I'm fine with the Post or the Globe and Mail, or CTV or Global, peddling whatever trash sells.  I choose not to buy.

My problem is solely with CBC, taking my cash and then using it to tell me how wrong I am.  

And I am sorry Tony,  I'm paying the piper and I expect to hear "Black Bear", not "Paranoid".


----------



## Babbling Brooks (21 Oct 2008)

> My problem is solely with CBC, taking my cash and then using it to tell me how wrong I am.



I'm fully in agreement with you on that point, Kirkhill - it irks me too.  But the only way to fix that is to take away their gov't funding, because there's no way to completely remove their individual or institutional biases from their reporting.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And I am sorry Tony,  I'm paying the piper and I expect to hear "Black Bear", not "Paranoid".


Trust me, I honestly feel your pain on this one - I hear you, and I know you're not alone in that feeling.  All I'm saying is that CBC isn't Army News or Voice of America, and that isn't going to change easily or quickly, if at all.  That's why all I'm hoping for is more balance, in accordance to their own rules, the same way they demand accountability - I_ can _dream, can't I?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2008)

Not surprising and still disgusting,


----------



## gwp (22 Oct 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Trust me, I honestly feel your pain on this one - I hear you, and I know you're not alone in that feeling.  All I'm saying is that CBC isn't Army News or Voice of America, and that isn't going to change easily or quickly, if at all.  That's why all I'm hoping for is more balance, in accordance to their own rules, the same way they demand accountability - I_ can _dream, can't I?



The fact is everyone who has commented here Iincluding myself] will be anxious for the details of the unhappy news when the Afghanistan Mission fatality meter clicks 100.  You will want to know... who, what, when, where, why, how.  Our collective interest will contribute to the radio and television stations ratings, the newspaper sales. 

The Assisting Officer and the Public Affairs Officer will be challenged in their work.  How to manage the event with care and due consideration for the family of the fatalities and the unwelcome aura of the 100 banner?  They will have to be forthright and tough in their relationship with media and reporters. 

Regardless of any particular approach to reporting the story,  one can only hope that the potential affect on the family of the fatalities is a consideration as editors "pre-plan" their reportage.  That will be the measure of the mantra of finding balance and consideration for the human condition.  

Remember, during WWII and Korea many families were first informed that their loved one was missing or dead when the telepgraph boy arrived at their doorstep with the dreaded telegram "We regret to inform you ...."  and the family (widow) was left to grieve in silence.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> Regardless of any particular approach to reporting the story,  one can only hope that the potential affect on the family of the fatalities is a consideration as editors "pre-plan" their reportage.  That will be the measure of the mantra of finding balance and consideration for the human condition.



Here here!  I've heard of one family, who had some photos taken pre-deployment, ask that those particular photos not be used if anything happened to the deployee.  Like funeral arrangements, uncomfortable and difficult to talk about, but saves a lot of anguish and second-guessing if ever needed.


----------



## gwp (7 Dec 2008)

The "milestone" has come, and nearly passed.
How did the media do?

The CF prepared as well. 
"The loss of every Canadian Forces member is significant and we mourn the same for all of them."


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2008)

The most recent is as tragic as the first, and all the others in between.

I agree with those who've already said it's good, in a way, that no single soldier can be identified as the 100th.  While MSM is focussing on the number, I think there would have been an IMMENSE (and possibly intrusive) press to cover a single family with any specific CF member being #100.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2008)

Maybe so, Tony, but I think their attention was grabbed by the political fracas. To suggest that the Canadian media might not have made this into a circus is to suggest that individual members are not highly competitive and ambitious in their pursuit of a story.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2008)

Good point OS - although the print _Globe & Mail_ coverage of the latest and past fallen was pretty extensive on Saturday, it IS a far different level of "background news" MSM is working in than usual.


----------

