# A Channel quotes ARMY.CA



## X Royal (2 Mar 2006)

On their coverage of the tragedy in Afgan., A Channel - channel 10 in London, Ontario quoted comments on this site RE: the Lav 3. Just a reminder anything posted here is part of the public record.

*RIP Bother* 

Best Wishes to the injured for quick recoveries.


----------



## big bad john (2 Mar 2006)

what quotes were used?


----------



## X Royal (2 Mar 2006)

Will check the thread & post. No usernames mentioned.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2006)

Good reminder for everyone, there is a LOT of media types who both post [ as reporters and some not] and even more who lurk as "guests".............

We KNOW of three just from one newspaper alone.


----------



## X Royal (2 Mar 2006)

Quoted: Military Current Affairs & News
Thread: 1 Canadian Solider Killed, 7 Injured

1. Genetk - RE: LAV3's only suitable for North American standard roads.

2. jwsteele - RE: Why do we keep losing good soldiers to ridiculous accidents like these.

Watch what you say as it can & will be quoted and not always in full.


----------



## Trinity (4 Mar 2006)

I think it would be irresponsible of the media to quote
anything off the web, let alone army.ca

Who says I'm really a soldier.  Who says any of us 
are who we really say we are or with the qualifications?

This is the most unreliable source of info.... and they 
use it to bolster a story?  Thats poor and lazy information
gathering at best and done so to, IMO, to give the 
story the slant that they want as they can pick and choose
and take you out of context.

Hell, nothing says they aren't the ones who start
the threads and then could use them.


----------



## TCBF (4 Mar 2006)

"Hell, nothing says they aren't the ones who start
the threads and then could use them."

- Is that like the govt funding Wendy Cukier to lobby the govt?

- There are some factual errors in today's NP regarding the LAV 3 as well.  Best way to keep a technical secret: leak it to the media.  There is no way they can spread it and still get it right.

Tom


----------



## X Royal (5 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I think it would be irresponsible of the media to quote
> anything off the web, let alone army.ca
> 
> Who says I'm really a soldier.  Who says any of us
> ...


I agree completely. I don't believe the even bothered to check the profiles of those they quoted. As you stated how would a reporter even know if the profile is correct. We users generally can weed out a poser but most reporters would not have a clue as to their quality of posts.
 They also stated they had checked a few military web sites before using the quotes they stated where from Army.ca. They left the impression that this was an official military site.


> Hell, nothing says they aren't the ones who start
> the threads and then could use them.


In this case I don't believe that this is the case. Not saying the possibility for this happening is impossible though.

Best Wishes


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (5 Mar 2006)

I think the reality is that despite what we might expect the media to do, we now have several instances of them quoting posts here. If they're indicating the source then that's much better than reading posts and simply passing it off as fact. (Which I'm sure has happened as well, but there is no way to tell.)

My point is that by saying the info came from Army.ca (or any web site) in theory viewers would understand the cerdibility level attached to it. In reality it's probably accepted as hard fact.


----------



## MdB (5 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I think it would be irresponsible of the media to quote
> anything off the web, let alone army.ca



Well, who said medias are that responsible? I'm everyday more aware that some reporters/writers/analysts would write about a subject with leaving so dark corner alone, unsaid. Willingly or not.

Now, Army.ca would definitely a good place to learn a lot if I ever was a defence analyst/writer. As to go so far as to quote from here, umm, it'd be unresponsible. I would definitely pm/intervew the person via chat or telephone.


----------



## Gunner98 (5 Mar 2006)

A Channel, when it was formerly the New RO in Pembroke, was known to scan cellular traffic around CFB Petawawa to catch a lead on a story.  Sometimes they would be interdicted at the gates to avoid uncomfortable interviews with grieving or yet unadvised families.  It is not just on-line that we run the risk of instrusion and quoting by the media.


----------



## Trinity (5 Mar 2006)

Well

I doubt there is any official recourse.. other than
recognizing A Channel for a questionable news source
and talking about it here.  Maybe at best a letter but
not my job.

The only thing we can do is continue to police ourselves
because I often see posts or comments that make me cringe
(other than my own posts.. that is).  That not only the Mods 
scan the boards but the subscribers and members also report
innappropriate posts to Admin.

That being said... I'll remove the thread of my Chap Botc Hazing video  
(That was a JOKE A CHANNEL... in case you need it spelled out!)


----------



## X Royal (5 Mar 2006)

Its good to see that we are all generally in agreement here. When reporters use questionable references that are passed off as official it is sloppy at best. 
Not that I am cutting down those who were quoted. Each of us are allowed our personal opinions but they can easily turned into official opinions if not referenced properly. Also by using quotes that are not quoted in full can change the intended meaning greatly. Now if someone from "A Channel" sees this thread I would like but would be extremely surprised to see a comment about this thread.

Best Wishes


----------



## geo (5 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I think it would be irresponsible of the media to quote
> anything off the web, let alone army.ca
> 
> Who says I'm really a soldier.  Who says any of us
> ...


Trinity.... the CF's own discussion forum went thru the same thing 2 yrs ago. Ottawa Citzen quoted some immature & irresponsible type who ran off at the mouth about the Gov't & CF.... end result, because it was a CF website, when it got hammered by a hacker... CF used it as a convenient out to pull out of the Forum business.

Sucks, doesn't it


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Mar 2006)

That example is a good point.  Look at the effort from staff and mature members (not related to age) that it takes to keep this place at a temperature below "ignition", and we don't necessarily catch everything.  I am sure the CF forum didn't have the same atention to Moderation.


----------



## geo (5 Mar 2006)

You're right Michael,
To be fair, discussion forums that were opened to everyone at large was a big trust of faith in everyone. Unfortunately the Moderators were few and far between and it was pretty much up to a few old salts to keep people at the Puzzle palace informed of what was going on.
When the French forum got Hacked to death, it took me something like a full morning to get their attention. At 1st I was told that I was irresponsible and alarmist to raise the HACK flag..... then I got them to look - they admitted OOPSIE and took the servers off line for something like 2 yrs.


----------



## Devlin (5 Mar 2006)

I have received PM's in the past from media purporting themselves to be " a university student doing research" on this forum and the CF. They were pretty easy to spot as someone fishing. One of them even asked to meet for a sit down interview (Yeah sure thing meet me in the Butts on the mortar range).

I have been around this forum since the days of the war diary and have been approached about it a number of times. This place gets a lot of attention, so much so that Mike and the mods (who do a great job by the way) could probably treat this as a full time job.


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

Devlin said:
			
		

> This place gets a lot of attention, so much so that Mike and the mods (who do a great job by the way) could probably treat this as a full time job.



Brother if you only knew!

Still hats off to Mike though for bringing this place to life and keeping it there!


----------



## Devlin (5 Mar 2006)

The attention can get ridiculous to the point where I was approached by a senior officer about comments I made in this forum. I challenged himto prove that it was me ( he couldn't) Now the comments I made were not out of line by any stretch and I stand by them to this day. My comments were in reference to my experience going through the recruiting process. As a recruiter this person took offence to my comments and called me on them in public. No problem I stood by them.


My advice to other members from personal experience( this got up to my CO - he laughed it off) is don't say anything you wouldn't stand behind and stay in your lane.


----------



## geo (5 Mar 2006)

Devlin,
would agree with you.
Act as if you name is broadcats to the 4 winds. You MUST act in a responsible manner and speak only after you have put gray matter in gear.... anything less and you are shortchanging yourself and your mates.


----------



## Scott (6 Mar 2006)

Right from the Army.ca Conduct Guidelines:



> Army.ca is in no way connected to DND or the CF. Army.ca does not represent policy of the Canadian Forces in any way, and does not claim to do so. Opinions expressed on these pages are the sole responsibility of the individual posters, who may or may not be members of the Canadian Forces or other military or civilian organisations.





> First and foremost, we're all representatives of the CF. We may not want to be, but ultimately, we don't have the luxury of choice. The truth is when you post a message even on an unofficial site like this, your comments reflect upon the CF. That's not to say we can't bemoan the current state of affairs - it's a soldier's age old right to complain. But let's keep it clean and dignified.
> 
> There's no way for a casual visitor to tell that you're "not in uniform, so these comments are mine." To a visitor, we are all a cross section of what the CF has to offer, which in many ways is a correct assumption. If all they see is a horde of posts rife with profanity and personal attacks, the CF gets a bad reputation. As we've witnessed many times in the past, the public relations fallout from problems with the CF can have consequences well beyond those involved. With so many hard working professionals in the CF, it would be a shame to have the name tarnished here.





> You are responsible for everything that you post and the tone in which it is posted.
> 
> The forums are completely public, meaning anyone can come here at any time and review the comments we make. Among the over 6,000 visitors we get every day are members of the press, senior DND officials and a slew of civilians. Visitors to this site range in age, but it is not at all uncommon for 14 year olds to visit, looking for information on a possible career choice. Bear in mind that messages here are never pruned. What you say now will be available on-line for years to come, easily found via search engines all over the Internet.
> 
> ...



I hate to burn up so much space, but it's good that we all look at these "rules" as much as possible. Me, I view them about once a week to see if there have been any changes that I need be aware of or if there may be any parts of the guidelines themselves that need attention or revision.

As for the media, well I don't expect they'll start PMing the Staff with questions and requests for interviews, but they may keep skimming the posts here to gather informations. After all, you provide it by posting it....Remember these two lines from the above quotes:



> The truth is when you post a message even on an unofficial site like this, your comments reflect upon the CF.



and



> What you say now will be available on-line for years to come, easily found via search engines all over the Internet.



Just be careful and use your head, that's all we can ask. If you do this for us you'll make the job easier because it is very much full time every now and then.


----------



## Guy. E (6 Mar 2006)

"Loose lips sink ships"  

Over the past wile I was thinking about posting a topic regarding who actually comes here be they media or even MP's doing a little sneaky peekey...


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> "Loose lips sink ships"
> 
> Over the past wile I was thinking about posting a topic regarding who actually comes here be they media or even MP's doing a little sneaky peekey...



That could turn into quite the witch-hunt  >

Personally, I don't really see the use of a thread "outing" these members. They're ususally easy to figure out on our own, and sometimes they even identify themselves.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (6 Mar 2006)

More to the point, it doesn't matter *who* they are, so long as we are aware that many quarters are represented here, including the media, SIU, etc. With a bit of effort, it's not hard to ensure that we don't post anything that will get us into hot water with these folks.


----------



## X Royal (6 Mar 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> As for the media, well I don't expect they'll start PMing the Staff with questions and requests for interviews, but they may keep skimming the posts here to gather informations. After all, you provide it by posting it...



My point exactly for starting this thread.
Also by using the "*Title Selected*" if they are lurking they most likely would not miss this thread.
Maybe if they understand the results of their improper actions things might change? ???

Note: "See me holding my breath".   *"NOT"*

Pro Patria


----------



## Thompson_JM (9 Mar 2006)

its definitely true that a lot of people do read this site. Ive had several mbrs of my unit come up and talk to me about how they've seen my posts on-line. that and the fact that I give practically everything BUT my local phone number as far as personal info goes, means that usually I can keep myself reeled in when it comes to posting. once in awhile I tend to forget that, and thats where the Mods and the Cooler heads on this site can come in and remind me to take a step back.

- cheers
   josh


----------

