# War Correspondent Howto



## GonzoScribe (21 Jan 2005)

Hello all, having graduated from journalism school less than a decade ago, I have been less than pleased with the type of stories I have had to write as a freelancer.  At my ripening age of 39 my passion for the military is only growing.  I was a reservist (Medic) twenty years ago and never got it out of my system. So... methinks the best fit for my interests and abilities would be to cover military conflicts.  Does anyone know how one actually becomes a war correspondent without actually working for a national news organisation?  I'd even be willing to re-enlist (if they'd have my aging body back) to work in public relations, if that would get me "over there" to document what's going on, wherever 'there" might be.

Thanks in advance,

GonzoScribe


----------



## Q 1 (23 Jan 2005)

try re joining reserves as intelligence?


----------



## GonzoScribe (23 Jan 2005)

Hmm, now there's a thought.  Do you think they would want a 39 year old with rheumatoid disease of the spine?  I'm still mostly functional, provided I can change positions frequently, stretch, etc.

I think there's a Sigs reserve unit  in Kinston, isn't there?  That would be less than an hour away for me.

GonzoScribe


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2005)

There are also Reserve units in Ottawa, which may or may not be closer (by a few minutes), including and Int Platoon.

GW


----------



## GonzoScribe (23 Jan 2005)

Now I'm really interested.  Does anyone know what units in Kingston or Ottawa that have their own "media" people?  I'd be quite content just making quasi documentaries, training videos, newsletters, etc. for our own personnel (as opposed to the public).  I hadn't even considered Intel - but of course, they make their own media for both internal and public dissemination.

Thanks in advance, I'm definitely interested.

GonzoScribe


----------



## mdh (23 Jan 2005)

Hi GonzoScribe

There is in fact a sizeable contingent of freelancers who travel to war zones in an attempt to pick up assignments, but it's always a roll of the dice. It's always better if you approach a couple of news organizations first and see if they're interested in providing press credentials - it makes it easier to move around "in country". And by news organizations, I mean the smaller ones such as regional newspaper groups who might, just   might, be interested in getting the occasional piece from you. Having a polymathic capability to do broadcast and print helps.   CBC radio has quite a few freelancers for example who offer reports to the national newsroom in TO - mostly in regions where they have no permanent bureaus and will feel guilty about ignoring. So keep in mind that location is everything. Iraq is where the action is right now and it's highly dangerous - which means there could be opportunities to freelance in areas where more mainstream reporters don't want to go. The down side is that if you're in trouble, no one is going to go to bat for you to get you out.   If a CNN guy gets into trouble, CNN has heft to turn up the political heat to get you out - if you're on your own, you're on your own. To make matters worse even if you happen to be in the right place at the right time, the majors inevitably send out their stars (especially broadcast) to cover it leaving you with a "thanks a lot, now piss off". 

Despite these caveats there have been several examples of freelancers who eventually got picked up by major news organizations as war correspondents, and it can be a fast-track to that kind of journalism whereas in a conventional newsroom it can years to pick up a coveted foreign correspondent position. 

As for the CF, you could do PR as a Public Affairs Officer(PAFFO - R66) and while your age is not an issue, your medical condition could be a major obstacle. It also depends on whether or not your education is at the community college level or university level in terms of qualifying for DEO. It's ideal if you have both since it qualifies you for the PAFFO trade. If not and you're at the NCO level, then it gets more problematic doing PR or journalism since there is no direct career MOC path as an NCO journalist (at least that I know of) except as an appointment in the reserve world (although image tech is close but again there is not much action there in the reserves). If you are interested, go to a Service Battalion - not a Medical Reserve unit or a Sigs unit. As for Intelligence the chances of getting in off the street are close to zero and Int has nothing to do with PR or journalism (unless you're looking at "enemy" journalism for clues about the state of their leadership or some such). Although you can do some journalism with these types of units they are relatively limited to Unit Information Officer (UIO) which again is not an MOC but an appointment.   

cheers, mdh


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2005)

I'd advise some inquiries at the Recruiting Center in Ottawa.   There NCOs who are now doing the 'Army News' in print and AV.   Combat Camera does have some civilians working for them, but many of them are recently retired CF members.   You'll have to some research of the various Units and organizations in Ottawa as to what you want and can do.   Perhaps there is an opening in a Reserve Unit and perhaps there is a Civilian opening to be found.   

Try this site: http://www.nrtco.net/~ppost/      and perhaps talk to Lisa Buckingham.   She is a civilian reporter there and may be able to give you further contacts at other Base Newspapers in the Ottawa/Kingston areas.

GW

GW


----------



## GonzoScribe (25 Jan 2005)

Thank you to all who have answered my post.  Your replies were quite helpful and I'm checking out all the possibilities.  

GonzoScribe


----------



## mdh (25 Jan 2005)

Good luck GonzoScribe - there might be PAFFOs on the board who are more familiar with the scene out east too, cheers, mdh


----------



## STONEY (28 Jan 2005)

Try giving Scott Taylor a call at Espirit De Corps.
He might be able to help you become a famous war correspondent.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2005)

Tut, tut. Don't want to offend ST again. He's very sensitive to critism from the BTDT crowd.  Please let sleeping dogs lie. Besides he may not want the competitioon should you BE there and report something positive.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2005)

Glad we could help in your education.


----------



## Torlyn (28 Jan 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Glad we could help in your education. What NOT to do if you want to be considered a serious journalist.



I was trying to find out what military service he has, but all I can see is "former professional soldier".  Which doesn't really tell me much...  Does anyone know where I can find this info?  Thanks.

T


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2005)

Mr ST served in the PPCLI as a Cpl.  You'll have to find some old 2 PPCLI soldiers to talk to and give you the scoop.

GW


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Jan 2005)

George, Scott indeed served in the PPCLI (too bad) and he left the forces after 5-6 years(I can't remember).


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2005)

I have a close friend here in Pet, who was a MWO in  2 PPCLI Winnipeg, in those days and he says much the same.

GW


----------



## camochick (28 Jan 2005)

I think he is well regarded as a military expert because no one else has come forth. In canada there are not alot of journalists that take on the military beat. The ones who do are not as vocal as Scott seems to be therefore probably dont get as much recognition. However, i do graduate in a year or so , so maybe that will change. hehehehe >


----------



## camochick (28 Jan 2005)

It's unfortunate that we don't have reliable people to talk to when it comes to Military issues. We can't question the actual people in the military because they are not allow to voice their opinion in the media so we have to find who we can to get the stories done. It's a lose-lose situation because the journalist cant get the true feeling from the actual people in the military and the military personel feel they are being miss represented. If i do take up the military beat I want to be accurate and informative but unfortunatly I know there wil be times when i won't get it right.


----------



## GonzoScribe (28 Jan 2005)

Most of your perceptions are correct - that when there's a glut in journalism in a certain issue, any journalist becomes an "expert" regardless of merit.

However, being a former crime beat reporter, I'm extremely sensitive to the fact the journalist has to maintain a relationship, in my case with police agencies.  Write one story they feel casts them in a negative light and the source dries up.  So do any other sources anywhere near the original source.

The same thing goes in reporting with the military.  So many repporters have to cozy up to brass just to get specific information that they become isolated/insulated from the rest of the CF and the public at large.  Such a delicate balance must be maintained to get anything close to the truth out.  This is a valid reason to be suspect of so many things written from embedded reporters, who can't help but become cheerleaders for their "protectors" as much as we should assess information from the megamedia (for lack of a better term), who also can't help but to offer the narrow world view of their publishers and owners.

For anyone to think there is an objective news organization out there, I would have to think they are either incredibly naive or overly optimistic.  

As for the ST - EdeC matter, that is real old and indeed a can of worms.  Because of the lack of journalists with military exposure or experience, there's an assumption that whatever rises to the top must be cream.  So, we obviously need more journalists with background.  But even then, that won't solve the fact that, every once in a while, you're not going to like what you read because it all boils down to "what is newsworthy?"  Certainly when looking at two stories, 'Dog bites man' and 'Man bites dog' you have to expect the editor to pick the latter because nine times out of ten, that's what the public would chose as well.  Does this help give the public a balanced view of the world around them?  Certainly not.  Newsworthiness skews reality.

Of course, I'm only saying that because I don't want antone from here to, down the road, criticize me for a negative piece when there are so many negative stories within the CF right now.  Gawd, you could write volumes on failures in the recruiting process alone!

Once again,  just my $0.02 worth.

Regards, 
GonzoScribe


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2005)

If only "Man" could admit that he is naturally a Biased creature... 

GW


----------



## mdh (30 Jan 2005)

GonzoScribe,

Interesting post, as a former reporter myself I know where you are coming from.   Although I am in the minority here, I don't really have anything against Scott Taylor. However the amount of animus the man inspires on this board is noteworthy. He may have a schtick as the Voice of the Common Soldier but self-promotion is the only way to get ahead in a competitive industry like journalism.

My view of media coverage of the CF is that one man's "expert" is another man's misinformed boob when we happen to disagree with his or her viewpoint.   After all what defines a military "expert" anyway? Even a guy with solid military credentials like Lew Mackenzie has been criticized on this site for being out of touch. A Cpl with 20 years experience in the trenches may be declared a "military expert", but some smart-*** will then dismiss him as not having any strategic expertise and is therefore unworthy of commenting on geo-political military issues.

In fact, almost every Cdn military writer out there has been subjected to one attack or another here - whether a journalist, Gwen Dyer or Scott Taylor. All of these writers have different credentials, but I don't think that's the real issue when it comes to media coverage.   We all like to feel ourselves as truly "expert" since we think we are the ones closest to the action or more aware of today's reality in the CF.  But being too close to the ground can also undermine our ability to see things from 30,000 feet.

We can get too caught up or preoccupied with the a narrow military viewpoint and forget that the public does not understand military nuances - whose importance we may in any case may exaggerating. Overall I think there is a lot more quality reporting out there today about the CF than at any other time in the past 20 years since I've followed CF issues closely in the media. Yes, there may be negative stories about equipment failures or the latest NDHQ boondoggle, but I would suggest those kinds of stories help keep the political heat up. The media is at last paying some attention to us - we have to take advantage of that development, and use it to our advantage, cheers, mdh


----------



## GonzoScribe (31 Jan 2005)

mdh, I couldn't agree more.  To be considered a "military expert" that satisfies the public, the brass and the guys on the ground (or air, or sea) would be most uncommon if not impossible.  Most folk in general, and, in this case, in the military, haven't a clue what a journo goes through when he chases a story from a tip.  The amount of "steering" that happens is inevitable.  When a general's staffer tries to get a story out and the journalist decides to try to get more sides to the story, all hell breaks lose when the journo goes to interview soldiers who deliver a totally different version of the story.  Now he/she has to delve deeper to find the "truth" and piss off both sides by seeking a third and fourth corner to square the story.  In my experience, nobody is more bloodthirsty and vicious to reporters than soldier's who feel poorly served or even betrayed by a reporter.

Of course, there are lousy reporters out there as well.  To me, they would be the ones who print the story almost verbatim to the press release without any supporting and opposing interviews.  You can't just tell one side of the story.  In the attempt to strike a balance, you can make many enemies.

Case in point, a report released from the University of Miami  that accuses the UN, in particular US, France and Canada of aiding in the overthrow of a democratically-elected (albeit corrupt as hell) government, probably as democratically elected as GWB in the US.  As well, it explains how UN, in providing support to the Haitian police as they go into Cite Soleil and iindiscriminately shoot and kill innocents in the hunt for armed gangs.  The wounded, who appear in hospital later, are taken away from the hospital by police and later found in the dumping grounds by the airport.  Nobody wants to go to hospital if they get wounded so there's a lot of septic wounds going untreated.

I don't necessarily agree with the report, but I do have to read it and then check its sources.  And I also have to realize, whether I like it or not, there's a lot of people in Haiti and around the world who do agree with it.   Is it the truth?  Who knows.  But we don't just discredit it and throw it away because we don't like the source or the content.

After to hearing conflicting stories in the Haitian community in Montreal, I thought I would post a question in  the Army Current Affairs & News forum. Methinks it was not well received.  Link for thesummary and report at the bottom of this post.  It is far too easy to be far away from the scene when your soldiers are over there and only want to hear positive things about what we are doing.  I can't imagine what it would be like to be a journalist in the currently ultra-nationalist US to come across a lead on a negative story.  To even try to check into the authenticity of the lead would invite charges of treason and threats from the flag-waving populous.  In any military forum there may be a few laying in wait for the unsuspecting left-leaner who may expect a little more intellectual dialogue on a difficult issue and a lot less rhetoric.  Surprise, surprise.  These are difficult times indeed.

GonzoScribe


- CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW
Professor Irwin P. Stotzky, Director
HAITI HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATION: NOVEMBER 11-21, 2004
By Thomas M. Griffin, Esq.
http://www.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,2593-1;34089-3,00.html


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (4 Feb 2005)

Folks,

First, let me apologize for the heavy-handed edits in some of the above posts. While we at Army.ca generally pride ourselves as being an open forum for ranging discussions, I have been asked by Scott Taylor to remove some of the unfavourable remarks about him. While he threatened legal action, let me be clear: comments were removed because they were inappropriate, not because Army.ca is bowing to pressure from Mr. Taylor. In fact, as anyone know knows me will attest, I'm more than happy to cooperate when approached politely on an issue, which is all that's required.

Though it may be meant in the vein of poking fun a a public figure, we still have to adhere to the Conduct Guidelines in our posts here. Mr. Taylor's choice to remain absent from discussions will likely not quell any questions or ill feelings towards him, but that doesn't make it open season. Nobody should be forced to post here in order to defend themselves from libel.

Bottom line: Stating an opinion is generally OK, however let's not perpetuate rumour, myth or libel in our posts here. I believe there is enough fact around to keep the discussions lively without sacrificing the quality of the site.

Sorry for the interruption.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2005)

Well, now that the cat is out of the bag.

Mr. Taylor, we know you read these forums and take offence to the general attitude towards your slant on defence and military affairs in Canada.   Instead of using veiled threats to the Site Owner everytime your views are challenged by those here who have Been There and Done That, why don't you sign up as a member on Army.ca and defend the material you so eager to dump onto the Canadian public.

Signed,

Infanteer,
valued _Esprit de Corps_ reader for all of 5 minutes....


----------



## camochick (4 Feb 2005)

Infanteer I agree. I have to say that it would be great to have Scott Taylor on here to defend his views. That way the people who really do the soldiering can defend their point of view as well as Mr. Taylor. Unfortunately as I am learning in the world of journalism no matter how not one sided they try to be it sometimes comes off that way. It would be great to hear both sides of the story this time.


----------



## Torlyn (4 Feb 2005)

Pursuant to my question, I'm wondering if any of you service members know whether or not I can apply under the Freedom of Information act to see a previously serving member's service record?  I'm not sure if anyone knows, but it might be kind of interesting to find out...

T


----------



## camochick (4 Feb 2005)

Last time I checked the person had to be dead for atleast 20 years before you can get their record. GO to the veteran affairs website and i think they have links to the form. I am trying to get my grampies records but you have to have a death certificate and so far my father has not produced one for me. They have all the info on the veterans affairs site though.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Feb 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Pursuant to my question, I'm wondering if any of you service members know whether or not I can apply under the Freedom of Information act to see a previously serving member's service record?   I'm not sure if anyone knows, but it might be kind of interesting to find out...
> 
> T


It's the Access to Information Act [Federal] which must read in context with the Privacy Act [Federal] and yes, in certain circumstances, you can get some details such as rank, postings, training etc. 

LOL, call Colonel (Ret'd) Drapeau, he writes an annual publication on the subject. The book is available from Carswell. Cheers.


----------



## mdh (5 Feb 2005)

Interesting development here,

For what's it worth, my experience with reporters (20 years worth on both the light and dark sides of the trade) is that they are notoriously thin-skinned and insecure when their work is criticized. cheers, mdh


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (5 Feb 2005)

It's an understandable and human reaction, really. You put a lot of effort into something, finally get it to the point where you feel it's ready for public consumption, and invariably people tear it apart. (I've done tech writing for some trade magazines in the past, and had all manner of feedback.)

It's how the author responds to the criticism (whether it's constructive, abusive or somewhere in between) that tends to leave people with a lasting impression though...


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Feb 2005)

I feel vindicated by the fact that my post was edited. It only confirmed what I already knew about said individual. When confronted by the truth about your past, threaten with a lawsuit!  What a loser!


----------



## mdh (5 Feb 2005)

It's an understandable and human reaction, really. You put a lot of effort into something, finally get it to the point where you feel it's ready for public consumption, and invariably people tear it apart. (I've done tech writing for some trade magazines in the past, and had all manner of feedback.)

Ah yes, the pleasures of editorial re-writes - I've had more than a few of those myself.   I just dismissed my editors as the swinish rabble they were and took comfort in my unrecognized literary genius - didn't they bloody well know they had a Canadian Tom Wolfe in their midst?.   8)


----------



## Pieman (5 Feb 2005)

Indeed, an interesting thread.



> why don't you sign up as a member on Army.ca and defend the material you so eager to dump onto the Canadian public.


I have a funny feeling he could be posting here already under a alias.    <Pieman glances around suspiciously>

I believe one of the major problems with journalists is not simply a biased attitude (too broad of a brush?), but they have difficulty explaining situations because they do not fully understand the situation themselves and end up getting it wrong.

For example, one of my colleges was the first to do seismic analysis on a extrasolar star. He got on CNN and was in the papers for a brief stint. We examined all of the articles put out by different medias, and all of them got it totally wrong. One news paper said he had discovered a galaxy, another said that he studied 'earthquakes' on the sun. Pretty ridiculous. I feel my college was in part responsible for the errors, as he found it difficult to explain his work to the uninitiated. (Understandably so, I think) 

This situation alludes to war correspondants as well. They don't fully understand the workings of the CF because they are not involved, so they come to some rather erroneous conclusions. Likewise, perhaps the CF is possibly not communicating the situation effectively to the media?

I will quote From Stephen Baxter's  Space : "It is so hard to talk to you, when you know nothing!"   

I have not read much of Scott Taylor's work. Do people here feel he gets information wrong, or is just biased in his articles? Or both? (If you can answer without upsetting Scott so he has a hissy fit and tries to sue Army.ca, then please do so.)


----------



## mdh (6 Feb 2005)

Hi Pieman,

Two points here:

When it comes to science reporting the media have a tough time translating scientific complexities into easy to understand prose or pictures.   There just isn't a lot of space in 800 words or a 30-second clip to tell complicated stories in sufficient detail. Journalists themselves are sometimes ill-equipped to understand the material or don't have the time - especially when a daily deadline is looming. 

Or we should also keep in mind that some researchers have an agenda, and they are all too willing to manipulate reporters.   Some of the current reporting on global warming provides a good example of ideologically inspired research. The National Post has done good work in exposing some of it.   Drug companies are another culprit.

As for the CF, my somewhat limited experience as PAFFO within a unit located in 39 Brigade has indicated to me that there isn't a lot of resources available to do a good job with proactive media relations - (or even reactive for that matter).   Each unit is pretty much left to itself when it comes to public affairs (with some occassional help from Brigade).   All too often soldiers are assigned to public affairs as Unit Information Officer (UIOs) with little or no training. Under those circumstances public affairs can often be an afterthought, cheers, mdh


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2005)

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/02/07/fOpinion133.raw.html

Just so Scott doesn't think I'm stealing from him, here is a link to his newest thoughts on the media and military.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Feb 2005)

I see he doesn't have any problems slagging the Military.   I also noticed how he slammed the military, but protected himself from slander by attributing all his slanderous remarks to Stephen Thorne.   Neat trick.   Then there is this comment:   





> These observations and criticisms parallel my experiences with Canadian Forces brass and public affairs branch over the past 16 years. But it is refreshing to learn that I was not being singled out.



Is that journalism?   Sounds more like a fine "Whine" to me.  NO; actually "Sour Grapes".

GW


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Feb 2005)

"Antagonizing and marginalizing even the "military-friendly" media can hardly be considered a sound strategy for such an already politically neglected department. 

Right now, the Canadian Forces need every friend they can find, and the rank and file deserves better representation than they are getting from public affairs officers such as Dionne and generals who shun reporters."

First of all, Thorne and Taylor labelling themselves both as media "friends" of the military lacks any plausible air of reality. With friends like Taylor, who needs enemies? Anyways, I would think Dionne has been cussed down by better people than those two. 

Scotty T. - PM me and we can have a little chat.


----------



## GGboy (7 Feb 2005)

George Wallace: Quoting someone else is no defence against libel. Unless it's covered under privilege (ie: something said in Parliament, testimony in court or a judicial inquiry, etc.) if I quote you saying something libellous about, oh let's say Scott Taylor  ;D, then he could turn around and sue both you and me. All he has to prove is that it injured his reputation, we would then have to prove either a) that it was true; b) that it was fair comment on the truth; c) that it was covered under privilege (see above); or d) that we had his permission to libel him.

As for the larger question, I'm increasingly frustrated by the CF's media relations these days (and no, I'm not Scott Taylor writing pseudonymously) After an excellent start in Roto 0 or Op Athena in Afghanistan, which got the army almost unprecedented numbers of stories and a huge public profile boost, they seem to have begun slowly slipping back to the bad old days.
Mr. Taylor aside, it's incredibly important to the CF to raise its public profile if it wants to avoid going the way of the dodo. The only way politicians or bureaucrats are going to be convinced to reverse the downward trend in defence funding is by public pressure and the only way that pressure is going to be created is through efforts such as the embedding initiative introduced for Op Apollo. Anyone who obstructs or undermines these efforts is doing a grave disservice to the entire CF.
As for difficulties dealing with journalists, unfortunately that's the nature of the beast: if the CF wants to improve the quality of the military coverage it gets then it's going to have to bite the bullet and start educating reporters, and treating the handful who know about the military and don't have an axe to grind better than they do currently.


----------



## Torlyn (7 Feb 2005)

GGboy said:
			
		

> All he has to prove is that it injured his reputation, we would then have to prove either a) that it was true; b) that it was fair comment on the truth; c) that it was covered under privilege (see above); or d) that we had his permission to libel him.



Hmm...  Wouldn't one have to have a reputation to begin with?  

I find it interesting that the only reason he doesn't like Hillier is because he (Hillier) wouldn't treat the media the way the media wanted to be treated in a WAR ZONE.  Now, as an uninitiated CF wanna-be, I gotta tell you that were I overseas in any capacitiy as a civvy (reporter, let's say) I sure as hell wouldn't be shitting on the people that are trying to keep me alive.  IF they tell me "go here, do that" you know what?  By god, I'm gonna do it.  Freedom of the Press?  Isn't that a fundamental AMERICAN right?  I don't recall it being in our Charter, do you?  

Oh, and for those watching, my request for the record of an ex-CF member went through to the access to information co-ordinator today.  I'll let y'all know how that goes.

T


----------



## mdh (7 Feb 2005)

Good morning gents (at least it's morning here),

Would any one have a copy of the Stephen Thorne piece? I would like to see the original before I jump to any conclusions.


As for the larger question, I'm increasingly frustrated by the CF's media relations these days (and no, I'm not Scott Taylor writing pseudonymously) After an excellent start in Roto 0 or Op Athena in Afghanistan, which got the army almost unprecedented numbers of stories and a huge public profile boost, they seem to have begun slowly slipping back to the bad old days.

Good post GGBoy, are you finding this frustration manifesting itself in your unit, through Brigade or at other levels? I'm interested in getting more detail - PAFFO professional interest on my part, cheers, mdh


----------



## GGboy (7 Feb 2005)

If you send me a PM, I'd be happy to give names, ranks, & etc. but in general the problems aren't with the professional PAffOs who've gotten very good IMO over the past couple of years. Although there are always exceptions  :
The difficulties seem to be concentrated in the army unfortunately, ranging from senior officers who are positively media allergic to lower level training that is a good 10 years out of date. During a recent 32 Bde BMQ/BOTP course I sat in on, for eg, an instructor was telling the troops that they were under NO CIRCUMSTANCES (the instructor's emphasis, not mine) to talk to reporters. Another lecturer from JAG told these kids that they could not write so much as a letter to the editor without being charged ... it is to weep.
Basically, I think the PAOs should be out there developing relationships with reporters who have an interest in the military and doing what they can to get them to write stories about the army and the good things it's doing. Unfortunately, that's not happening (at least not as far as I can see) and I think that's due in large part to the message from senior leadership, right up to the new CLS and CDS, which is to treat reporters the way they were treated on Roto 1 of Op Athena -- like the proverbial mushrooms.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Feb 2005)

Torlyn: Freedom of the press is expressly stated in section 2 of the Charter. In any event, this is definitely not a Charter issue.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Feb 2005)

GGboy said:
			
		

> George Wallace: Quoting someone else is no defence against libel. Unless it's covered under privilege (ie: something said in Parliament, testimony in court or a judicial inquiry, etc.) if I quote you saying something libellous about, oh let's say Scott Taylor   ;D, then he could turn around and sue both you and me. All he has to prove is that it injured his reputation, we would then have to prove either a) that it was true; b) that it was fair comment on the truth; c) that it was covered under privilege (see above); or d) that we had his permission to libel him.



A tidy summary, but in practice it's much more difficult to make a go of it.


----------



## GGboy (9 Feb 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> A tidy summary, but in practice it's much more difficult to make a go of it.


All too true, but that's mainly because the game's rarely worth the candle. With a handful of notable exceptions, Canadian judges/juries in libel cases have shied away from handing out the multi-gazillion-dollar damages seen in U.S. courts. 
At the end of the day, anyone out there considering a libel suit has to factor in that even if they win, their award will barely cover the lawyer's fees, and of course all is subject ot appeals.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2005)

Ah! Does this sound like a lead into the Gomery Inquiry?   ;D

GW

How about those Golf Balls?   ;D


----------



## mdh (9 Feb 2005)

During a recent 32 Bde BMQ/BOTP course I sat in on, for eg, an instructor was telling the troops that they were under NO CIRCUMSTANCES (the instructor's emphasis, not mine) to talk to reporters. Another lecturer from JAG told these kids that they could not write so much as a letter to the editor without being charged ... it is to weep.

Interesting - last time I checked DND Public Affairs policy troops were allowed to talk with reporters and some cases actively encouraged to do so.   At our unit we recently gave a lecture on media relations where we specifically covered situations where journalists might be in the field. 

We told them that they represented the unit and the uniform and that some decorum was important, ie avoid the swearing, but we also pointed out that their help was critical in making a good impression with the media, and most of all if we didn't tell the army's story in a positive fashion no one was going to do it for us, cheers, mdh


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Feb 2005)

GGboy said:
			
		

> All too true, but that's mainly because the game's rarely worth the candle. With a handful of notable exceptions, Canadian judges/juries in libel cases have shied away from handing out the multi-gazillion-dollar damages seen in U.S. courts.
> At the end of the day, anyone out there considering a libel suit has to factor in that even if they win, their award will barely cover the lawyer's fees, and of course all is subject ot appeals.



Until recently, the largest punitive damage award in Canada was a libel and slander case.  It depends on the worth of the reputation of the plaintiff. The reason we don't have large awards is because the concept of treble damages is not recognized in our law [yet]. The best thing to do is haul the Canadian defendant into a US forum and commence proceedings in that jurisdiction- Texas is the preferred favorite. [ ].  Anyway, even in Canada, it is not uncommon for non-punitive damage awards for libel and slander to run as high as 100K for business persons. Incidentally, it is rare to find an insurance policy [and hence an insurer with a duty to defend] which would cover the cost of such an action.


----------



## STONEY (13 Feb 2005)

Re: Mr. ST  I do not mean to insult him personnaly nor do i wish to belittle his service, weather 5 or 15 years he walked the walk , which is a lot more than most correspondents ever do. I do not deny his ability to write or turn a phrase unlike myself who can't spell worth a pinch of coon**** .  I have read a lot of his work, as i do any articles & pubs on the military. I like to read all sides of any subject and then form my own opinion. In my humble opinion, he seems fixated on negative opinions of anything military.  I wonder, if even he realizes that he hasn't said anything positive about the military in years. I've had aquaintances after reading one of his articles and knowing nothing of his background say to me " wow this guy really hates the military doesn't he" .  How can he wonder why Public Affairs aren't warm & fuzzy towards him, not that i'm a defender of Public Affairs who's press releases seem geared to public school children. Champion & spokeswman for the rank & file indeed, do you do this by destroying Espirit de Corps.  Amen.

Ready Aye Ready.


----------

