# CBC attempts more anti military spin



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2008)

Considering the CBC receives almost one billion tax dollars from Canadians, they should be able to afford some fact checkers and, you know, _report_ the news rather than write anti military and government propaganda:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/



> *It's never as simple as a 3:31 piece on The National*
> 
> Brian Stewart did a piece a few nights ago on accountability for "night raids" in Afghanistan by Canadian and allied special forces, and I've been meaning to write something about it ever since.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2008)

This seems to be Brian Stewart's MO - if you can't prove it, or can't get someone to give you the clip you want, SUGGEST it in the voice over (sometimes with ominous music).

Check out how he handled covering Canada's (obviously subversive and sinister  :) participation in the SAT team advising the Kabul government last year:
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/f/CBC-SAT-08-Mar-07.html

"Brian Stewart: That “game” is the inside maneuvering for position in a city where two dozen major donors nations want influence and want intelligence. But Canada’s softly-softly approach fools few diplomatic or political circles for your Canada is much seen as an influential player. At $120 million a year, it’s the third largest donor nation.

"*Some in Parliament – itself partially designed and equipped by Canada – even question if Canadians have gathered too much influence in top offices of government.* It is well-known in Kabul that Canada remains one of the most trusted international backers at President Hamid Karzai’s regime. Moreover, it’s widely believed that Canada’s top general, Rick Hillier, has had unique influence with Karzai for years and that Hillier, even now as chief of the Defense Staff, keeps remarkably close tabs on the Kabul government."

_(NOTE:  Anybody willing to say this to camera?  Is this a lot of parliamentarians, or just one?)_

(....)

"*But the access these 15 Canadians have is resented by some in the diplomatic and military community who wonder how Canadians have the most sensitive insights denied even the British and US embassies.* How do you avoid being seen as power brokers behind the scenes or political influence gatherers?"

_(NOTE:  Anybody willing to say this to camera?)_

(....)

"But *some circles in foreign affairs, Ottawa and CETA have also been uncomfortable of the so-called Hillier day*, particularly as SAT is a military structure which reports directly through the military command to General Hillier himself. Foreign affairs and CETA are only consulted on occasion, when the military sees fit."

_(NOTE:  Anybody willing to say this to camera?)_

(....)

"In recent months, *NATO has appeared anxious to somewhat limit Canada’s insider role*."

_(NOTE:  Anybody willing to say this to camera?)_

You be the judge...


----------



## 54/102 CEF (1 Jul 2008)

An old game - reduce transparency to enlarge bureaucracy.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Jul 2008)

Just watched the vidoe. The one issue I have with all hi induendo and speculation is the comments at the end of the piece about accountabliltiy. They do not mention that who is really accountable(just speculate ome more) and to whom these night missions have to be approved by before they are undertaken.

If you think about about it for a minute...If the CF must follow Canadian laws even when in a foriegn land, would you not think that before theses "night raids" take place there has to be some sort of evidence presented and a "search warrant/arrest warrant" granted before the JTF2 guys go blow up someone's door and go in and FiSH. 

Or do they just think JTF2 is a bunch of cowboys who takeoff in the middle of the night and hit whatever compound they want to?


----------



## Dog Walker (1 Jul 2008)

There was another Brian Stewart report on the National last night (30th June 2008). In this one he talks of the “Kandaher Fiasco” and about the “deadly new alliance” between al Qaeda and the Taliban. It starts at the 27:55 point on their latestbroacdcast.  

http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2008)

;D

And people get tired of me calling these types of 'reporters' members of the Fifth Column.  I wonder if Brian Stewart is clear as to whom he is accountable to?  What is his "Chain of Command" and who is he ultimately responsible to for his comments?  Do his 'responisibilities' go both 'Up the Chain', and 'Down'?  

 >


----------



## geo (1 Jul 2008)

good point George

Everyone should remember that the CBC, a Canadian Crown Corporation being financed by your (and mine) tax dollars.

methinks the CBC should be held accountable the same way Mr Stewart & Mansbridge are asking that the CF be made accountable (we ARE).  methinks it's time this fella should be "foisted by his own petard"


----------



## Armymedic (1 Jul 2008)

If BS (what an appropriate set of initials) is accountable to us, lets lets stop bitching about him here and start emailing his boss...

Anyone got that CBC email address?


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2008)

sof-t said:
			
		

> If BS (what an appropriate set of initials) is accountable to us, lets lets stop bitching about him here and start emailing his boss...
> 
> Anyone got that CBC email address?



A few ways to send feedback:

1)  Post a comment to the piece itself:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/war_in_the_shadows.html

2)  Share your feelings (send a video or send a comment) to "The National":
http://www.cbc.ca/national/yourturn.html

3)  Use the CBC's general web-based form:
http://www.cbc.ca/contact/

4)  Contact the CBC Ombudsman:
http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/contact.html

Don't forget to refer back to CBC's "Journalistic Standards and Practices":
http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/accountability/journalistic/index.shtml

or the "Media Accountability" page:
http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/accountability/index.shtml

for supporting material.


----------



## karl28 (1 Jul 2008)

OK here is my two cents with in dealing with this subject .  If a bunch of you folks start Emailing (as stated in one of the above post)    this guys Boss to have him rethink his methods on how he reports on the military .  Than his boss finds out that a majority of you guys/gals are in the military how well do you think that will play in the left leaning Media ?    I can see the headlines "Canadian Forces Troops  try to shut up anti military reporter" god the bleeding heart lefties will have a field day.   Basically Emailing to have him adjust how he reports the news would add fuel to the fire .    
                      No the best thing that can happen here is that he either gets an exclusive interview with the question at hand or you ignore him .


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2008)

karl28 said:
			
		

> OK here is my two cents with in dealing with this subject .  If a bunch of you folks start Emailing (as stated in one of the above post)    this guys Boss to have him rethink his methods on how he reports on the military .  Than his boss finds out that a majority of you guys/gals are in the military how well do you think that will play in the left leaning Media ?    I can see the headlines "Canadian Forces Troops  try to shut up anti military reporter"    god the bleeding heart lefties will have a field day basically Emailing to have him adjust how he reports the news would add fuel to the fire .
> No the best thing that can happen here is that he either gets an exclusive interview with the question at hand or you ignore him .



Sort of a "Damned if you do;  Damned if you don't" scenario.

Not to worry.  There are enough members of the Press who visit this site, that the sentiments and questions arising from some of those sentiments, are getting out there.  Perhaps not as much as you may want, but still it is a step in the direction you want to go.  Just look at the articles that are being written in various media outlets questioning some of these "anti-military" journalist's motives and MO's.


----------



## karl28 (1 Jul 2008)

George Wallace 
      
  I couldn't have said that better and that is a  great way to put it .  Just like allot of people I dislike the left leaning views of anti military in the CBC and other media out lets  but its seems to be a popular way with some of the media these days .


----------



## faceman (1 Jul 2008)

great topics, i actually saw the piece done on cbc and figured it was just typical journalism.  The point of attack to combat lies and insinuation is not to attack the press but to educate the public.  The press will quickly stop it's sensationalizing of certain topics when the public appetite is no longer there.  Journalists looking for truth are few and far between and there aren't many in major media outlets.  Journalists are into career advancement and the 'making' of news, or creation of news, or whatever they need to do to get ratings..period.  The press is controlled by self-interest, not some truth seeking ideology that would rule them in an ideal world.  To combat our sensationalist media the best tactic is to flood the public with proper reasoning, political and economic truths, and to expose unfounded, baseless arguments.  In the process don't give the dishonest any ammo to use against you.


----------



## axeman (1 Jul 2008)

> isn't it great to hide behind the freedoms that we guarantee  . I watched the story while its not lies it never answers the questions that could be easily put to rest. just a step into the next set of questions . Like was said earlier Chain of Command is easy . Me to him and so on up the line with the Chief of Defence  and Prime Minister being at the top.Its BS that the "reporters " cant  dig that answer out . While there are tragic accidents and civilian deaths  the goals are clear cut defeat the AQ/T . There are clearcut shoot no shoot rules given to anyone with a rifle. its sad to say c%%p happens but ask anyone who was with 3 VP about Tarnak farms . The AQ/T are far less judicious about use of force then we are .  Canada will never  act in the manner of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it ".  The AQ/T wrap themselves in the protection of civilian human shields and then get upset when they throw them in the way of the troops that use rules and laws of engagement .Sometimes I'm sure it would be easier to go back to the days of lines being drawn and soldiers advancing towards each other with flags up and drums/ pipes  in full order. ....    sigh .


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2008)

faceman said:
			
		

> great topics, i actually saw the piece done on cbc and figured it was just typical journalism.  The point of attack to combat lies and insinuation is not to attack the press but to educate the public.  The press will quickly stop it's sensationalizing of certain topics when the public appetite is no longer there.  Journalists looking for truth are few and far between and there aren't many in major media outlets.  Journalists are into career advancement and the 'making' of news, or creation of news, or whatever they need to do to get ratings..period.  The press is controlled by self-interest, not some truth seeking ideology that would rule them in an ideal world.  To combat our sensationalist media the best tactic is to flood the public with proper reasoning, political and economic truths, and to expose unfounded, baseless arguments.  In the process don't give the dishonest any ammo to use against you.



I suppose you followed through with your theory?

Do you expect the CF to publish a manual?  No one would read it.

Do you want members of the CF to author novels?  Unless they make Oprah's Top Ten, very few will buy them.

It all boils back down to the PRESS.  It is the Press/media who will have to get that message across to the Public, and right now they are definitely NOT doing that.


----------



## North Star (1 Jul 2008)

Maybe it's time somebody started using CBC's ombudsman...

What reporters hate more than anything else is to be called out on their reports (you know...accountability...that thing we supposedly don't have in the CF). Firing grievances out to the ombudsman (and CC'ing competing networks) may be a way of curbing silly reports like the one above. 

It would have to be done by someone not in the CF, such as The Legion. While most of them probably won't be heard, you will get the odd victory that will make editors a tab more cautious.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2008)

Interesting timing on this one.

Just as Gen. Hillier retires and Gen. Natynczyk takes command.  A shot across the bows of "The American" General?

Hillier was fireproof and could tackle the CBC on their own ground, literally.  I wonder how many CBC types had their knickers in a knot because they couldn't gain any ground on him.

The current CDS has some interesting "baggage" that may be suggesting attractive "targets of opportunity".  

There are many folks out there that really detest the whole concept of a military and that fear a successful army more than they fear an incompetent one.

This may be a conscious effort to suss out the new guy.  I think the ball is in his court as to the appropriate response.

PS.  Apologies if I got the spelling of his name wrong.... and no, I am not worried about his background.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Interesting timing on this one.
> 
> Just as Gen. Hillier retires and Gen. Natynczyk takes command.  A shot across the bows of "The American" General?
> 
> ...



Now you are just starting to sound like one of those "Bobbleheads" that the CBC likes to bring in as a "military expert" and comment on Defence matters.  If you think the new CDS has any "Interesting baggage" then I really think you are off base.  He has no more interesting baggage than Gen Hillier, or several other Generals who have all been on exchange to the US and filled Command roles.  This is pure BS, and the type of crap that the NDP, and other Lefties fantasize about.  

The new CDS is not Hillier, but he is going to show himself to be just as great a man.  Anyone who knows General Natyncyk will respond the same as I.  He it the man we need to replace General Hillier.  He will do us just as proud as Gen Hillier did.


----------



## faceman (2 Jul 2008)

sorry i failed to see where i said that everyone in the cf should be responsible for writing novels....it's PR's responsibility to deal with the general public, and the 'left-leaning' press in Canada will at no time soon change, but good luck in trying all the same.  Perhaps we could get Conrad Black to help us from his Florida prison with publishing more military friendly perspectives 
faceman


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now you are just starting to sound like one of those "Bobbleheads" that the CBC likes to bring in as a "military expert" and comment on Defence matters.  If you think the new CDS has any "Interesting baggage" then I really think you are off base.  He has no more interesting baggage than Gen Hillier, or several other Generals who have all been on exchange to the US and filled Command roles.  This is pure BS, and the type of crap that the NDP, and other Lefties fantasize about.
> 
> The new CDS is not Hillier, but he is going to show himself to be just as great a man.  Anyone who knows General Natyncyk will respond the same as I.  He it the man we need to replace General Hillier.  He will do us just as proud as Gen Hillier did.



Ouch George. That hurt.

I knew somebody was going to take me up wrong here.

I know that his career path is within the norms.  I know that he has, from all accounts, performed in an exemplary fashion.  I have no reason to pick bones here.

My point, apparently obscured, is that there has already been a trail of innuendo laid before Gen Natynczyk by the media - a trail that emphasizes his service with the Americans, his service in Iraq, his stated appreciation for some of the things the Americans do.  Those "facts" do indeed feed the "bobbleheads" and the NDP.   The expression of Pro-American sentiments on its own is enough to make some people start bobbling.

What I am saying is that Gen Hillier is an extraordinary individual whose personality created a following and a public persona that was bullet proof.  He managed to say things that very few in the past have got away with and managed to keep their jobs.  

To say that Gen Natynczyk is not Gen Hillier is not meant to disparage the man.  It is just to point out the obvious.

I don't have any reason to doubt the Gen Natynczyk will do a great job.

I am suggesting that some in the media, having been singularly unsuccessful in tarring Hillier with the brush of "His War" that they might be wanting to take a run at the new guy.  And, as you well know, the spinning of facts is part of their game.

Cheers.

EditThat is all) I just found this glyph at the bottom of the page and realised it might have imparted a tone note intended.  I hate working with those ruddy glide pads on laptops.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jul 2008)

I fail to see how the CBC is "anti-military." Anyone here see Evan Solomon's bit about CF snipers? Or Mansbridge reporting from Afghanistan? and then in a separate instance,  CF bases across Canada?  Right now on CBC.ca there is an ongoing series of reports by a member of the CF who is serving in Afghanistan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I fail to see how the CBC is "anti-military." Anyone here see Evan Solomon's bit about CF snipers? Or Mansbridge reporting from Afghanistan? and then in a separate instance,  CF bases across Canada?  Right now on CBC.ca there is an ongoing series of reports by a member of the CF who is serving in Afghanistan.



I agree with you, in general.

But: Media bias is very, very real; how could it be otherwise? Journalists (a word which has a pejorative sense when I use it) are humans, and humans - you, Kilo_302, me, George Wallace and friend Kirkhill - are humans and biased, too.

I think that *most* journalists share a pretty broad, general set of biases. Regardless of age, they think the antics of the baby-boomers in the 1960s and ‘70s (music, style, politics and protests, drugs and inherited wealth and so on) is the _correct_ model. That model is, very broadly:

•	Anti-American; and, consequentially

•	Anti-capitalists; which means

•	Socialistic; which is, perforce

•	Stupid.

Being anti-American, the journalists’ thoughtless bias means that almost anything the Americans do must be wrong and we, Canada, are only *right* when we oppose American policies and actions. When, as in early 2002, Canadian public opinion *demands* that Canada join the USA in a military ‘adventure’ overseas the journalists will be grumpily quiet.

Their *joy* – the correct word, I think - was boundless, however, in the spring of ’02 when four Canadian soldiers were killed in a _friendly fire_ incident at the Tarnak Farms, near Kandahar. They entered upon an orgy of anti-Americanism which allowed them, indirectly, to attack a mission of which they had disapproved, albeit silently, previously.

I think many, many journalists  especially those who have worked with the CF – are unabashed admirers of the soldiers. They are, however, quite able to separate their respect, even fondness for the men and women in the ranks from their ongoing, _generally_ thoughtless opposition to any military operations undertaken with or in support of the USA.

If there is a real, partisan political, bias in the mainstream media I’m guessing it is pro-NDP. It is certainly anti-Conservative in most mainstream media outlets. In the main, the CF is tarred with the media’s thoughtless, deeply ingrained anti-American/anti-capitalist bias. The fault lies with a horribly flawed education system that forgot (and still forgets) history.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2008)

Me? Biased?   ???    ;D


----------



## North Star (2 Jul 2008)

E.R. Campbell - you also forgot "if it bleeds, it leads"...a characteristic of the media is that it itself creates controversy to sell it's product. That, plus stupidity, is really dangerous.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2008)

North Star said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell - you also forgot "if it bleeds, it leads"...a characteristic of the media is that it itself creates controversy to sell it's product. That, plus stupidity, is really dangerous.



Agreed, but I think you are moving from the *bias* of _journalists_ to the business aspects of selling the advertising - the important stuff for the publisher and proprietor.

Some journalists of my acquaintance – a very small number, I hasten to add – are disturbed by the media *business*. One pronounced herself horrified at the headlines which preceded a particular story of hers. When I suggested that the headline helped sell papers she countered that the ‘role’ of the media was to let her communicate her _ideas_ to Canadians so that we might make the _right_ decisions. In fact, of course, she was (still is) quite wrong – totally muddle headed. The ‘role’ of the media is to show a profit for the shareholders – nothing more. Were it otherwise we would not have legions of _journalists_ ‘covering’ Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama, Lindsay Lohan and the 2008 European Cup final. The ‘product’ of the media is the big, colourful, two page car ad – the stories, the stuff that fills the blank spaces between the adverts, are part of the sales pitch.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jul 2008)

I definitely agree that individual bias on the part of journalists is a problem, and this combined with as one poster put it, "it bleeds, it leads" might give the impression of an anti-military bias, but overall as an organization, I don't think that the CBC is purposely thinking, "Right, how can we tar the military today?"

On an aside, Mr. Campbell I think our debate on the economic super thread has been banished!  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jul 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> On an aside, Mr. Campbell I think our debate on the economic super thread has been banished!  ;D



Nope.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77733.0.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jul 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> When I suggested that the headline helped sell papers she countered that the ‘role’ of the media was to let her communicate her _ideas_ to Canadians so that we might make the _right_ decisions.



Interesting view - when I was a reporter, I thought that way, too.  Or, more specifically, "if I put the information out there fairly and evenly, people will have enough common sense to decide for themselves".

You're correct, E.R., in that the "product" is produced by the business entity, and is only SUPPORTED by the reporter - s/he provides content, the outlet packages the editorial product.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The ‘product’ of the media is the big, colourful, two page car ad – the stories, the stuff that fills the blank spaces between the adverts, are part of the sales pitch.



I'd fine tune this just a hair - the "product" or "deliverable" wouldn't be the ad, but the EYES/EARS of consumers drawn to the ad in question.

Reporters are like people - they have history they bring to their jobs.  What is supposed to happen via journalism training, in theory, is to provide tools and a mindset that allows a reporter to pick/choose the information required for the consumer to make his/her mind up.

In part, what I think ends up happening is:

1)  many reporters enter the business to help, to make a difference, thus predisposing them towards being "for" the underdog in most situations - and when is "the government" ever the underdog?; and 

2)  corporate pressures (overt or covert) and decisions guide the reporters' coverage in a way that meets the corporate needs - I don't mean "why didn't you write it this way?" (although I know that happens on occasion), but what issues get covered, with how much resource, and how much space/time is devoted to the editorial product.

When I say "corporate", I don't just mean privately-owned media, either.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jul 2008)

A very good discussion.  I would add that it seems passing strange that our objective media raise, with often  screaming headlines, any hint of possible human rights violations by the CF (or any other foreign forces in Afstan).  Then they constantly quote Taliban spokesmen (anyone ever heard of a Taliban spokeswoman?) without any, er, context such as the destruction of the Bamiyan Bhuddas.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/12/afghan.buddha.02/

A thing it might help people to know about the insurgents or militants.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Mud (3 Jul 2008)

Many interesting ideas on this forum as usual, it's been a while but I'll wade in.  

I'm just a cameraguy so I have little input when it comes to editorial content, but I do try to push positive stories on the military whenever possible, it's true that there are many ex-military types in the media and many of us  who do support the military and want to see it get fair treatment in the news.  I can honestly say after 18 years in the industry that I have met few individuals with an axe to grind with the military, what does seem more common, and ER Campbell I think you nailed it, is a more subtle, generational attitude toward things military, and I'm talking specifically about the baby boomer generation.  But it's important to remember that the indifference or even disdain for the military is something that, in my opinion, is not just confined to the media, it is very much, unfortunately, a part of Canadian culture and that is largely a result of poorly educating us about our military history.  I'm reminded of when I went to shoot an anti-war demo and talked on camera with a new Canadian who proudly informed me that "Canada does not fight wars"!  Really?

I had a feeling there would be comments about the Stewart report, I saw it too and did'nt like it.  But to be fair to the CBC I have seen good reports on there that I felt were fair.  Still, I have always had a problem with the idea of a news agency that has to compete for public funding with the armed forces, reporting about the armed forces.  

And I encourage all of you who feel strongly to speak out, write letters/emails, those things do make a difference.  At the end of the day the media, with all it's faults, is a business, ratings not ideology are the biggest driving force, and that is a whole other discussion.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2008)

There are obviously layers to peel back here, from the profit motives of the MSM ownership to the basic education people in Canada receive and use to understand and interpret what is out there.

Careful re-reading of the featured CBC piece that started this thread, however, confirms that it was indeed written and presented with malice aforethought; the innuendos and distortion of facts are not there by accident. The dammed if you do (SOF operators might kill civilians that Taliban fighters use as human shields) and dammed if you don't (air and artillery might kill civilians that Taliban fighters use as human shields) is also simply placed before the viewer despite it's contradictory nature without comment. As the blogger points out, this piece is not "news", it is propaganda designed to lead the viewer to a particular conclusion.

Canadians are in an unenviable situation. The vast majority of news outlets reflect the educational and market driven bias that Edward has pointed out, and there is no Canadian "Fox Network" presenting an alternative point of view. The Blogosphere is one source of alternative news and opinion, but it is still "Narrowcast"; how many MSM outlets have followed the bloggers into the swamps of the CHRC; ADSCAM; Liberal Party funding woes, Liberal Party leadership candidates unable or unwilling to repay their debts (and now considered to be in possession of illegal campaign contributions?), the effects of the proposed Carbon tax on municipal governments and small business...these are just a few topics of the many that can be followed and studies in some detail in the Blogosphere, but never a whisper in the MSM. Why should that be?


----------



## Dropkickjon (27 Jul 2008)

I must admit this discussion is very fascinating. I'm coming at this from kind of a unique perspective. I'm actually a CBC journalist but I'm also an air force brat. A couple days ago I attended my dad's retirement party in Ottawa. As of Friday, he had served 35 years in the air force. There was an interesting moment when he introduced me to his boss (a general who's name I now forget). My dad told his boss, "This is my son xxxx and he actually just started working for the CBC in xxxx." My dad's boss shook my hand and told me, "The CBC is anti-military but I won't hold it against you."

I was absolutely flabbergasted by this comment. First, it probably wasn't the time nor the place for him to be telling me this during my dad's retirement party. But that's for another thread...

I was also taken a little aback because I had never noticed this perceived bias. And that it was apparently so bad that this guy felt compelled to tell me about it when we were all there to honour my father's 35 years of service to his country. 

When I got home I thought I'd Google "CBC anti military" to see if I would find anything interesting. That lead me to this thread. I think there is some credence to some of the arguments. Although I'm not sure if it's really a systemic bias. The ratings argument in particular, doesn't hold up too well in the case of the CBC since it is not nearly as dependent on advertising dollars as its competitors. 

That said, individual reporters obviously have their own personal biases (although the good ones try their best to be aware of those biases). It's also true that for many of the baby boomers in the CBC there's often a tendency towards the anti-war side of things. In fact, I had a bit of an awkward moment a couple weeks ago with one of my older colleagues. I was telling her about my family and my dad's line of work obviously came up. So she asked me what I thought about the war in Afghanistan. I told her I believe that Canada's presence in the country was justified. She disagreed and said that it had ruined Canada's reputation as a "peacekeeper." 

All that to say that reporters obviously have their own individual biases in regards to the military. How could they not? For the most part, though, I think they've been able to keep their biases in check and have presented a fairly even handed picture of the war. 

What alternative would you propose? If the CBC turned into Fox News and only ran "The Canadian military can do no wrong" stories that would be just as bad as a completely anti-military editorial stance. 

I've seen a lot of bias from a conservative pro-military standpoint (for obvious reasons) on this board. That's all well and good but it's a little hypocritical to accuse the media of bias when many of you are guilty of the same thing from the other side. Yes, the military is doing a lot of good in Afghanistan but there have also been some moments we should not be so proud of. The public has a right to be informed about both. And for the most part, I think the CBC has achieved that goal.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (27 Jul 2008)

Dropkickjon said:
			
		

> What alternative would you propose? If the CBC turned into Fox News and only ran "The Canadian military can do no wrong" stories that would be just as bad as a completely anti-military editorial stance.



Get rid of the whole 'if it bleeds, it leads,' frame of mind. You know, rather than _"Canadian Forces kill civilian in Afghanistan'_ (who, most often disregard warnings used for their own safety)... why not _"Canadian Forces help open medical clinic providing medical care and aid to thousands of rural Afghans"_

Getting rid of sensationalism (sic?) can do a world of good. Waiting for somebody to die at the hands of the Canadian Forces to have front page news that does nothing but spread misinformation and fuel fires of the anti-anything-that-goes-bang crowd. If people would actually hear about just a fraction of the good that the CF and ISAF have done, rather than have _"NATO airstrike kills 65 civilians"_ why not show the Canadian public what is actually happening? Why not show the Canadian public that the civilians killed were mixed with _'x'_ amount of Taliban using said civilians as human shields?
Get rid of sensationalism, get rid of 'if it bleeds, it leads.'

See where I'm getting at?

Midget


----------



## Dropkickjon (27 Jul 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> Get rid of the whole 'if it bleeds, it leads,' frame of mind. You know, rather than _"Canadian Forces kill civilian in Afghanistan'_ (who, most often disregard warnings used for their own safety)... why not _"Canadian Forces help open medical clinic providing medical care and aid to thousands of rural Afghans"_
> See where I'm getting at?
> 
> Midget



I've seen those positive stories on The National as well. Do you honestly expect the media not to report on civilian deaths in Afghanistan? if we just ignore those stories we're doing our readers/listeners a huge disservice.

I think one of the things happening here is that people in the military tend to remember the negative stories more. That's just human nature. Just like a personal insult will stick with you longer than a compliment.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (27 Jul 2008)

I had added a bit more to my post while you were replying. 
Sorry, thats just my brain kicking into gear after I've hit the post button.
If you read what I added, I think I answer your question there.

Midget


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2008)

On the "Civilian Deaths" theme; why not report on how many the Taliban have been killing?  I could also ask what has happened to reporting Civilian Deaths here at home?  Fatalities from traffic accidents here at home are just as common as fatalities in foreign lands due to people being in a war zone.  I know it is a bit morbid, but it is a fact of life in places where terrorism and war are taken place.  Is CBC just perpetuating the "Rubbernecking" phenomenon that we see daily on our highways?


----------



## GAP (28 Jul 2008)

To be fair, I have seen some excellent reporting from CBC on Afghanistan. By the same token I have seen and read some really slanted pieces that are almost crying out "CF is Bad"....

A number of articles are written in the vein of "The Canadians should have been able to do it better/differently/more caring/etc...". Total credibility is automatically given to AQ and Taliban positions, interviews are focused on the dissenting view of the CF, and on and on.

It is the mindset that invades the articles, interview, nuances by the reporter as to where the focus should be. Is it blatant? Seldom, but it is there.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jul 2008)

Personally, I think that 90% of the time it comes down to shoddy research - something that isn't limited to the CBC. 

Do some checking before running a story, provide some background, question the credentials of "experts" being quoted, add some context.  Don't buy into hysteria and hyperbole.

Why not develop some _in house_ expertise capable of providing both historical and technical background on military affairs instead of relying on "experts" who so obviously carry a personal, political, or professional bias?  CBC could sorely use a military correspondent, one that is conversant with the issues, can "talk the talk", and can provide objective analysis of military events. 

I have no issues with criticism of the CF or of our various (government ordered) missions.  However, that criticism has to be developed from an educated perspective - not from an institutional or political bias.  For instance, even a modicum of research would have provided context to the recent hysteria surrounding the so-called "Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline", or to the CDS' comments on the security situation in Kandahar province.  Instead, reporters leapt on the bandwagon, quoted the same "experts" and provided the same abysmal analysis - typically without emperical data.

Finally:



> I've seen a lot of bias from a conservative pro-military standpoint (for obvious reasons) on this board. That's all well and good but it's a little hypocritical to accuse the media of bias when many of you are guilty of the same thing from the other side. Yes, the military is doing a lot of good in Afghanistan but there have also been some moments we should not be so proud of. The public has a right to be informed about both. And for the most part, I think the CBC has achieved that goal.



This is an unfair comparison.  This board isn't representative of anything, and certainly doesn't have a mandate to inform the public.  It is, by its very nature, biased.  Literally anyone can create an account and begin posting on any subject.  A fairer comparison would be to the comments section on the CBC News website, a venue liberally populated with anti-military bigots.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Jul 2008)

Here's a few question for you aspiring journalists out there on this "bias" theory and what your bias would be towards any of these scenarios

 "What if, these terrorists were to bring this war to our backyard? What if toronto, Edmonton, Montreal or Vancouver were targetted? Would you still have your bias when the first people you would call would be, let me guess, the military? Or would they suddenly be the "Good guys" again because you suddenly needed them to save your sorry asses.

But in the here and now, because the the war is 10,000 miles away and in another country you feel the need to sully them at every opportunity and paint them as "the evil ones". 

I watch the news, read the papers and sometimes surf the internet and what I see sickens me. Many of you journalists for the most part seem to take great pleasure on reporting negative stories about the military, anti-American and the like. But let the other boot drop and your all turned into a bunch teary eyed, scared, bumbling idiots. After 9/11 who was one of the first to be called up, "the military" and the "National Guard". Were you glad they were there? I would have to say yes, probably because you thought that your sorry asses were about to get kicked and your way of life was threatened by the "real evil ones". So who best to call up to save the day, yes my biased journalistic friends the "military" or as you would call them, "the evil ones". 

My point to you is "you don't throw rocks at a glass house" because without fail, it will always fall down around your pointed ears and then... "WHO YOU GONNA CALL" to save your sorry hides. I'm sure the ghost busters will be a real big help. 

Jackasses.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2008)

I don’t think he CBC is any more biased than any other news outlet – perhaps some of the bias ‘shows’ more because, unlike the print media, public broadcasters have a ‘stunted’ editorial position (_pace_ Rex Murphy). We *know*, for example, where the _Toronto Star_ and the _National Post_ ‘stand’ on political issues: we know because we are supposed to know – they tell us, explicitly, “we support this party, these policies and we hope for these outcomes.”

I like the idea of partisan and private media; I’m one who believes that “freedom of the press belongs to those who own it (the printing press).” I suspect that the difference between a robust private print media and, in editorial terms, an anaemic broadcast system is the fact – and it is a fact – that the electromagnetic/radio frequency spectrum is part of the nation’s sovereign patrimony, it, unlike a printing press or a paper mill, belongs to us all and, therefore, governments (e.g. R.B. Bennett’s in Canada, Franklin Roosevelt’s in the USA) initially (_circa_ 1930) established broadcast regulations that more or less forced the broadcasters, private and public, into a ‘public trust’ model that I believe is ineffective and almost promotes biased journalism.

My biggest ‘problem’ is the idea of ‘balance’ that, I am convinced, leads, almost forces, broadcasters to spout nonsense – even when they know it’s nonsense.

Let me give you an example: I’m interested in politics; politicians and their opinions matter to me; I rarely pass up an opportunity to listen to a politician or a political scientist - except when they are forced into a phoney _’dialogue’_ on any number of radio and (mostly) TV programmes. Very single time I see Don Newman (CBC) or Mike Duffy (CTV) turn to their three or four member parliamentary panels I give thanks for the ‘clicker’ and switch quickly to something more useful – like a paid promotion for the _Veg-o-Matic_. I have nearly the same reaction when, immediately after someone like the MND or the CDS is interviewed, on a policy matter, the CBC or CTV or Global or whichever immediately calls on some _’defence expert’_ like Sunil Ram or Scott Taylor. With respect to both, neither is especially well qualified to comment on much of anything to do with defence policy. In fact, in my personal opinion, as much as I admire Taylor for his perseverance and grit and, ultimately, personal success as a ‘journalists’ and publisher, neither he nor Ram is credible on any foreign/defence *policy* or strategic issue.

There *are* qualified critics out there – for example: Ernie Regehr at Project Plowshares or  Roland Paris and his colleagues at the University of Ottawa’s _Centre for International Policy Studies_ are reliable, highly qualified and thoughtful *critics* of government (any government) policy (any policy).

“Critic,” of course, means ”one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter”- but that’s not what a ratings obsessed public broadcaster needs, “reason” is a bad way to sell soap. Rather, in the 21st century, “reason” and “balance” give way to polemicists, like Taylor, and promoters, like Ram, who can be trusted to provoke controversy. Almost all Canadian broadcast media coverage of important issues has devolved into a sad parody of the _screamers_ on “The McLaughlin Group” or the “O’Reilly Factor” for the perfectly good reason that they are ‘entertaining’ and broadcast media managers assume, correctly, that entertainment will bring in audiences. Journalism and information take a poor second place. The end result is a sort of institutionalized ‘anti-establishment’ bias that makes the aging baby-boomers (and their pale imitators) happy and entertains viewers/listeners who are, sadly, less and less interested in issues and more and more prone to adopt a ‘popular’ position based on the celebrity status of its proponents.

So, the problem is not, I think, as much journalists’ bias as it is the broadcast media’s search for audience ‘share.’ Unlike ‘deep pocketed media moguls’ like e.g. Conrad Black, broadcasters (public and private) do not have the luxury of being able to afford an opinion of their own. Rather, they must dance to the public’s insatiable appetite for entertainment and controversy and journalistic ‘quality’ is the first thing they sacrifice on the alter of ratings.      


Edit: typo


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Jul 2008)

Dropkickjon said:
			
		

> What alternative would you propose? If the CBC turned into Fox News and only ran "The Canadian military can do no wrong" stories that would be just as bad as a completely anti-military editorial stance.



The CBC posts positive stories about the mission in Afghanistan? Well, on occasion they do (I'm shocked too, but these "good" stories get no where near the same play as anything bleeding).

As an example:

CBC News In Depth: Afghanistan (A "backgrounder" if you will)

The article above is interesting, and comes across to me as a unbiased, information, type piece.

Another piece being carried by the CBC, is a series of articles by Sgt. Russell Storring:

Russell Storring

It would appear that he only reports with the CBC when he is deployed (I could be wrong, no time to search just yet, but I will). It's more of a blog type deal.



> I've seen a lot of bias from a conservative pro-military standpoint (for obvious reasons) on this board. That's all well and good but it's a little hypocritical to accuse the media of bias when many of you are guilty of the same thing from the other side. Yes, the military is doing a lot of good in Afghanistan but there have also been some moments we should not be so proud of. The public has a right to be informed about both. And for the most part, I think the CBC has achieved that goal.



It is not hypocritical of us to have and maintain our bias, as we do not propose that we are not biased. The very nature of this site (army.ca, milnet.ca et al) specifically implies that there will be a strong pro-military bias here.

The problem with the CBC that causes us to believe that the CBC has a specific bias, is the weighting of stories by the CBC. 

YES. The CBC as a news entity has a duty to report the news, the good, and the bad. What we see though is the stereotypical "If it bleeds, it leads" approach. 

Yes, when we screw up, it should be front page news. Tragic and painful yes. Hurtful to us? Yes. But necessary in our society, and we all understand this.

It would be really really nice though, to see once in a while, a front page banner on the innocents being treated at the Role 3 hospital in KAF, or a Village Medical Outreach conducted by CIMIC, or the opening of a new stretch of highway, or the on going polio vaccinations, or the demining efforts, or the literacy programs for ANA/ANP, or the vocational training for local civilians, or, or, or.... I can go on and on ad nuaseum. These stories occasionally do get covered, but NEVER with the same weight as when one of us (my friends and I) get killed, or when we screw up.


----------



## time expired (28 Jul 2008)

ER,hit the nail right on the head,again.Just as in Government we get
the Media we deserve,when the average"Joe Public"has an attention
span of barely 2 min.we get the 2 min.news sound bite.which will
then allow him to have an opinion.This morning for instance he will
know Canadian soldiers shot up a carload of Afganis and will have an
opinion about this tragic event,however the stress and the threat to 
the lives of said soldiers will have  very little effect on his opinion as this
would require an effort on his part to get more info.before he forms that
opinion,as the average Canadian would probably have difficulty finding
A-Stan.on a map I think we will be stuck with his 2min.soundbite based
opinion.
          Regards


----------



## Dropkickjon (28 Jul 2008)

I just got back from work and can now write a proper reply. First, I'd like to thank most of you for bringing up some good points in response to my post. It's nice to see that we can keep things civil even though we may disagree on a few issues. E.R. Campbell and Teeps74 brought up some especially interesting points. I'll definitely try to be more aware of the issues facing the military in my own reporting. I think my background has already predisposed me to be more sensitive to issues facing Canada's armed forces but this discussion has made me even more aware of your concerns. That's all I can promise though. At the end of the day I'm only really accountable for my own stories. Because I'm just beginning my career with the CBC I'm really just the equivalent of a private in military terms. So I'm really in no position to tell my colleagues how to do their jobs.

Now, I think I'll continue the discussion with a few more points. First, I don't think there is an organization in this country that is completely happy with the way it is treated in the media. That's just the way it goes. Some stories go your way while others don't. Here's something I would recommend to any organization: if you're not happy with the way in which you are portrayed in the media do something to change it. And I just don't mean a better public relations strategy. That will only go so far. In fact, many journalists have a certain level of disdain for people who work in public relations. They see them as road blocks who prevent them from talking the people who are really involved the story. The best way to have your issues expressed in the media is education. I'm not going to lie. For the most part, Canadian journalism schools are fairly liberal institutions. Of course, there are some centrist and even right leaning professors but overall their ideologies veer to the left. It should come as no surprise that these institutions create left leaning students. So if you want your interests to be well represented by these future journalists you should proactively educate them about the issues facing your organization (in this case the CF). The University of Calgary is actually doing this with its Military Journalism course. So that's a small step in the right direction (at least for you guys). When the students taking this course eventually move up the ranks within their respective institutions I think you'll notice a difference in the way the military is covered in this country. Of course, communication is also important (especially with the people who are most relevant to the story) but this isn't always possible within the military context for obvious reasons.

Now I'd like to talk about the CBC some more because it's a very peculiar organization. One the one hand it is a left-leaning news organization. On the other hand, it is also a highly nationalistic organization (in that distinctly "Canadian" form of inoffensive nationalism). The CBC's mandate is basically to represent Canada's national identity (whatever that is) and to and to actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression.

This dichotomy is present in the CBC's coverage of all kinds of issues. To use a military example, the special presentation at the Vimy Ridge memorial last year bordered on Canadian nationalistic propaganda. At the same time, you guys obviously believe soldiers in Afghanistan aren't depicted fairly. This puts the CBC in an interesting position that pleases nobody.

I would urge you all to watch the CBC's coverage on the two tragic civilian deaths in Afghanistan that were announced earlier today. I caught a bit of the coverage on News World and in this case it seemed very balanced to me. The reporter, from the Canadian Press, made sure to mention that the children's father ignored a street convoy and that that resulted in defensive actions from the soldiers. Anyways, it will be interesting to see how The National covers the story.


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Jul 2008)

dropkickjon, despite some of the disdain displayed here, I would bet that more then one of us watches CBC or visits the website regularly. 

I have met more then a few field reporters in my day... And you know something?

They have, to a person, been very decent and honest people. The kind of people you can talk to. 

My perception of the problem is not the reporters themselves. It would be the editor who comes up with the headlines. 

A very well balanced article, can go completely biased for or against with the simple rearranging of words in the headline. Hell, cut the headlines off of most newspaper articles today, and I bet we would find very balanced reporting.

And, let us not forget placement. We all remember today's headlines in newspapers, or the first shocking story at the top or bottom of the hour. It is placed there on purpose. So that we would remember.

Short of us capturing OBL alive, or us coming home, I do not expect to see a good news article about Afghanistan on the front page, above the fold, any time soon. At least not on any of our so called "national" newspapers.

To sum up... I do not think that many of us dislike reporters themselves. At least no those of us who have had the pleasure of getting to know you guys. Out side looking in (as you do with us) there is however a perception of an institutional bias against, and there is a frustration.

From what I have seen around in in my so far short stay, reporters and everyone in this nation are welcome here. You carry yourself well in a tough crowd, and I look forward to future interaction with you.


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Jul 2008)

Oh, one more thing dropkickjon, fill in your profile. Folks would feel more comfortable with you in their circle if you are "wearing" your press pass.


----------



## Blindspot (28 Jul 2008)

Dropkickjon said:
			
		

> I would urge you all to watch the CBC's coverage on the two tragic civilian deaths in Afghanistan that were announced earlier today. I caught a bit of the coverage on News World and in this case it seemed very balanced to me. The reporter, from the Canadian Press, made sure to mention that the children's father ignored a street convoy and that that resulted in defensive actions from the soldiers. Anyways, it will be interesting to see how The National covers the story.



I have to agree with you on this. I usually only watch the CBC to enrage myself over its political bias. One example of this is the current Obama media fellatio (granted, it's happening everywhere). However, when I heard about this tragic incident today, I watched the CBC coverage anticipating the anti-military spin. It didn't happen. The anchor simply and accurately repeated the main points of MacKay's press conference. The reporter in Afghanistan explained the cultural attitude of some Afghan drivers with an example of personal experience and both he and the anchor were giving the soldiers the benefit of the doubt with questions on the driver's behaviour, past suicide attacks and the deaths of soldiers in these types of attacks.

It just seemed fair and without the salacious aura of scandal.

_edited for spelling_


----------



## North Star (28 Jul 2008)

In some instances, fair and balanced reporting only seems to emerge under the threat of legal action.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Jul 2008)

Hello humbled members and guests.

A most joyous greetings to you all, even if you work for the CBC, ha!

The CBC in my opinion has become a left winged establishment, and is a 180 degree turn around from what it was in the last wars (WW2 and Korea) that Canada fought in.

I view the CBC as a national embarassment and disgrace overall, shy of the odd, and I mean odd exception.

I have had thought that even when I was living in Canada.

The days of supporting and standing behind the troops and for the troops are long gone when it comes to the CBC.  Except for a fews worthy ones, overall, just a bunch of overpaid biased one sided people with agendas, who deserve to be out on the unemployment line as far as I am concerned.

Have a good diddly day now,

OWDU


----------



## North Star (28 Jul 2008)

If you think the CBC is biased, you should read today's Globe and Mail.

I have some limited experience with CBC reporters, and generally found who can best be described as the "lower ranking" ones as quite balanced, reasonable journalists. I unfortunately didn't see this trait with the more senior journalists and editors, who likely promote the journalists who share their viewpoints.

I am, however, also disappointed in the CF's approach to journalists. On the whole, it seems pretty passive. When negative reports are published, PAff Os don't seem authorized to "set the record straight" or else publicly tear at the respective journalist's reasoning. Although the Minister appears to have done this to the media today (aimed at the GM I think), I think it behooves the CF to get more proactive in the face of "unbiased" journalistic editorializing.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jul 2008)

Listening to CBC Radio One on Sirius today.   The coverage went like this: "Canadian troops killed two children today when the vehicle they were riding in_ allegedly_ (heavy announcer emphasis) encroached on a convoy."  Then a lengthy explanation on Pushtu revenge traditions.


----------



## gaspasser (29 Jul 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Listening to CBC Radio One on Sirius today.   The coverage went like this: *"Canadian troops killed two children * today when the vehicle they were riding in_ allegedly_ (heavy announcer emphasis) encroached on a convoy."  Then a lengthy explanation on Pushtu revenge traditions.


Yes, CBC was quite quick to mention that children were killed by Canadian troops.  Very little was said about the fact the FATHER kept driving the vehilce closer and closer to the convoy after repeated warnings to back off.  Big RED sign, lots of local advertizing coverage and warnings, and then this one with repeated warnings.  Sorry, the caption should have read "Canadian soldier saved the lives of his comrades when he fired on a vehicle that was getting too close for comfort.  Unfortunately, two children were shot and killed"  
 My $0.02 worth


----------



## North Star (29 Jul 2008)

I am a little confused...perhaps the media have not adequately fact-checked things. Was it that father who was driving the vehicle, or another man who remains unidentified? I read an article today that stated that another man was driving the vehicle while the father was in the front seat, and the kids/wife in the back.

But yes, the media is turning this into a circus. I feel for the family, as well as the poor soldiers forced to pull the trigger.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2008)

Micheal Coren hears from one of the people who determine what actually gets presented on CBC. Draw your own conclusions as to bias.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2008/07/25/6269051-sun.php



> *He's just retorting on the job *
> 
> By MICHAEL COREN
> 
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (29 Jul 2008)

Dropkickjon said:
			
		

> First, I don't think there is an organization in this country that is completely happy with the way it is treated in the media. That's just the way it goes. Some stories go your way while others don't. Here's something I would recommend to any organization: if you're not happy with the way in which you are portrayed in the media do something to change it.



Just in case you hadn't noticed, this forum is so popular for that exact reason with serving and retired CF members.  We have no individual power to change how the media interprets us due to a government system that does not allow us to speak openly with the press *while serving), and a mistrust of the press based on decades of being treated poorly by the press. 

But to come to the point, I find your current employment to be of interest, and would like to pose a few comments and seek your response:

1:  Journalists have a history of success in gaining access to 'covert' sources inside every industry and organization when it comes to explaining difficult issues like economics, politics, or any other subject outside their realm of expertise.  Why is it that journalists have no 'inside' sources in the military (or ex-military) they can access?  They usually only go to PR spokespersons who, as you already stated, they know will not give them a complete answer.
    
2: When journalists don't understand high finance, or sunspot activity, or how a child adoption process works, they go to an expert and gain input.  When the military does something they don't understand, they call it nefarious and demanding of accountability.  Or they go to a civilian 'defence expert', who is usually just as clueless.  How can this vast difference in approaches and bias not be obvious, when it is a pattern that is repeated over and over?  

3:  You claim that there is a balance in stories about the CF and the military.  How so?  Most articles across the entire media spectrum are negative.  They focus on complaints about the military, or from soldiers in the military who have had bad experiences or committed criminal acts, or perceptions of the military and its actions by other organizations.  The only time of the year when you see a prominent level of positive articles is during Remembrance Day - please provide an example of balanced reporting.


----------



## Strike (29 Jul 2008)

> 3:  You claim that there is a balance in stories about the CF and the military.  How so?  Most articles across the entire media spectrum are negative.  They focus on complaints about the military, or from soldiers in the military who have had bad experiences or committed criminal acts, or perceptions of the military and its actions by other organizations.  The only time of the year when you see a prominent level of positive articles is during Remembrance Day - *please provide an example of balanced reporting. *



Greymatters,
If you're going to ask that of dropkickjohn, then I would suggest for every article that is "fair and balanced" that he can find then you should find 2 that are not.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here.  I know more than a few journalists, some that still contact me every once in awhile, if only to get terminology and acronyms sorted out, and they all try their best to report correctly.  Just think that in a thread like this we should do our best to back up both sides with examples.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Jul 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to stir the pot here.  I know more than a few journalists, some that still contact me every once in awhile, if only to get terminology and acronyms sorted out, and they all try their best to report correctly.  Just think that in a thread like this we should do our best to back up both sides with examples.



I accept that challenge, although it is not for you to issue it, if dropkickjohn wishes to - so let me clarify that when I say "Fair and balanced" I dont mean a neutral news article or some fluff piece about how the family supports the father, I mean an actually positive piece about the soldiers and the mission, in opposition to all the negative pieces out there. 

Further 'boundaries':
- All pieces from the same 30-day window.
- All from Canadian magazines/newspapers.

Oh, and regarding your relationship with journalists you know, Im actually glad to hear it.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jul 2008)

It seems the media loves Scott Taylor et al.....


----------



## Strike (29 Jul 2008)

Reminds me of when I was out on Op Nanook awhile back when one of our Sig Ops had to spend a night on the mountain.  The female media corps was embedded with the rest of the women in the sleeping quarters, including CBC.  I made sure to emphasize that night that the guy was NOT lost, just that the weather was crap and no one could go get him.  Of the 2 (maybe 3?) television outlets that were there, CBC was the only one that did NOT say he was lost.

(Same reporter also bought seal skin mits and made a point of wearing them during her reports hoping to raise the ire of the PETA-types.   ;D  She was very fun.)

Edited to fix a major spelling mistake... ;D


----------



## Teeps74 (29 Jul 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> Greymatters,
> If you're going to ask that of dropkickjohn, then I would suggest for every article that is "fair and balanced" that he can find then you should find 2 that are not.
> 
> I'm not trying to stir the pot here.  I know more than a few journalists, some that still contact me every once in awhile, if only to get terminology and acronyms sorted out, and they all try their best to report correctly.  Just think that in a thread like this we should do our best to back up both sides with examples.



I have befriended a couple of reporters in my time... Poor bastards have no control (or very little) over the headlines over their articles. Like I said before, many times, cut the headline off, and the article usually comes off as more "centrist".

Positioning of the article, and the headline will produce an effect on the target audience (TA). News editors do this on purpose. Where the bias comes in, people like dropkickjon, have very little control over. 

The reporters in the field are not the enemy. They are usually very good people, sincere in their efforts to cover us fairly... Once they submit the article though, junior reporters have very little control at all over what is done with it. I am yet to meet a reporter who has done an embed task with us, walk away, and write an article about us, the "bad guys".  

Just remember, reporters are not the bad guys. Their bosses, whom the reporters have zero control over, I am not so sure about. Let us try to not pile on the poor new guy...


----------



## Teeps74 (29 Jul 2008)

Oh, and on the question of full disclosure... I work in PSYOPS. Influencing reporters here in Canada is no go for me. However, for the rest, make friends with them, give them the facts. I have been over there, and frankly, the facts speak very well for themselves as far as I am concerned. 

We are doing good work, and unless we befriend and talk to the press about it, how is it going to get reported? Who is going to tell the good stories if we are unwilling to tell them? We can not complain about media bias, and then turn around and treat the press like garbage or suspect everytime they come around.

Simple rule of thumb, nothing is "off the record" and always behave like the press is around when in uniform. When you see them, approach them, and talk within your lanes (assuming your chain of command allows it). If you were just at the site of a school reopening, you are in lanes to talk about it. If you just witnessed the opening of a new irrigation system near Dhala dam (future project) you are in your lanes to talk about it.

See your PA to get a media awareness card (if you do not already have one). We are all agents of the crown, and when we have something good to say, we should say it. For too long we have stood back, and said nothing of our good works, while wondering why no one has noticed. Fact is, human beings are lazy by nature. They will not notice our good works unless we tell them. Just keep it to easily verifiable facts, and we can not go wrong (the truth and facts can sometimes be different, facts are much much safer then the truth).


----------



## Greymatters (29 Jul 2008)

If you are going to seperate out reporters in the field from editors behind the desk, then yes I agree that there are great differences in performance and motivation.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> We are all agents of the crown, and when we have something good to say, we should say it. For too long we have stood back, and said nothing of our good works, while wondering why no one has noticed. Fact is, human beings are lazy by nature. They will not notice our good works unless we tell them. Just keep it to easily verifiable facts, and we can not go wrong (the truth and facts can sometimes be different, facts are much much safer then the truth).



Well said...


----------



## gwp (29 Jul 2008)

And from the other side of the looking glass ...



> We need to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. There's no way a few Canadian Soldiers can drag Afghanistan into the 21st century. The fact that Pakistan has kept in close contact with the Taliban for the whole time we've been over there just illustrates what they KNOW for sure, and what we also know, but won't yet admit. That is that if a huge force of fully equipped Russians couldn't control that place, even with all the firepower and the torture methods available, there's absolutely no way a few Canadians can do it, handcuffed as they are with by the friction of political correctness and bound by the Geneva Convention. They are merely providing target practice for the Taliban, and our "Allies" in NATO are perfectly happy to stand by and watch the scoreboard. It borders on criminality for our Defense Department to waste the lives of more of our soldiers in that hopelessly backward land. We might as well burn the money its costing us.
> The CBC's shameless cheerleading for this conflict is particularily disgusting. The link between the Taliban and the Pakistani Government is the elephant in the room.
> Posted by: dave | Apr 15, 07 06:41 PM



And here

http://www.insidethecbc.com/peteronwar


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jul 2008)

I don't know much about the media, I will admit that.
Here's what I know:

I was at Cpl Arnel's funeral yesterday, one of over 1000 people. I am proud to be associated with those soldiers who were his buddies via our Regimental affiliation.
I also know what Canada as a nation is doing in Afghanistan is the RIGHT THING TO DO. (Sorry Mr. Brimley I had to use it). The soldiers know instinctively that this mission is a righteous one and is acheivable, given the time and resources. This has to be explained to Canada, in no uncertain terms. 
Now Mr. Layton has reiterated his call for negotiations to begin with the Taliban.....


----------



## Teeps74 (29 Jul 2008)

Ultimately though, negotiations are going to be necessary. Otherwise, insurgencies can go on for.... Ever. The Taliban, as an entity, is more reasonable then al'Qaeda. 

The Taliban do have fanatics, and for the fanatics as well as al'Qaeda, proper bullet placement with those clowns and cowards is the only necessary negotiation to take place.

The fanatics will not be negotiated with, because they would accept nothing less then their view of government in Afghanistan, and based on what I read on their sites, nothing less then their view of government on the entire planet (good bye freedom of everything).

Now, I have no love for Taliban Jack... But in as much as he is wrong, by accident he is also right. 

(I might point out though, that we are not the right entity to conduct negotiations... And who would have thunk it, but President Karzai has already thought of this, and hence we have the "Peace Through Strength" program in Afghanistan, which is negotiatians with the Taliban and other illegal armed groups in the country. Afghans are the proper entity to be negotiating with the Taliban, not us. Also, all those foriegn fighters with al'Qaeda that the press are very quiet or blatantly ignoring are exempt from this process... They have the option to just go the hell home or be killed/taken prisoner.)


----------



## Dropkickjon (29 Jul 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Just in case you hadn't noticed, this forum is so popular for that exact reason with serving and retired CF members.  We have no individual power to change how the media interprets us due to a government system that does not allow us to speak openly with the press *while serving), and a mistrust of the press based on decades of being treated poorly by the press.
> 
> But to come to the point, I find your current employment to be of interest, and would like to pose a few comments and seek your response:
> 
> ...



It seems to me like you just answered your first question with that initial paragraph. The consequences are far greater when you go behind that back of your CO than if you go behind the back of your civilian boss. Usually the worst that can happen in the latter case is that you get fired. In the military, divulging top secret information probably borders on treason. 

I believe the perception of bias in your second question comes from the fact that you are so closely involved with military matters. Because you probably know far less about the economy, for example, the economic experts in the media may seem far more knowledgeable than they really are. It's all just a matter of perspective. You're far more likely to think someone is clueless when you happen to disagree with them on a subject with which you yourself are knowledgeable.

Now onto your third point. when I said I find the CBC's coverage to be fairly balanced I meant it on the micro level. That is to say that for the most part, and there are exceptions, the content within individual stories seems to be fairly balanced. All the stories I saw about yesterday's tragedy, for example, made sure to explain that the father driving the vehicle held a lot of the blame. On the macro level I'd have to say I agree with you. To a point. There are stories about the construction efforts, for example, but they don't get nearly as much air time (or front page coverage in the case of newspapers) as the tragic incidents like yesterday's. This goes back the the business end of the media. More people want to read about the tragic incidents than the positive ones. It's pretty unfair to blame the journalists for this. After they cover the story and file it in it's out of their hands.


----------



## GGboy (29 Jul 2008)

I've been hesitating to get involved in this, mainly because (full disclosure graphic here) I'm both a reservist and a reporter with more than 20 years working in the national media, but also because most of the main points have been covered. Kudos in particular to those who pointed out the vast difference between the reporters in the field and their editors in comfy chairs in Toronto. Much of the Globe and Mail's recent slanted coverage of Afghanistan can be traced to their editor in chief, who has decided some time ago that Afghanistan was going to be Canada's Vietnam and is not about to let inconvenient facts dissuade him.
But one thing I did want to add was the importance of knowing the media terrain. I can't emphasize enough the need for the CF to start getting smart about its knowledge and yes, even manipulation of the media. The more honest members of my daytime profession will admit that we're manipulated all the time -- half the nonsense that goes on on Parliament Hill is about "massaging" the media -- and if the CF doesn't start getting smarter about it, we're going to get bitten by it.
While the army in particular made great strides with the introduction of embedding in 2003, and the increased professionalism of the Public Affairs branch (yes, it's true: stop your snickering) over the past year or two things have kind of stalled. What is needed IMHO is a pro forma: an established format to do a combat assessment of the media and its effect on your mission. In other words, it should be part of battle procedure, at least at the BG level or higher.
Towit;
Situation: Enemy
Situation: Friendly
Situation: Media
And etc.
Until we start taking the media component of our missions seriously and looking comprehensively at the media who are going to be covering those missions, we risk getting a nasty surprise like the recent nonsense about detainees in Afghanistan.
And for the front-line types, I cannot overestimate the importance of understanding that the media are nowhere near one consistent group: we're wildly varied, from complete wastes of rations that I'm sure most of the people on this board have dealt with from time to time, to knowledgeable and honest reporters who have a genuine interest in the military and its members. The key is to identify each and treat them accordingly.
Which brings us rather neatly to negotiating with the Taliban. Question is: which Taliban? The hard-core Mullah Omar supporters probably won't talk with Karzai's government and if they do can't be trusted. Some of their allies of convenience on the other hand ...
But I'm sure wiser heads than mine have already figured this out.


----------



## gwp (29 Jul 2008)

> Just in case you hadn't noticed, this forum is so popular for that exact reason with serving and retired CF members.  We have no individual power to change how the media interprets us due to a government system that does not allow us to speak openly with the press *while serving),


DAOD 2008 allows "In their official capacity, CF members and DND employees may agree to be interviewed by the media provided it is to speak about what they do."   There is a wallet card available to every soldier, sailor, air man or women that sets out the policy and how it is actioned. 



> and a mistrust of the press based on decades of being treated poorly by the press.


That would be difficult to confirm, quantify and support.  

The CF DND is considered to the the most open department in Government.  Other departments envy the amount of time and space the CF gains.  The CF/DND Public Affairs Handbook is a best seller in Ottawa. 



> it (PA) should be part of battle procedure, at least at the BG level or higher.
> Towit;
> Situation: Enemy
> Situation: Friendly
> ...



Where 10 or 15 years ago PA was a couple of lines in an Op Order there is now a full annex often supported by a separate Public Affairs Plan for missions and major exercises

New CF recruits are briefed in media awareness. 
Ship's companies are given media awareness training.  

*The mission is:
"To inform Canadians of the role, mandate, activities, priorities and benefits of the CF/DND  in a manner that is accurate, complete, objective, timely, relevant, understandable and open within the law"*
At the same time when speaking publicly it is necessary to be concerned with SAPP -- Security, Accuracy, Policy and Propriety.  

*Stay within your own area of expertise, don't speculate, don't discuss government policy, never say no comment, and never ever lie.  Seek advice and support from Public Affairs, agree to be interviewed only if you want to , discuss your own job and area of expertise, respect operational security, the judicial process, federal laws, and policies. *   

In otherwords within the policy is a responsbility for every member of the CF to inform Mr. and Mrs. Canada what they did for them today.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jul 2008)

GGboy said:
			
		

> But I'm sure wiser heads than mine have already figured this out.


I already have, thanks ;D

Joking aside, as the previous poster stated, there is a vast amount of effort, BG level and higher, aimed at the message.  "The media is the message" and all that jazz....


----------



## Teeps74 (30 Jul 2008)

Dropkick, you might want to take a look at this thread:

Article on Discipline

I would be curious as to how this piece of tabloid journalism from the CBC can be seen as anything but highly biased. 

See my responses in this thread... Yes, we could have handled it better, however that does not excuse any entity, and certainly not a Crown corperation from running with such a slanted, sensationalistic article.

It is articles like these that come up ENTIRELY too frequently from the CBC that will cause a strong distrust and dislike for the CBC and those that work for them.


----------



## PanaEng (30 Jul 2008)

Thanks GWP,
For some of us that have been retired/away from the military for a while that information may be quite surprising. Even if it was in the CFAOs when we were serving, most of us can recall - I'm sure - being told to not even look at a reporter or attract their attention.
I'm all for hearing a NCM being interviewed, explaining what s/he does, in plain language (that's what most people understand) instead of some polished sr. officer with an academic vocabulary sounding pompous or arrogant. I think one of Gen. Hillier greatest strengths is his ability to tailor his speech to the audience.

Frank


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jul 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> I'm all for hearing a NCM being interviewed, explaining what s/he does, in *plain language* (that's what most people understand) instead of some polished sr. officer with an *academic vocabulary* sounding pompous or arrogant.



Here here!  Now, how do we get _*more*_ government writing (especially material aimed at the general public) closer to the former than the latter?


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Jul 2008)

Well I just seen this on  the news, and it fits well here:



> Combat, lack of respect for institutions reflected in military charges: MacKay
> Last Updated: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 | 4:34 PM ET Comments1Recommend2
> CBC News
> 
> ...



Edited to add

oops forgot the link


----------



## Dropkickjon (30 Jul 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well I just seen this on  the news, and it fits well here:



Expect to hear a lot more about this in the coming days.

I work at a regional station that rarely ever does stories about the military and there was even talk here about following up on that report.


----------



## gwp (30 Jul 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> I'm all for hearing a NCM being interviewed, explaining what s/he does, in plain language (that's what most people understand)



It has been the case time and time again that the best spokes people for the CF are master killicks and corporals and killicks and corporals. And the ocassional Sgt./PO .   They know their job, they are proud of it and they can explain it to grandma.  The policy works.  

The key for the individual is don't suprise your boss .. inform of any media contact one level up.  That applies to everyone from privates/ODs to Adm/Gen.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2008)

Meanwhile, left wing credentials are trotted out as a mark of approval for CBC employees. Try really really hard to continue claiming impartiality and lack of bias when CBC personalities come forward like this. (n.b., if two equally prominent CBC personalities were to come forward as Conservative candidates, that would not be an improvement; the institution is supposed to be impartial; you want to run for office or become a pundit; cut your ties to the CBC first!). 

http://conservativequeen.blogspot.com/2008/07/ndp-proud-of-ties-to-cbc-while.html



> *NDP Proud of Ties to the CBC, while Pretending it is Impartia*l
> 
> Rather than even pretending that the CBC is a neutral and non-partisan Canadian news outlet, the NDP is promoting their by-election Candidates for their ties to the left-wing broadcaster. An NDP friend of mine forwarded an email to me he recently received soliciting donations to fund the three by elections which have been called. They email (pictured below) included the following text:
> 
> ...


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Aug 2008)

Is this karma at work? It would appear that all is not well with the much vaunted CBC.

CBC workers abused, threatened



> Almost half of CBC's 10,000 employees suffer from "high levels" of psychological distress related to their working conditions, according to a 2005 "wellness" survey of 4,630 staff obtained through the Access to Information Act.
> 
> The survey, which cost an estimated $100,000, asked employees questions related to psychological health, harassment, working conditions and job satisfaction.
> 
> The results describe a "troubled" working environment where 44% of staff displayed symptoms of high-level psychological distress. Nine out of 10 afflicted workers said it was related to their work. Those classified as distressed also took twice as many sick days.



...More at link above.

Funny, how that works.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, left wing credentials are trotted out as a mark of approval for CBC employees. Try really really hard to continue claiming impartiality and lack of bias when CBC personalities come forward like this. (n.b., if two equally prominent CBC personalities were to come forward as Conservative candidates, that would not be an improvement; the institution is supposed to be impartial; you want to run for office or become a pundit; cut your ties to the CBC first!).



To be fair, Tom King is NOT a journalist with the CBC, but a writer/playright - I've never heard news stories produced or read by him on air.

Bang on about Anne Lagacé Dowson, though - as "host of CBC’s Home Run, Radio Noon, and guest host of As It Happens and Cross Country Check Up", she's WAY more in the editorial driver's seat.  I'm guessing she is on some type of a leave of absence from CBC (no mention in the news release, but I think we would have heard if she was still on the air).

_*Edited 10:03EDT to confirm Anne Lagacé Dowson is, indeed, on a leave of absence....*_


----------



## Greymatters (1 Aug 2008)

Dropkickjon said:
			
		

> It seems to me like you just answered your first question with that initial paragraph....



Followed with a PM...


----------



## NL_engineer (1 Aug 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Is this karma at work? It would appear that all is not well with the much vaunted CBC.
> 
> CBC workers abused, threatened
> 
> ...



Do you think CTV will tell the story?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (3 Aug 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3F7Jsc83bU - a talk by Gen John Abizaid - ex Centcom Comd - in charge of iraq and Afghnaistan and many other burning tires around the world.

I think is long past high time DND got into this kind of reach out and engage with the public to go AROUND the in place down at the mouth 5th Column agencies.

Fight with the CF is part of the game - but PARTNER and THINK with the CF should be as big. We have the thinkers - doers at all levels - lets get them on line. The public would hear them all and then engage the CBC, NDP and all dead beats with pi$$ stained hind legs (hat tip to Gen Patton) with a lip lock on the in place media.


----------

